This month Israel celebrated its 60th. birthday. This remarkable little country has achieved much in that short piece of time. Its population has gone from just over a million Arabs and Jews to more than seven million in that time. Although officially a Jewish state its population includes about 20% Arab Israelis.
We know that many people, rich and poor, educated or not, from every class in every country, hate Israel with unreasoning passion. As a Jewish person, I have learned how to live with this. But I don’t have to like it. I don’t have to accept it either. I was at a dinner party overseas a couple of years back with a low level British diplomat and his family. Clearly the man didn’t know I was Jewish, and this was a private function, so he felt free to voice the often concealed opinion that all the problems in the Middle East would cease if only shitty little Israel simply ceased to exist. I told him of my heritage and why he was wrong, and, to give the devil his due, he listened carefully and then gave me a fulsome and well meant apology. His original contentions were clearly not true, and demonstrated a total lack of understanding and knowledge of the region. Notwithstanding a million such calumnies, Israel does exist, and grows, despite all its enemies.
One of the latest, fashionable canards thrown in Israel’s direction is that it is an apartheid state although its Arab citizens willingly tell anyone interested that this is not true. Is there any truth in the counter accusation that the Israel haters are closet anti-Semites? Obviously not everyone who hates Israel is anti-Semitic, but there is a depressing correlation. Enough of their number give such unreasoning and unreasonable views on Israel that such conclusions become inevitable. In their publicly aired opinions Israel has become the bully and the entire Arab word the oppressed. This is such a distortion it would be funny if it were not so ridiculous. Just look at a map, and check out the numbers. Israel is a tiny country, the size of Wales, and is surrounded by enemies on all sides, occupying many countries, and more like the size of Europe. Israel’s population faces enemies numbering about fifty times their number.
Israel is still the only democratic state in the Middle East and this means that anyone can vote, without threat or pressure, for anyone they like. This has resulted in some volatility, but despite the wishful thinking of Israel’s enemies, it has survived and prospered.
This prosperity is evidence of Israel’s ingenuity, hard work and innovation. The country has virtually no raw materials, gas, oil or resources given to them by the grace of fate. Everything the country prospers from is derived from brains and brawn employed with unflagging energy.
When the country’s independence was voted for by the United Nations in 1948 all its neighboring Arab countries refused to accept the decision. Instead of welcoming the new state they instantly declared war and attempted to invade it from every direction. Israel, after tremendous losses, despite huge odds, managed to be victorious. This pattern of Arab denial, Israeli victory and continued, sometimes escalating intransigence, became the norm.
There were major wars following the War of Independence known as The Suez War, The Six Day War, The Yom Kippur War and The War of Attrition. To which you could add two Intifada’s and two Lebanon Wars and unending terrorist incursions and attacks.
Israel can never seem to do right since they started winning these wars. When it appeared inevitable that the fledgling state was going to be extinguished there were many admirers to be found around the world. They applauded its then socialist moral compass. The image of its people was miraculously transformed from downtrodden victims of the world’s ghettos to straight backed, handsome warriors.
Like every country on the planet Israel has made mistakes, but not noticeably more than others, and somewhat less than its many enemy neighbors. The difference is that every mistake Israel makes is magnified and those of others, particularly its enemies, are always excused as the result of Israel’s actions. It is this twisted logic that turned Israel’s building of a defensive wall to keep terrorists out into an act of aggression. This constant attack on this construction is despite the fact that it did succeed in reducing the number of terrorist bombings in Israel by more than 97%. By the way we didn’t hear similar criticism of the building of a similar defensive wall in Belfast by the British to keep the warring Catholics and Protestants apart. That wall still exists and has apparently been maintained in good order.
The aspirations from the world of Israel are far greater than for any other new country. Israel is achieving continuing breakthroughs in technology, agriculture, design, medicine and all the other elements of a modern society and has done so despite constant attacks and embargoes.
People in other countries have such a distorted view of Israel that their perception is of an ugly country, with war on every corner, populated by lying, ugly bigots who arbitrarily attack their downtrodden neighbors. The country and its people are extremely attractive at its best, and like everywhere else at its worst. The average is average. What’s exceptional is that everyone, friends and enemies alike expect and demand more from her than any other country. Perhaps it’s this unrealistic expectation that cannot to be met, that means Israel is bound to disappoint. But in reaching for the stars Israel can, and I hope and believe, will achieve greatness. Happy birthday Israel.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Editing
There is something mysterious happening with the news on our televisions in Britain. I have worked in and taught about the media, so I know a little about how it’s organized. We all realize that the running order and inclusion of stories is in the hands of the editors. They select from a multitude of sources what they want to show, and where in the running order it will be featured.
Recently one has to question whether this is being done for professional or political reasons. I don’t know the answer, but I have my suspicions. Last week, for instance, was the celebration of the 60th. Anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel. There were virtually no upbeat stories on this subject to be found on the BBC, and it was very rare elsewhere. What’s wrong guys, don’t you want to see Israeli’s celebrating in the street, doesn’t it fit your depressing picture of that country?
Instead we were presented with the doleful face of Jeremy Bowen, the BBC’s Middle East Editor, looking glum somewhere in Israel, and talking about the event from an almost entirely negative, Palestinian perspective. He talked about the tragedy of the Palestinian people as if there had not been a vote in the United Nations calling for the establishment of a Jewish state in 1948. I thought that Jeremy’s job was to report the news, and the news was that Israel was celebrating its birthday.
After all, for every story of displaced Palestinians one could point to a similar story of displaced Jews from Arab countries. Somehow those stories are never told. Come to think of it, why in this story of displacement is it only Palestinians that get mentioned when you could add the aboriginals of Australia, the Indian and Pakistanis, Maoris, Hottentots, Red Indians, Anglo-Saxons and so on throughout history.
This politically correct tendency appeared to be in evidence again when it came to reporting the recent terrible events in South Africa. There, mobs of South Africans, mostly in the Johannesburg area, have rampaged against the immigrant populations, primarily their Zimbabwean neighbors. There are reports of several hundred murders, rapes and burnings. This is a Cossack pogrom writ large in the African sun.
I don’t know what has motivated this lack of attention on British television. Is it because the story simply doesn’t reflect the left leaning liberal bias of the editors who don’t want such stories to be seen?
Recently one has to question whether this is being done for professional or political reasons. I don’t know the answer, but I have my suspicions. Last week, for instance, was the celebration of the 60th. Anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel. There were virtually no upbeat stories on this subject to be found on the BBC, and it was very rare elsewhere. What’s wrong guys, don’t you want to see Israeli’s celebrating in the street, doesn’t it fit your depressing picture of that country?
Instead we were presented with the doleful face of Jeremy Bowen, the BBC’s Middle East Editor, looking glum somewhere in Israel, and talking about the event from an almost entirely negative, Palestinian perspective. He talked about the tragedy of the Palestinian people as if there had not been a vote in the United Nations calling for the establishment of a Jewish state in 1948. I thought that Jeremy’s job was to report the news, and the news was that Israel was celebrating its birthday.
After all, for every story of displaced Palestinians one could point to a similar story of displaced Jews from Arab countries. Somehow those stories are never told. Come to think of it, why in this story of displacement is it only Palestinians that get mentioned when you could add the aboriginals of Australia, the Indian and Pakistanis, Maoris, Hottentots, Red Indians, Anglo-Saxons and so on throughout history.
This politically correct tendency appeared to be in evidence again when it came to reporting the recent terrible events in South Africa. There, mobs of South Africans, mostly in the Johannesburg area, have rampaged against the immigrant populations, primarily their Zimbabwean neighbors. There are reports of several hundred murders, rapes and burnings. This is a Cossack pogrom writ large in the African sun.
I don’t know what has motivated this lack of attention on British television. Is it because the story simply doesn’t reflect the left leaning liberal bias of the editors who don’t want such stories to be seen?
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Don't Assume
You know the saying, don’t ASSUME, as it can make an ASS out of U and ME! This is very clearly true when we measure our reaction to other cultures and civilizations. We believe we have the ultimate system in democracy, and assume that this paragon must be what every other country really desires. This is not even nearly true.
I agree with the great Winston Churchill when he said, “democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
I vividly recall the shock I received when working in various countries in the African continent. Their attitudes were extremely localized. Sometimes narrowed beyond the tribe to the village their extended family occupied. Most of the conflicts in Africa have their roots within these parameters. The genesis of such conflict is impenetrable to the liberal Westerner as our societies are totally different. Not better or worse, but incompatible.
This difference was demonstrated to me when my driver murdered the husband of a woman he was having an affair with. He felt no remorse for the killing but did feel he let me down; as he was being arrested he apologized. The man he had murdered was from a different tribe and his life didn’t matter to him.
Another example transpired when one of our trucks had a terrible accident and ran over a small boy in one of the country villages. The boy was about seven or eight years old and we were all saddened and upset. We were summoned to meet with the village elder to straighten the matter out. We went to apologize and do anything we could for the boy’s family. It was soon made clear to us that we had to pay a certain sum of money and that would be an end to the matter. We did so and there was no further discussion.
I want to make clear that I don’t think any particular society is superior but just a simple statement of historical fact. We see things differently. This reflection was sparked by a question I was asked yesterday. That was did I imagine that China would one day evolve into a democracy. That’s a bit like asking whether a bear will grow up to be a monkey. They’re both animals, and have fur and power, but there the similarities end.
China has a history of generals, hard work, cleverness, and feudal, provincial barons, which we’d now call big local businessmen. Nothing has changed and nothing will change, just the names by which this same power elite is known.
In Russia there has been a Tsar for many hundreds of years, and there still is, but now his name is Mister Putin, and he was the President and now he’s the Prime Minister. As my mother used to say when watching a cowboy film, same man, different hats. The Russians seem partial to a strong man at the centre of power.
Every society has its own way of doing things, and it may well be that it’s a sign of affluence that we can afford democracy. How free and democratic was Britain during World War Two, when total war dictated a strict limit on personal freedom in order to win.
We now face the War on Terror and again our freedom is being limited, with progressively more laws being enacted so that we might win. Yesterday it was suggested in Britain that all phone calls, e-mails and entire electronic footprint be retained automatically on an annual basis. If the authorities then believe you were suspicious they could then appeal to a judge for permission to delve into that record. Big Brother has truly arrived. If you believe, for one moment, that this will not be abused then you are entirely too trusting and naïve.
Other countries will continue to evolve along their own lines. Therefore Russia will always seek a Tsar, and the Chinese might politically implode against the Communist system but will still have some feudal, regional warlord at its core. Each to their own. Aberrations like the German’s Nazi tyranny will, unfortunately come along every so often, in different parts of the world, but will be a reaction to, or an exploitation of economic catastrophe.
America, the World’s number one country over the last one hundred years will have to re-adjust to not being its pre-eminent power. Its economy is sliding down the league table and it just isn’t tenable or supportable to run an economy long-term with debts in the trillions of dollars. That self re-evaluation could be very painful to the States and could well be defined by whomever the country elects in the upcoming battle.
In Britain it will be whether or not we are prosperous plus defining the balance between our personal liberty and our self-protection that will decide just how democratic our society is going to be over the next century. Hang on tight everyone; it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
I agree with the great Winston Churchill when he said, “democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
I vividly recall the shock I received when working in various countries in the African continent. Their attitudes were extremely localized. Sometimes narrowed beyond the tribe to the village their extended family occupied. Most of the conflicts in Africa have their roots within these parameters. The genesis of such conflict is impenetrable to the liberal Westerner as our societies are totally different. Not better or worse, but incompatible.
This difference was demonstrated to me when my driver murdered the husband of a woman he was having an affair with. He felt no remorse for the killing but did feel he let me down; as he was being arrested he apologized. The man he had murdered was from a different tribe and his life didn’t matter to him.
Another example transpired when one of our trucks had a terrible accident and ran over a small boy in one of the country villages. The boy was about seven or eight years old and we were all saddened and upset. We were summoned to meet with the village elder to straighten the matter out. We went to apologize and do anything we could for the boy’s family. It was soon made clear to us that we had to pay a certain sum of money and that would be an end to the matter. We did so and there was no further discussion.
I want to make clear that I don’t think any particular society is superior but just a simple statement of historical fact. We see things differently. This reflection was sparked by a question I was asked yesterday. That was did I imagine that China would one day evolve into a democracy. That’s a bit like asking whether a bear will grow up to be a monkey. They’re both animals, and have fur and power, but there the similarities end.
China has a history of generals, hard work, cleverness, and feudal, provincial barons, which we’d now call big local businessmen. Nothing has changed and nothing will change, just the names by which this same power elite is known.
In Russia there has been a Tsar for many hundreds of years, and there still is, but now his name is Mister Putin, and he was the President and now he’s the Prime Minister. As my mother used to say when watching a cowboy film, same man, different hats. The Russians seem partial to a strong man at the centre of power.
Every society has its own way of doing things, and it may well be that it’s a sign of affluence that we can afford democracy. How free and democratic was Britain during World War Two, when total war dictated a strict limit on personal freedom in order to win.
We now face the War on Terror and again our freedom is being limited, with progressively more laws being enacted so that we might win. Yesterday it was suggested in Britain that all phone calls, e-mails and entire electronic footprint be retained automatically on an annual basis. If the authorities then believe you were suspicious they could then appeal to a judge for permission to delve into that record. Big Brother has truly arrived. If you believe, for one moment, that this will not be abused then you are entirely too trusting and naïve.
Other countries will continue to evolve along their own lines. Therefore Russia will always seek a Tsar, and the Chinese might politically implode against the Communist system but will still have some feudal, regional warlord at its core. Each to their own. Aberrations like the German’s Nazi tyranny will, unfortunately come along every so often, in different parts of the world, but will be a reaction to, or an exploitation of economic catastrophe.
America, the World’s number one country over the last one hundred years will have to re-adjust to not being its pre-eminent power. Its economy is sliding down the league table and it just isn’t tenable or supportable to run an economy long-term with debts in the trillions of dollars. That self re-evaluation could be very painful to the States and could well be defined by whomever the country elects in the upcoming battle.
In Britain it will be whether or not we are prosperous plus defining the balance between our personal liberty and our self-protection that will decide just how democratic our society is going to be over the next century. Hang on tight everyone; it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Lord Malloch-Brown, Prat?
Have you ever watched someone from your government recently and thought, “you define a new level of stupidity, pomposity, ignorance, arrogance and plain incompetence, you are an idiot!” Just such a person appeared this week, his name shall shortly be revealed in this blog. Like most of you I have long despaired regarding the levels of nonsense generated by most governments, but this man, wanting to do good, could have exactly the reverse effect just because he’s so vain, self-seeking and stupid.
Two things collided in my consciousness over the last few days. The first was the worsening crisis in Burma following the terrible tragedy brought about by the cyclone of May 2 that destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives in that benighted country. There are estimates suggesting as many as 225,000 dead or missing.
That tragedy has been made much worse by the Burmese regime’s blinkered, stupid and misguided refusal to allow international aid into the country. This is clearly brought about by the paranoia of a dictatorship. There are indications that this stonewall defiance of the world’s wish to help is breaking down. The Burmese authorities are now saying that if the aid comes through the funnel of neighboring Asian countries it will be allowed into the country. So, just when that difficult regime might have been convinced to do the right thing along comes the British diplomat who is anything but diplomatic.
The British diplomatic connection to this terrible story is a man called Lord Malloch-Brown who represents my country as a Minister of State for the Foreign Office as its Asia Minister. He is, therefore, by definition, a diplomat. After listening to his Lordship on BBC’s Radio 4 the word diplomat is clearly not applicable to the Lord.
Malloch-Brown is an old human rights activist. Personally I might share many of his views, but then again I am not a diplomat sent to calm troubled waters, he is. Brown spent this interview purportedly about the Burmese disaster, and many others on the TV news on the previous day, lambasting the Burmese regime. He did this after stating that the situation with the Burmese Government was extremely delicate.
Surely even this diplomatic dimwit can understand that the last thing he should be doing is to try and score cheap human rights brownie points against the regime when his job is to diplomatically enable the aid the world can unleash to save lives via that same regime.
Does this public relations disaster of a man really not understand that the Burmese authorities also have televisions and radios and can and do monitor what is being said about them?
Perhaps Lord Malloch-Brown believes that his voicing his opinions about the odious government’s terrible track record of human rights abuses is more important than saving human lives?
Lord Malloch-Brown, is he a diplomat or a new definition of the word, prat?
Two things collided in my consciousness over the last few days. The first was the worsening crisis in Burma following the terrible tragedy brought about by the cyclone of May 2 that destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives in that benighted country. There are estimates suggesting as many as 225,000 dead or missing.
That tragedy has been made much worse by the Burmese regime’s blinkered, stupid and misguided refusal to allow international aid into the country. This is clearly brought about by the paranoia of a dictatorship. There are indications that this stonewall defiance of the world’s wish to help is breaking down. The Burmese authorities are now saying that if the aid comes through the funnel of neighboring Asian countries it will be allowed into the country. So, just when that difficult regime might have been convinced to do the right thing along comes the British diplomat who is anything but diplomatic.
The British diplomatic connection to this terrible story is a man called Lord Malloch-Brown who represents my country as a Minister of State for the Foreign Office as its Asia Minister. He is, therefore, by definition, a diplomat. After listening to his Lordship on BBC’s Radio 4 the word diplomat is clearly not applicable to the Lord.
Malloch-Brown is an old human rights activist. Personally I might share many of his views, but then again I am not a diplomat sent to calm troubled waters, he is. Brown spent this interview purportedly about the Burmese disaster, and many others on the TV news on the previous day, lambasting the Burmese regime. He did this after stating that the situation with the Burmese Government was extremely delicate.
Surely even this diplomatic dimwit can understand that the last thing he should be doing is to try and score cheap human rights brownie points against the regime when his job is to diplomatically enable the aid the world can unleash to save lives via that same regime.
Does this public relations disaster of a man really not understand that the Burmese authorities also have televisions and radios and can and do monitor what is being said about them?
Perhaps Lord Malloch-Brown believes that his voicing his opinions about the odious government’s terrible track record of human rights abuses is more important than saving human lives?
Lord Malloch-Brown, is he a diplomat or a new definition of the word, prat?
Monday, May 19, 2008
Family and Friends Come First
Family and friends should come first for all of us, and now, for me, they do. There was a time, when I was very young, driven and ambitious, that this might not have been true for me. Now, with the passing of time, it has become my credo.
When I was eight years old I knew what I wanted to be, but not how to achieve this goal. When I was sixteen I thought I knew it all. When I was in my twenties I was sure I knew all the answers, and now, in my fifties I am sure I don't.
When I was about eighteen I drew up a list of things to achieve in my lifetime, and by the time I was twenty one I had ticked almost all of the boxes. Some would say I have had the perfect career, but mostly in reverse!
The truth is that when I had climbed to the top of my first, self imposed, career mountain I quickly realized that I was just in the foothills of the Himalayas, and that there would always be another peak to climb.
It's the same with life. Sadly many of us don't understand we're in a more important race until the whole thing has gone hurtling past us. I began to find this was the case when my family started to grow. Perhaps I lost some of my compulsive drive with the birth of the first of my children, and it reduced more with the next two. But I think I gained more with my love for them than it cost me by reducing my drive for my career. I do believe there is a work / family balance, and if there is a choice to be made you are a fool if you don't choose the latter every time.
This is, I guess, a long winded way of saying I have a family day today, and therefore will not be posting a "proper" blog about a serious issue of the day, but perhaps I shouldn't be apologizing, because I just may have posted the most important blog of all.
When I was eight years old I knew what I wanted to be, but not how to achieve this goal. When I was sixteen I thought I knew it all. When I was in my twenties I was sure I knew all the answers, and now, in my fifties I am sure I don't.
When I was about eighteen I drew up a list of things to achieve in my lifetime, and by the time I was twenty one I had ticked almost all of the boxes. Some would say I have had the perfect career, but mostly in reverse!
The truth is that when I had climbed to the top of my first, self imposed, career mountain I quickly realized that I was just in the foothills of the Himalayas, and that there would always be another peak to climb.
It's the same with life. Sadly many of us don't understand we're in a more important race until the whole thing has gone hurtling past us. I began to find this was the case when my family started to grow. Perhaps I lost some of my compulsive drive with the birth of the first of my children, and it reduced more with the next two. But I think I gained more with my love for them than it cost me by reducing my drive for my career. I do believe there is a work / family balance, and if there is a choice to be made you are a fool if you don't choose the latter every time.
This is, I guess, a long winded way of saying I have a family day today, and therefore will not be posting a "proper" blog about a serious issue of the day, but perhaps I shouldn't be apologizing, because I just may have posted the most important blog of all.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
More Hot Water
We all live very close to the edge of a big hole. This hole should be labeled the unknown. It is a scary, dark place, full of boogey men, and other things that go bump in the dark. We can fall into that hole very easily if we are not lucky.
When I was a young boy my father wanted me to understand his past, where he came from, and how far we had all traveled. He had been born poor, his father a tailor’s presser, living in a small house in London’s Soho district. This was then more like something Damon Runyon might have imagined than the place it is today. Soho was then very heavily populated by two main constituent parts, the Jewish and Irish immigrant populations who had arrived in the 1890’s through to the 1910’s. They lived in hard working poverty.
What set apart my early childhood in Hackney, and later in West Acton from my father’s in Soho, was running hot water. Dad would delight in telling me the tales of his family having to travel to the communal baths, once a week. The tiny houses they inhabited had outside toilets and no bathrooms with running water. I was never aware of such deprivation, as I had been born into a world of limitless hot water on demand. Dad remembered, and told me with relish, his tales of visits to these communal baths. This was a big building in which there were literally rows of baths in separate cubicles for privacy. Each customer would visit each cubicle, and he recalled that there was always some old man who would call out in a middle European accent, “More hot water, number twenty two!”
Today I have my own children and grand children and these passed on memories are even more distant and foreign to them. However, very recently I had reason to recollect them. We have a form of home insurance that covers all our utility provisions. It guarantees that, in the event of their malfunction, they will be immediately fixed. To prevent problems the contractors make annual visits to maintain all the systems in good order. We just had the last such inspection. All went well until the guy inspected our previously lovely boiler. He found a fault, although I still don’t understand it’s exact nature, and he turned it off, for three weeks whilst we have to wait for the necessary part. He further informed us that the boiler could not be turned back on until it had been fixed.
The result is that there will be no heating or hot water via the boiler in Klinger Towers for nearly a month. Luckily we have other, back up heating and hot water systems, and it’s warming up weather wise. However it did make me realize how close we all are to that black hole we’re all so scared of.
This is a wonderful metaphor for how close our economies are to the edge of an abyss. Everyone is tightening their financial belts, and cutting down on their spending on big and small ticket items. What we need to see is more direct, visible help from our governments and banks to the same end.
An obvious suggestion is that it is essential that we keep people unable to meet their mortgage commitments in their homes through this crisis. The banks should be instructed to provide “shared ownership” schemes as an alternative to foreclosure. This would have the effect of reducing monthly payments and stopping the doughnut effect already happening to some American city districts, where entire streets are now unoccupied due to foreclosures. That is going to do no one any good except for the greedy speculators already licking their lips at the prospect of easy money born on the backs of other’s misfortune.
We need to see positive steps by our leaders in the opposite direction, away from the big hole, After all, if we fall into the big hole, we will all fall into it together, as we are all linked. We don’t want a future in a communal bath where we hear the words, “More hot water, number twenty two.” Do we?
When I was a young boy my father wanted me to understand his past, where he came from, and how far we had all traveled. He had been born poor, his father a tailor’s presser, living in a small house in London’s Soho district. This was then more like something Damon Runyon might have imagined than the place it is today. Soho was then very heavily populated by two main constituent parts, the Jewish and Irish immigrant populations who had arrived in the 1890’s through to the 1910’s. They lived in hard working poverty.
What set apart my early childhood in Hackney, and later in West Acton from my father’s in Soho, was running hot water. Dad would delight in telling me the tales of his family having to travel to the communal baths, once a week. The tiny houses they inhabited had outside toilets and no bathrooms with running water. I was never aware of such deprivation, as I had been born into a world of limitless hot water on demand. Dad remembered, and told me with relish, his tales of visits to these communal baths. This was a big building in which there were literally rows of baths in separate cubicles for privacy. Each customer would visit each cubicle, and he recalled that there was always some old man who would call out in a middle European accent, “More hot water, number twenty two!”
Today I have my own children and grand children and these passed on memories are even more distant and foreign to them. However, very recently I had reason to recollect them. We have a form of home insurance that covers all our utility provisions. It guarantees that, in the event of their malfunction, they will be immediately fixed. To prevent problems the contractors make annual visits to maintain all the systems in good order. We just had the last such inspection. All went well until the guy inspected our previously lovely boiler. He found a fault, although I still don’t understand it’s exact nature, and he turned it off, for three weeks whilst we have to wait for the necessary part. He further informed us that the boiler could not be turned back on until it had been fixed.
The result is that there will be no heating or hot water via the boiler in Klinger Towers for nearly a month. Luckily we have other, back up heating and hot water systems, and it’s warming up weather wise. However it did make me realize how close we all are to that black hole we’re all so scared of.
This is a wonderful metaphor for how close our economies are to the edge of an abyss. Everyone is tightening their financial belts, and cutting down on their spending on big and small ticket items. What we need to see is more direct, visible help from our governments and banks to the same end.
An obvious suggestion is that it is essential that we keep people unable to meet their mortgage commitments in their homes through this crisis. The banks should be instructed to provide “shared ownership” schemes as an alternative to foreclosure. This would have the effect of reducing monthly payments and stopping the doughnut effect already happening to some American city districts, where entire streets are now unoccupied due to foreclosures. That is going to do no one any good except for the greedy speculators already licking their lips at the prospect of easy money born on the backs of other’s misfortune.
We need to see positive steps by our leaders in the opposite direction, away from the big hole, After all, if we fall into the big hole, we will all fall into it together, as we are all linked. We don’t want a future in a communal bath where we hear the words, “More hot water, number twenty two.” Do we?
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Blog or Article?
Sometimes I'm not too sure whether this is more of an article than a blog. This is one of those times. I have tried to analyze the difference between the formats because I write both. However, there are times, many of them, when something I have written for the one format finds its way, comfortably, to the other.
It seems to me that the main differentiator that other writers impose is that blogs are written more from a personal perspective, based on the small scraps of everyday life, whereas an article is, perhaps, written about the issues of the day. The latter with less use of the perpendicular pronoun, I.
As I use I in both formats, without fear or trepidation, and write of the universal from my scrappy and personal perspective, I don't see much difference. Perhaps the only real separation that exists is that which exists between where you read these blogs or articles. If you read them on a screen they become a blog, and if you read a printed version they magically morph into an article.
Does the different title, article or blog matter? Yes, in a way it does, to the reader, not the writer. A blog betokens to many readers a certain immediacy that is not implied by the word, article. The latter word suggests more sober reflection, more time spent in composition. Sorry to disappoint, but for this writer, the same time is spent on both formats. As with all forms of writing, and I try my hand at most, the methods used by different writers are dependent on our ways of thinking and working and not the end use of what we write.
A question I often get asked is how do I make the time to write most days? This is a bit like asking many of you how do you make time for eating or breathing. Writing is what I do, it makes me what I am. Everything else flows from that source. I don't find it any harder than anything else I do, it's an entirely natural process. Sometimes it works out better or worse. As for the time it takes there is no simple answer. Our brains are like a sponge, and are constantly taking in information and mulling over issues, my mother used to call my dad and me, scrambled egg brains. Whether we like it or not we are mentally masticating our world view constantly. My way of dealing with the results is to write down my conclusions and to share them with you, whether it's in this format, or a screenplay or in prose.
I also get asked how I make money out of this and my answer is that this is nothing to do with anyone but me. What I found, in blog and article writing, as with my writing in all other formats, is that you don't write to make money, but if you write reasonably you can and do make some money, sometimes.
Today's offering has taken me about the same to write as it has taken you to read. Someone who bought a screenplay from my then agent said he was shocked he had to pay so much when he had discovered that this particular script had only taken me two weeks to write. My agent, a very wise man, responded, "yes, it took Tony two weeks, two weeks and thirty years before that to learn how to do it in two weeks."
For the next couple of days, here's the more classically blog section, I shall be out of sight as I work out of town taking part in a validation process for a large group of degrees at an English education establishment. I'm confident that will give me new writing opportunities.
It seems to me that the main differentiator that other writers impose is that blogs are written more from a personal perspective, based on the small scraps of everyday life, whereas an article is, perhaps, written about the issues of the day. The latter with less use of the perpendicular pronoun, I.
As I use I in both formats, without fear or trepidation, and write of the universal from my scrappy and personal perspective, I don't see much difference. Perhaps the only real separation that exists is that which exists between where you read these blogs or articles. If you read them on a screen they become a blog, and if you read a printed version they magically morph into an article.
Does the different title, article or blog matter? Yes, in a way it does, to the reader, not the writer. A blog betokens to many readers a certain immediacy that is not implied by the word, article. The latter word suggests more sober reflection, more time spent in composition. Sorry to disappoint, but for this writer, the same time is spent on both formats. As with all forms of writing, and I try my hand at most, the methods used by different writers are dependent on our ways of thinking and working and not the end use of what we write.
A question I often get asked is how do I make the time to write most days? This is a bit like asking many of you how do you make time for eating or breathing. Writing is what I do, it makes me what I am. Everything else flows from that source. I don't find it any harder than anything else I do, it's an entirely natural process. Sometimes it works out better or worse. As for the time it takes there is no simple answer. Our brains are like a sponge, and are constantly taking in information and mulling over issues, my mother used to call my dad and me, scrambled egg brains. Whether we like it or not we are mentally masticating our world view constantly. My way of dealing with the results is to write down my conclusions and to share them with you, whether it's in this format, or a screenplay or in prose.
I also get asked how I make money out of this and my answer is that this is nothing to do with anyone but me. What I found, in blog and article writing, as with my writing in all other formats, is that you don't write to make money, but if you write reasonably you can and do make some money, sometimes.
Today's offering has taken me about the same to write as it has taken you to read. Someone who bought a screenplay from my then agent said he was shocked he had to pay so much when he had discovered that this particular script had only taken me two weeks to write. My agent, a very wise man, responded, "yes, it took Tony two weeks, two weeks and thirty years before that to learn how to do it in two weeks."
For the next couple of days, here's the more classically blog section, I shall be out of sight as I work out of town taking part in a validation process for a large group of degrees at an English education establishment. I'm confident that will give me new writing opportunities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
