Saturday, April 02, 2011
Inside job & the state of our society
This is must see movie about the causes and the state of affairs of the financial crisis, focusing on the US.
The key points of this movie are as follows.
* the financial crisis was largely due to very risky investments made by banks (on bad loans)
* the banks/financial organisations also made it so that they bet against themselves as well so that they make money when the loans defaulted
* the government institutions (assessment institutions and regulation institutions) that were set up to restrict the risky business transactions and secure private investors/loaners are "owned" by the banks and thus there were in fact no regulatory systems to hold the powers of capital back
* the government is largely "owned" by the banks due to that most of the people working for the government that advise on or make the policies are former chiefs of these banks and firms and/or still have interest in them
* even the economists in universities are bought out by the fact that they receive large sums of money for writing papers/analysis that favour the risky deals made by bankers and they serve and receive money for being in board members of the most fraudulent banks
* the bankers gained incredible amounts of money while the rest of society had to pay for it
* even now not a single one of these bankers have been prosecuted concerning the fraudulent deals that they made
....
This movie is down right scary. It shows how in this society when we deregulate so that capital can actually unleash its power how dangerous it could be. These bankers made billions of dollars while making risky deals which they knew could fail but would not affect their gains. One thing we must admit is that these are not horrible people - although I sometimes wonder how they could do such things and sleep at night or live without feeling utter guilt. I believe that once in that position, once in the race for more money and it is possible to do so, since there are not any bodies to regulate this behaviour, it becomes a matter of if I do not do it, the other guy would anyhow - why should I not make money out of this when they let the other guy do so.
The problem is that since capital indeed holds power to a incomprehensible amount, there is really no power that can regulate it. Capital holds power not only in politics(congress/lobbyists etc), but also information(news networks/economists in universities and research centres etc). Since everyone needs money and since it is rather necessary and helpful to do anything, such as run for congress...(especially due to that politics is now a PR game more than anything else)... banks literally own the world.
What the rest of the population is left with is one of the largest public cuts since the last Deregulation period in the 80s with Regan and Thather - only because they had to bail out these banks which made money through these deals.
let's just get more in detail and calculate this abit more.
UK 2007 bank bonuses was announced be 11 billion pounds. even in 2009 this was 7.3billion and 2010 7 billion.
For me, I think regardless of what you've actually done- even if you found cure for cancer- NOTHING can justify a 10 million euro bonus/year on top of your 1million salary. Seriously WHAT COULD YOU HAVE POSSIBLY DONE mr.banker? no you do not deserve it. Here is someone else's take on the problem with this.
Anyhow, many of these banks had to be bailed out with a 400billion pound injection
to save the deficit that came from these injections and bankruptcies, the national health service- the free health national health insurance system of the UK will have to cut 20 billion - which means cuts in staff and supply - which means that many will not be able to get the proper treatment they need.
This would essentially mean that many will eventually die and suffer tremendously- because they are cutting down a health system which already has problems of not being able to address the illness of individuals fast enough.
And let's not forget about the dramatic increase in inequality or the decrease in real wages of workers in the past few decades...
But wait. It doesn't stop there. In the most recent elections in the UK, the Netherlands, Germany which all took after the recession- ALL countries have had the conservatives win.
All of whom had announced massive budget cuts while not regulating banking systems nor excessive incomes which are not based on real production of anything.
Why are people voting for these conservatives?? I absolutely have no idea.
However, people are acting more directly as well..
Its good to hear there are things being done to stop this in some countries. But in general, not much is being done.
And in recent times there has been movement to think that perhaps we are at the end of a capitalist society perhaps as Marx predicted it, and capital has been let loose out of its reins and due to it, accordingly there will be an uprising by the people (proletariat)- such as the one we saw in Egypt, Libya, London...
Perhaps not, perhaps we are in the mist of being completely owned by big capital and the middle class will essentially collapse totally.
The catch also is that through this financial crisis everyone is put at a situation where one has to be working like crazy to save one's ass - thus does not have time to think about the true problems of society. For this reason, this movie really hits the spot that really needs to be hit in current society.
Here is something more just to get you thinking abit harder
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
You Decide
So readers, I don't know how many of you are out there, and will read this, but for some of you who've noticed, this blog will turn 5 years old on the 21st of January.
Hurrah!
To celebrate, I will ask you the readers to send me any topic you wish to read about - or more so, that you want me to write about.
The deadline is till the 20th of January, 2011, and the post will be up on the 21st or 22nd or 23rd (depending on how busy and lazy I feel).
I know this may result in no suggestions, but hey, I am a optimist
Hurrah!
To celebrate, I will ask you the readers to send me any topic you wish to read about - or more so, that you want me to write about.
The deadline is till the 20th of January, 2011, and the post will be up on the 21st or 22nd or 23rd (depending on how busy and lazy I feel).
I know this may result in no suggestions, but hey, I am a optimist
Tiger mom or just crazy conservative mom?
So, I am guessing many of you read the WSJ article by Amy Chua on her new book on parenting, called the "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother".
Well, you should've known about it since it cause so much controversy and attention, including one blogpost that simple write "PS. You Suck" (most of the sentences start with "And Fuck you..")
The whole story can be summed up by these few lines
abit harsh parenting techniques?
I have to say, regardless of whether or not it is painful to admit, my parent's parents and up to my parent's generation took this "Tigerness" as a rule of thumb guide to parenting. Although the intensity of it was not as strong as Mrs. Chua's - for example, i think everyone was allowed to have play dates and watch TV.
The whole point is that this Confucius parenting style which used to be hailed as a good parenting technique, is no longer the case for several downsides our societies saw due to it.
20 or so years ago, we all learned about the wonderful mother Shim Saimdang the great mother of scholar Yi I - how she cut rice cakes in the dark, while she made her son write Chinese calligraphy over and over again.... yeah, he achieved much. he became the great politician and spread Confucianism throughout Korea. (yeah, well done, go pat yourself on the back) This was THE way to raise your child, or so people thought those days.
This great tradition of raising your children was still seen when I was going to highschool - mind you this is 20 years ago. Yet, although there were strict parents, they were not that strict as Ms. Chua put it as it should be.
However, this is now not the case, and the reason is because the problems started to outweigh the benefits.
One of the reasons for this parenting was that this is an effective parenting technique when you have several children (like 7, which my dad's family had) and not enough time to actually respond to them as individuals. One of the core key element of Confucius teaching/parenting techniques is that you set the rules, children are to abide by it, and no questions asked. IF you have 7~10 children running around, perhaps it is easier to raise children as such. However, about 30~40 years ago, when people started having 1 or 2 children, this method ceased to have its perks due to that with this small number of children, it was easy to see them as what they were. Individuals.
In addition, this strict method actually decreased the much necessary technique of being creative. I remember although I was one of the best in art class when I was in the US, and was even toying with the idea of becoming an artist, when I came back to Korea that ambition went straight down the toilet. Why? because the teachers, using the same Confucius techniques, told me exactly what to draw, how to do it, and how to colour I should use etc. When I told them that is not what I want to do, they told me it was wrong and punished me either by giving me a bad grade and/or giving me (those days physical) punishment for talking back. That really killed the inner creativity of Korea, not just for me but for many of us. That is why we have one of the highest shares of technically skilled "artists" in the world, but we end up in sweat shops colouring in The Simpson's cartoon as designed by the Americans. This is why we hear all these stories of how in the prestigious music conservatories across the world, countless numbers of students from Asia come to study classical music, but fail to get admission. This is not because of their technical skills, which is far better than the other students, but their soul is missing, or they do not have any creativity in how they play. Having been forced to play an instrument for several years - without having a personal urge to do so, like Amy Chua is doing to her kids, - I can imagine why your piano playing will not sound joyful although technique wise it is perfectly played.(and yes, I don't care if your child played at a great concert hall, all I care is whether or not if she or he was able to enjoy that, feel the energy of the composer and was able to digest it as her own) With an even greater emphasis on creativity and uniqueness in this day and age, the strict top-down parenting techniques do not provide the necessary skills for the children of today and in the future.
Even if creativity was not a big issue, the strict parenting, especially of fathers, resulted in major family crises. Fathers were being left out of the family since he was always the (more) strict one, also combined with the crazy working hours of the Korean workforce, this meant that fathers after awhile were strangers to the family, no longer able to connect with anyone. Thus, in the past decade or so, there have been several courses offered in Korea for fathers to start getting in touch with their families and themselves emotionally.
The emphasis on education and high expectation on academic achievement led to one of the highest PISA scores and the (second) highest college graduate rate in the world. However, Korea also has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, many of which are Korean high-school students who believe they are worthless due to their low academic achievement, and others who under the strict parenting regime never learned to love themselves because of the fact that they did not achieve as much as they were told they needed to. Nor did they learn the skills to accept failure, not focus on it, but embrace other things that are still thriving in their lives.
So the fact of the matter is, we need to decide: do we want higher academic achieving non creative kids who killed themselves? or happy creative unique kids who are alive?
Why is Amy Chua and so many Asian American(other countries?) mothers applying such rules even when the "old country" has abandoned them? I think this may be due to the phenomenon that the Asian-Americans tend to latch on to the traditional values they knew when they (or their parents) left the country. Whereas the country itself changes in a very dynamic way and changes its values and norms accordingly. In addition, you have to understand that Asian-Americans are still minorities who are under racist societies. More than the Asians in Asia, they need to prove themselves that they are not second rate citizens, but that they are actually better than the majority. One way of doing that is to show that they can out-do everyone in the most commonly appreciated things, such as social position, income generation, education achievement etc. It is abit sad to see that even the second, third generations have to suffer from all this as well. Especially, when these achievements have really nothing to do with how happy or satisfied this person is. These are mostly attributions that are needed to show others what a great life you have and what others see as your achievements. All you achieve then is happiness through other people's eyes, but not of your own. But I mean, you won't make a statement by making well rounded individuals, or it is much more noticeable when you make rich or high educational achieving individuals.
Having said all this, one thing we must embrace about this tiger mother, is that she never gives up. Her efforts in supporting her children is endless and even when the child feels hopeless, the Mom is always there in 100% belief that her child has a gift for everything. Given in the right dosage, this is a wonderful thing to have as a child.(again given in the right dosage. oh yeah, the cynicism of (some and definitely my) East Asian moms are also fantastic to make sure you don't take yourself too seriously)
---ps. I must've written this in such a haste, because re-reading it, it is sooo full of grammatical and spelling mistakes, it is rather embarrassing. I hope you didn't mind (you the reader, yes you there, who is still reading up to here!)
Well, you should've known about it since it cause so much controversy and attention, including one blogpost that simple write "PS. You Suck" (most of the sentences start with "And Fuck you..")
The whole story can be summed up by these few lines
"Here are some things my daughters, Sophia and Louisa, were never allowed to do:
• attend a sleepover
• have a playdate
• be in a school play
• complain about not being in a school play
• watch TV or play computer games
• choose their own extracurricular activities
• get any grade less than an A
• not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama
• play any instrument other than the piano or violin"
abit harsh parenting techniques?
I have to say, regardless of whether or not it is painful to admit, my parent's parents and up to my parent's generation took this "Tigerness" as a rule of thumb guide to parenting. Although the intensity of it was not as strong as Mrs. Chua's - for example, i think everyone was allowed to have play dates and watch TV.
The whole point is that this Confucius parenting style which used to be hailed as a good parenting technique, is no longer the case for several downsides our societies saw due to it.
20 or so years ago, we all learned about the wonderful mother Shim Saimdang the great mother of scholar Yi I - how she cut rice cakes in the dark, while she made her son write Chinese calligraphy over and over again.... yeah, he achieved much. he became the great politician and spread Confucianism throughout Korea. (yeah, well done, go pat yourself on the back) This was THE way to raise your child, or so people thought those days.
This great tradition of raising your children was still seen when I was going to highschool - mind you this is 20 years ago. Yet, although there were strict parents, they were not that strict as Ms. Chua put it as it should be.
However, this is now not the case, and the reason is because the problems started to outweigh the benefits.
One of the reasons for this parenting was that this is an effective parenting technique when you have several children (like 7, which my dad's family had) and not enough time to actually respond to them as individuals. One of the core key element of Confucius teaching/parenting techniques is that you set the rules, children are to abide by it, and no questions asked. IF you have 7~10 children running around, perhaps it is easier to raise children as such. However, about 30~40 years ago, when people started having 1 or 2 children, this method ceased to have its perks due to that with this small number of children, it was easy to see them as what they were. Individuals.
In addition, this strict method actually decreased the much necessary technique of being creative. I remember although I was one of the best in art class when I was in the US, and was even toying with the idea of becoming an artist, when I came back to Korea that ambition went straight down the toilet. Why? because the teachers, using the same Confucius techniques, told me exactly what to draw, how to do it, and how to colour I should use etc. When I told them that is not what I want to do, they told me it was wrong and punished me either by giving me a bad grade and/or giving me (those days physical) punishment for talking back. That really killed the inner creativity of Korea, not just for me but for many of us. That is why we have one of the highest shares of technically skilled "artists" in the world, but we end up in sweat shops colouring in The Simpson's cartoon as designed by the Americans. This is why we hear all these stories of how in the prestigious music conservatories across the world, countless numbers of students from Asia come to study classical music, but fail to get admission. This is not because of their technical skills, which is far better than the other students, but their soul is missing, or they do not have any creativity in how they play. Having been forced to play an instrument for several years - without having a personal urge to do so, like Amy Chua is doing to her kids, - I can imagine why your piano playing will not sound joyful although technique wise it is perfectly played.(and yes, I don't care if your child played at a great concert hall, all I care is whether or not if she or he was able to enjoy that, feel the energy of the composer and was able to digest it as her own) With an even greater emphasis on creativity and uniqueness in this day and age, the strict top-down parenting techniques do not provide the necessary skills for the children of today and in the future.
Even if creativity was not a big issue, the strict parenting, especially of fathers, resulted in major family crises. Fathers were being left out of the family since he was always the (more) strict one, also combined with the crazy working hours of the Korean workforce, this meant that fathers after awhile were strangers to the family, no longer able to connect with anyone. Thus, in the past decade or so, there have been several courses offered in Korea for fathers to start getting in touch with their families and themselves emotionally.
The emphasis on education and high expectation on academic achievement led to one of the highest PISA scores and the (second) highest college graduate rate in the world. However, Korea also has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, many of which are Korean high-school students who believe they are worthless due to their low academic achievement, and others who under the strict parenting regime never learned to love themselves because of the fact that they did not achieve as much as they were told they needed to. Nor did they learn the skills to accept failure, not focus on it, but embrace other things that are still thriving in their lives.
So the fact of the matter is, we need to decide: do we want higher academic achieving non creative kids who killed themselves? or happy creative unique kids who are alive?
Why is Amy Chua and so many Asian American(other countries?) mothers applying such rules even when the "old country" has abandoned them? I think this may be due to the phenomenon that the Asian-Americans tend to latch on to the traditional values they knew when they (or their parents) left the country. Whereas the country itself changes in a very dynamic way and changes its values and norms accordingly. In addition, you have to understand that Asian-Americans are still minorities who are under racist societies. More than the Asians in Asia, they need to prove themselves that they are not second rate citizens, but that they are actually better than the majority. One way of doing that is to show that they can out-do everyone in the most commonly appreciated things, such as social position, income generation, education achievement etc. It is abit sad to see that even the second, third generations have to suffer from all this as well. Especially, when these achievements have really nothing to do with how happy or satisfied this person is. These are mostly attributions that are needed to show others what a great life you have and what others see as your achievements. All you achieve then is happiness through other people's eyes, but not of your own. But I mean, you won't make a statement by making well rounded individuals, or it is much more noticeable when you make rich or high educational achieving individuals.
Having said all this, one thing we must embrace about this tiger mother, is that she never gives up. Her efforts in supporting her children is endless and even when the child feels hopeless, the Mom is always there in 100% belief that her child has a gift for everything. Given in the right dosage, this is a wonderful thing to have as a child.(again given in the right dosage. oh yeah, the cynicism of (some and definitely my) East Asian moms are also fantastic to make sure you don't take yourself too seriously)
---ps. I must've written this in such a haste, because re-reading it, it is sooo full of grammatical and spelling mistakes, it is rather embarrassing. I hope you didn't mind (you the reader, yes you there, who is still reading up to here!)
Monday, January 10, 2011
Asian girls before and after make up
I don;t know about you, but the girl in the left is far more attractive and sexy to me
This site has a collection of asian girls before and after putting make-up on.
Jezebel wrote how surprising it is to see the uniformity of the ideas of beauty.
"In all three cases, individuality is stripped away to achieve a clear and cohesive standard of "beauty." Here, that apparently means anime eyes, kiss-pout mouths, and the general stripping of 10 years off of one's age.
Read more"
I agree with them somewhat, which is something I wrote here few years ago.
To be honest, the girls in these photos actually do not look all the same. There are some cute bunny girly types and the more sexy types. So, I do not completely agree.
What is sad to see and I must say is that most of them strip themselves of the intelligent looking unique characters of their own faces to put on the rather "bimbo" "cute" "innocent adolescent girl" face, which is popular in the East-Asian countries (I think these girls are Japanese but they could as well be from Korea, China, Taiwan and other East-Asian countries).
BTW - this is not to say that other countries are exempted from this uniformity of beauty standards and how women minimize their true beauty to make themselves more appealing in the dating market. (which is also in a way an insult to men and hinders any development towards cultivating a true culture of the sense of beauty). *sigh*
(for more before/after make up)
PS. after looking at more photos(especially of gallery 2), I retract my statement from saying "all of them strip themselves..." to "most of them". because some of them actually just look quite alright, and not gone through the process of bimbo-ing themselves.
Monday, January 03, 2011
Stop recycling.... Let's start REUSING IT!
I don't know when this happened, probably after these mass campaigns on ecological awareness of production processes and this new wave of eco-chic, but I am slowly becoming more and more aware of consumption and how ridiculous some things are.
In the past few weeks, what has been bothering me the most is packaging.
Although we only see the primary packaging (what the product is actually wrapped in), there is also secondary and transit packaging, which I will not even go into.
But even primary packaging. Half of all packaging is plastic and 25% paper/board, 10% glass. Of these, currently in Amsterdam, with the exception of beer bottles and a small portion of PET bottles, NONE of them are being re-used.(excluding the niche bio-market packaging that is being re-used in a much smaller scale).
Although we try to feel better about ourselves by saying we recycle it, but think about it again. These products/packaging are made so that they last (almost) a life time/forever. That is why plastic doesn't rot, because it was meant to be used forever! However, we don't. And the best we do is recycle it. But recycling is not RE-cycling, its DOWN-cycling.
When we recycle a glass product, it means that it is first smashed up, probably mixed in with non-glass products to make a not as good quality re-cycled glass product. Throughout this whole process we use energy and other natural resources. And apparently recycling wine bottles leave as much carbon foot print, as making a new wine bottle. - and let's not forget that not all glass products are recycled.(In Germany, the recycling country of the world, only 82% of glass products are recycled. In the UK, this is about 60%)
Now think about the glass products that we usually use.
Just to give you an example in my household, the bottles we have are predominately wine bottles and glass jars that holds things, such as pickles.
Wine bottles for example, are almost uniform in their shapes, and can actually be re-used just like beer bottles. Why are we not doing this? ( This post says that it has been due to technological problems, but also interests behind making new bottles. Fortunately enough there have been movements to change this, and businesses are being set up to re-use bottles.)
But still what really gets me going, is how Albert Heijn, the biggest supermarket in the Netherlands, where it really has a monopoly in supermarket goods, does not even re-use their own product packaging - for example the juice bottles. See, if it is your own product, you cannot use the excuse of "not same standard" nor the "takes more energy to take it back to the production field/factory" excuse.
They have the network and I bet you that their costumers are enlightened enough to bring the bottles back, even if it did not have a "statiegeld"-deposit for it!!
So... Here is a little campaign I am going to start.
Go here: https://www.ah.nl/klantenservice/contact/overalbertheijn
Choose overige, for your onderwerp.
and write down
"Dear Albert Heijn, Hello. I am a very frequent customer of yours, but I have a complaint. I am wondering why you do not re-use your bottles and jars of your own products- such as the Albert Heijn Juice or Jam, and the plastic packaging - such as the Alert Heijn ready to eat products. Recycling takes as much energy and leaves as much carbon foot print as making new products. By not re-using the packaging, this puts me and many others off of buying the mentioned products. on the other hand, I will be more than happy to bring the used bottles, jars, cartons back to Albert Heijn for free, or will be willing to be charged "statiegeld"- deposit, when I purchase these products. I hope you listen to our plea. Best wishes, [YOUR NAME]"
PS. Ofcourse, when I tried this, the albertheijn site didn't work......!@*@#&@*!
In the past few weeks, what has been bothering me the most is packaging.
Although we only see the primary packaging (what the product is actually wrapped in), there is also secondary and transit packaging, which I will not even go into.
But even primary packaging. Half of all packaging is plastic and 25% paper/board, 10% glass. Of these, currently in Amsterdam, with the exception of beer bottles and a small portion of PET bottles, NONE of them are being re-used.(excluding the niche bio-market packaging that is being re-used in a much smaller scale).
Although we try to feel better about ourselves by saying we recycle it, but think about it again. These products/packaging are made so that they last (almost) a life time/forever. That is why plastic doesn't rot, because it was meant to be used forever! However, we don't. And the best we do is recycle it. But recycling is not RE-cycling, its DOWN-cycling.
When we recycle a glass product, it means that it is first smashed up, probably mixed in with non-glass products to make a not as good quality re-cycled glass product. Throughout this whole process we use energy and other natural resources. And apparently recycling wine bottles leave as much carbon foot print, as making a new wine bottle. - and let's not forget that not all glass products are recycled.(In Germany, the recycling country of the world, only 82% of glass products are recycled. In the UK, this is about 60%)
Now think about the glass products that we usually use.
Just to give you an example in my household, the bottles we have are predominately wine bottles and glass jars that holds things, such as pickles.
Wine bottles for example, are almost uniform in their shapes, and can actually be re-used just like beer bottles. Why are we not doing this? ( This post says that it has been due to technological problems, but also interests behind making new bottles. Fortunately enough there have been movements to change this, and businesses are being set up to re-use bottles.)
But still what really gets me going, is how Albert Heijn, the biggest supermarket in the Netherlands, where it really has a monopoly in supermarket goods, does not even re-use their own product packaging - for example the juice bottles. See, if it is your own product, you cannot use the excuse of "not same standard" nor the "takes more energy to take it back to the production field/factory" excuse.
They have the network and I bet you that their costumers are enlightened enough to bring the bottles back, even if it did not have a "statiegeld"-deposit for it!!
Just some of the EASILY reusable products from Albert Heijn.
So... Here is a little campaign I am going to start.
Go here: https://www.ah.nl/klantenservice/contact/overalbertheijn
Choose overige, for your onderwerp.
and write down
"Dear Albert Heijn, Hello. I am a very frequent customer of yours, but I have a complaint. I am wondering why you do not re-use your bottles and jars of your own products- such as the Albert Heijn Juice or Jam, and the plastic packaging - such as the Alert Heijn ready to eat products. Recycling takes as much energy and leaves as much carbon foot print as making new products. By not re-using the packaging, this puts me and many others off of buying the mentioned products. on the other hand, I will be more than happy to bring the used bottles, jars, cartons back to Albert Heijn for free, or will be willing to be charged "statiegeld"- deposit, when I purchase these products. I hope you listen to our plea. Best wishes, [YOUR NAME]"
PS. Ofcourse, when I tried this, the albertheijn site didn't work......!@*@#&@*!
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
bad decisions
The problem with bad decisions is that, you never quite know if it is a bad decision until it is already too late.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Angie becomes Geertje
So, this weekend, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that
no the last bit of the sentence I put in.
She actually said, how guest workers (Gastarbeiters) that came to lift up the economy during the 60s (and till now!) have not left as the Germans had once believed, but now the Germans and the immigrants could not "live happily side by side".
The reasons noted not only by her, but others is that
1. too many come
2. they all bring their (large) families)
3. they eat up all the welfare checks
The thing I would like to know is
1. how many did actually came in the last decades
2. Does the German government believe in splitting up families? So you only want to bring in the young workers, without their dependents?
3. Did you not think of this when you wanted to import (skilled) workers?
4. What exactly is the proportion of migrants on welfare schemes - I ask this, since I know they will not make it easy to get ANY migrants on it
5. How much of the recent/past economic growth can you attribute to the migrant community??
6. WHO do you exactly define as migrants anyhow? Are you saying those who were born in Germany but of different ethnicity are also migrants? - since these days "migrant" is just a way for them to say "middle eastern/muslim"....
about question number 5, and 4
Migrant workers are a great asset, fuel of economic growth when the economy is doing well and there is a worker/ skill shortage. This is when the media and the politicians shut the **ck up about migration issues. On the other hand, in economic conditions such as now, in recession, companies let go of the vulnerable workers first - thus the women and migrants. Also, in times of uncertainty, employers will not employ new workers, but when they do, they go back into the traditional way of thinking - employing white men.
Thus, when we say migrants are on welfare checks, let;s really see who it is to blame. I know that there are asylum seekers that can be categorized as abit different case, but really what is this percentage, and again whose fault is it- their fault or the failure of the integration/training policies? Also, if you fail to accept those in dire situation, what type of world wide brotherhood are we supporting?
but overall, why isn't anyone showing hard proof concerning this at all?
and another thing, who can really define who "immigrants" are? Who are we kidding pretending nations have existed for a long time? its only in the past one of two decades that countries formed their current boundaries. and Even before then, there were loads of mass migrations all over. Do nations really have the legitimacy to say who the country belongs to?
I believe that migration is the easy way out for many politicians when they want to make a grand reform on the current social security/assistance scheme, so it doesn't upset their main voting population. Unfortunately, this whole scheme is working...
"Multi-culturalism is dead.... long live multi-culturalism"
no the last bit of the sentence I put in.
She actually said, how guest workers (Gastarbeiters) that came to lift up the economy during the 60s (and till now!) have not left as the Germans had once believed, but now the Germans and the immigrants could not "live happily side by side".
The reasons noted not only by her, but others is that
1. too many come
2. they all bring their (large) families)
3. they eat up all the welfare checks
The thing I would like to know is
1. how many did actually came in the last decades
2. Does the German government believe in splitting up families? So you only want to bring in the young workers, without their dependents?
3. Did you not think of this when you wanted to import (skilled) workers?
4. What exactly is the proportion of migrants on welfare schemes - I ask this, since I know they will not make it easy to get ANY migrants on it
5. How much of the recent/past economic growth can you attribute to the migrant community??
6. WHO do you exactly define as migrants anyhow? Are you saying those who were born in Germany but of different ethnicity are also migrants? - since these days "migrant" is just a way for them to say "middle eastern/muslim"....
about question number 5, and 4
Migrant workers are a great asset, fuel of economic growth when the economy is doing well and there is a worker/ skill shortage. This is when the media and the politicians shut the **ck up about migration issues. On the other hand, in economic conditions such as now, in recession, companies let go of the vulnerable workers first - thus the women and migrants. Also, in times of uncertainty, employers will not employ new workers, but when they do, they go back into the traditional way of thinking - employing white men.
Thus, when we say migrants are on welfare checks, let;s really see who it is to blame. I know that there are asylum seekers that can be categorized as abit different case, but really what is this percentage, and again whose fault is it- their fault or the failure of the integration/training policies? Also, if you fail to accept those in dire situation, what type of world wide brotherhood are we supporting?
but overall, why isn't anyone showing hard proof concerning this at all?
and another thing, who can really define who "immigrants" are? Who are we kidding pretending nations have existed for a long time? its only in the past one of two decades that countries formed their current boundaries. and Even before then, there were loads of mass migrations all over. Do nations really have the legitimacy to say who the country belongs to?
I believe that migration is the easy way out for many politicians when they want to make a grand reform on the current social security/assistance scheme, so it doesn't upset their main voting population. Unfortunately, this whole scheme is working...
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
How capitalism gets a grasp on you
There is a saying, many of you know different versions of.
it goes roughly
It more or less talks about how as a young person one should dream of the idealism of society, but come to the cold sense of real life when one becomes an "adult".
Having been a Marxist when I was young (yes, despite some entries telling you otherwise, yours truly is not as stupid as one may think), I always thought this quote was preposterous, idiotic and not true. Once a Marxist, always a Marxist. Although I did fear the moment when I have lost my true hearts without even noticing.
Now being in an age where one could be categorized as the "older adult", I understand why this quote comes about. Not because Marxism is too idealistic, but because capitalism really gets a grasp on you, and it is very difficult to escape its reigns.
After graduating, one will find a job. A Job will usually be something about 40 hours, which is what my contract is. It is a rather well paying position, although I am not making banker's bonuses, I do not complain. I would actually like to work shorter hours, but that is not really a possibility for me at this position I am in.
This is also enforced due to that I could not find a cheaper place for us to live. Living with my partner, we tried to find something which is not big, but also not too expensive. However, the housing market is made so there is either rooms for students, single persons' housing, or big ass couple/family housing. At least in Amsterdam, there is no middle ground, especially in the renter's market. Or, what happens is that the amount of money you spend per square meter increase dramatically when the size becomes below 100m2. When children come, it would be worse, you feel that you need to provide for them the best there is... and what about all the other stuff, such as bio-food, stylish clothes, and insurance for when things do not go as smoothly. One cannot but work full time. Especially since when you start working, naturally you do get into the rat race of them all. Its okay when you are not playing at all, but when you do, you feel a need to succeed.
However, working full time, and having a long commute, one really looses the energy to do anything other than work. When one has free time, it is to relax and relieve stress you get from work. Something like watching mind numbing videos and comedy. When you are physically and emotionally burned out, especially due to the increase in work intensity we have these days, one does not have extra energy to go and ponder upon some of the main questions in life and society. This is the reason why one looses contact with one's political ideals.... pure lack of energy.
Everyone I know after 30, when asked how they are doing, the first thing they'll say is "busy... I'm super busy, but otherwise okay".... regardless of what they do, and whether or not they have children. I think it is even considered a merit to say this, to show people that you are not wasting away your life.
After living like this for awhile, you become mind numbed drones, perfect to be blindfolded unaware of how society is being led. Since all you want is some nice food, a nice vacation and some sleep.
.....
oct 12 2010...very very tired.
need to update this later... but thought I will share this though first.
it goes roughly
"If you are not a Marxist at a young age, you are an idiot,
if you are a Marxist as an older adult, you are an idiot"
It more or less talks about how as a young person one should dream of the idealism of society, but come to the cold sense of real life when one becomes an "adult".
Having been a Marxist when I was young (yes, despite some entries telling you otherwise, yours truly is not as stupid as one may think), I always thought this quote was preposterous, idiotic and not true. Once a Marxist, always a Marxist. Although I did fear the moment when I have lost my true hearts without even noticing.
Now being in an age where one could be categorized as the "older adult", I understand why this quote comes about. Not because Marxism is too idealistic, but because capitalism really gets a grasp on you, and it is very difficult to escape its reigns.
After graduating, one will find a job. A Job will usually be something about 40 hours, which is what my contract is. It is a rather well paying position, although I am not making banker's bonuses, I do not complain. I would actually like to work shorter hours, but that is not really a possibility for me at this position I am in.
This is also enforced due to that I could not find a cheaper place for us to live. Living with my partner, we tried to find something which is not big, but also not too expensive. However, the housing market is made so there is either rooms for students, single persons' housing, or big ass couple/family housing. At least in Amsterdam, there is no middle ground, especially in the renter's market. Or, what happens is that the amount of money you spend per square meter increase dramatically when the size becomes below 100m2. When children come, it would be worse, you feel that you need to provide for them the best there is... and what about all the other stuff, such as bio-food, stylish clothes, and insurance for when things do not go as smoothly. One cannot but work full time. Especially since when you start working, naturally you do get into the rat race of them all. Its okay when you are not playing at all, but when you do, you feel a need to succeed.
However, working full time, and having a long commute, one really looses the energy to do anything other than work. When one has free time, it is to relax and relieve stress you get from work. Something like watching mind numbing videos and comedy. When you are physically and emotionally burned out, especially due to the increase in work intensity we have these days, one does not have extra energy to go and ponder upon some of the main questions in life and society. This is the reason why one looses contact with one's political ideals.... pure lack of energy.
Everyone I know after 30, when asked how they are doing, the first thing they'll say is "busy... I'm super busy, but otherwise okay".... regardless of what they do, and whether or not they have children. I think it is even considered a merit to say this, to show people that you are not wasting away your life.
After living like this for awhile, you become mind numbed drones, perfect to be blindfolded unaware of how society is being led. Since all you want is some nice food, a nice vacation and some sleep.
.....
oct 12 2010...very very tired.
need to update this later... but thought I will share this though first.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
I like it in my own way, thank you very much
So, many of you know that Breast Cancer Research Foundation, or aka the pink ribbon group, has launched a campaign in facebook, which was secretly sent out to ladies, to write in their status where they put their purses.
The original message goes like
I didn't know about the last year's campaign and just found out about this years, and have participated. I know some people have had real fun with this, since it was a "inside joke" amongst women, and find it very funny how men reacted. My male friends knew what it was about, and didn't send any questionable remarks.
However, others found this sexist and objectifying women and have made this heard.
Ofcourse as it happens in facebook, this has drawn comments/discussions, and I thought I would share this with my non-facebook friends, since it draws an interesting example of feminist in conflict.
I will try to summarize this discussion, which will really not do anyone justice but again, what is justice anyhow.
Here are the points.
1) campaign was sexist due to its deliberate exclusion of men.
2) it presumes women have either purses and/or sex.
3) It is provoking and has sexual connotations
4) did not help in making the point, which is breast cancer
Let;s respond to this one by one. 1) yes, it is excluding men, but breast cancer is predominately something that women have to deal with, like pregnancy, and the whole point of the joke was to keep it as an insider's joke, which made some people happy. Also many gender equality movements exclude men.
2) I don't think it was sexist to think women can have sex or bags(I've understood this term broadly),
3) I believe women who read this note and put status signs up are able to make this judgement for themselve - they are not stupid
4)Yes, I agree on this issue. it could've been done much smarter, but if the whole point was to draw attention, it succeeded - but I agree it could've been much more linked to the actual cause and abit more stylish. And this point, I think is shared by most people (from the conservatives, to not so conservative, and the times)
Also, my beef with this was that the statement about this whole status update was stated as a "fact" where it is really a "opinion". And the nature of the statement was potentially be offensive to those who participated in the whole scheme. It also had a bullying nature, where it made those who participated feel like they were ignorant and were impediments to the feminist cause.
But more importantly, let's talk about the number 3, provocative and sexual innuendo part of the problem, which is probably the biggest problem the supporters for "the joke being sexist/objectifying" group.
I have always faced criticisms from women on this issue. The example here shows women noting where they put their purse, but give the reader the notion that this is where they would like to have (their bag) sex. This isn't funny at first site, but if you have several status updates doing the same thing, it could be funny.
But whichever the case, even if this were actually about sex, I don't find it objectifying. Definition of objectifying is to make something as if it were an object, rather than a person. Me talking about where I would like to have "it", whatever it may be, does not objectify me. Perhaps it shows that I am a sexual person who may like to share my preferences with others. However, making me into an object it does not. I am also aware that many women are objectified and are objectifying themselves as nothing but something to have sex with. This, if chosen out of ignorance or is forced, it is bad/horrible. But since one of the core human essences are being sexual beings, it is natural to show one's sexual side as well. Ofcourse the stupidity of this is that some women objectifying themselves, may encourage men to think that of other women. However, just because men have dominated the territory of sex for a while now, does not mean that we should shun it as being a wasteland, a place no real feminist goes, unless you want a full on battle to tear down the land - to talk about it seriously.(I am referring to comments such as "If you want to talk about sex openly, admit that you've had it at least once when you didn't really feel like it.Or how you REALLY like it. Or masturbation. Or something"... which indicates sex is supposedly something women should never make light of or joke about). I think women should take the reins of women's sexuality discussions into our own hands but we should also be able to see the lightness in it as well. Thus women in charge of showing women's sexuality, not men in their own fantasy way. The first seasons of sex and the city did improve this aspect... although the later seasons were as if I was watching the video version of Cosmopolitan.
But again, do not discourage women in talking about sex, period, due to the scares of objectifying themselves.The problem with this is that it is dangerously close to the religious/conservative views on how women should be chastised and prude, and women do not have sexuality or their sexualities should be a secret. Ofcourse there are women all over the spectrum of sexual freedom. But to shun the side where one believes women should have fun too and can freely talk and make jokes about sex, to shun those who are not afraid of the male penis, is also not feminism. The problem is that once you do this, once you mark that out of the feminist map, you will have women who will not be able to own their own sexualities, and again this is a battle lost against the conservative male view. Also, it is losing your (potential) freedom to own your own sexuality. Coming from very prudent/conservative countries (I also mean the US here), I know how this could go. Some women believe that equal rights is to make men(and women) fear talking about sex and sexuality, rather than enabling women to take power and lead in the discussion of sex. Where it is believe that sexuality/sexual things are evil, too private to be talked about. This is not a society I will like to live in, nor do I believe is a gender equal society.
Last point I want to make is the ease of calling thing sexist. Being Asian, I also have the god given right to call things racist (no, I don't really but you get my point). Now with both things, its like calling wolf. Once you start calling everything sexist/racist, the gravity of your voice becomes weaker and weaker, since you are thought to be someone who will always be calling "wolf!". Also, the people who can join you in the cause becomes smaller and smaller, since you are excluding diverse views. I believe that this is one of the reasons some women themselves do not want to be categorized as feminist, due to that many "feminists" have marked the line way too strict, restrictive and aggressively and then marked it as being a "general feminist rule". Making feminism something like a totalitarian regime is not something we should aspire to. Taking a strong stand is one thing, being facist is another.
---
someone posted a blog post on this discussion (from the opposing view) - although I disagree with parts of the point 1 & 3 - first of all sex is the way to catch EVERYONE's attention, and I don't think others were excluded, you could've easily did something such as putting a ribbon on your photo, or a link (again its your choice). which is something I also did. but I understand what he's getting at, and is much clearer than what was being mentioned in the previous discussion, so thanks chris!
The original message goes like
"About a year ago, we played the game about what color bra you were wearing at the moment. The purpose was to increase awareness of October Breast Cancer Awareness month. It was a tremendous success and we had men wondering for days what was with the colors and it made it to the news.
This year's game has to do with your handbag/purse, where we put our handbag the moment we get home for example "I like it on the couch", "kitchen counter", "the dresser" well u get the idea. Just put your answer as your status with nothing more than that and cut n paste this message and forward to all your FB female friends to their inbox. It doesn't have to be suggestive. I'm going for the vague "on the stairs". The bra game made it to the news. Let's see how powerful we women really are!!! REMEMBER - DO NOT PUT YOUR ANSWER AS A REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE- PUT IT IN YOUR STATUS!"
I didn't know about the last year's campaign and just found out about this years, and have participated. I know some people have had real fun with this, since it was a "inside joke" amongst women, and find it very funny how men reacted. My male friends knew what it was about, and didn't send any questionable remarks.
However, others found this sexist and objectifying women and have made this heard.
Ofcourse as it happens in facebook, this has drawn comments/discussions, and I thought I would share this with my non-facebook friends, since it draws an interesting example of feminist in conflict.
I will try to summarize this discussion, which will really not do anyone justice but again, what is justice anyhow.
Here are the points.
1) campaign was sexist due to its deliberate exclusion of men.
2) it presumes women have either purses and/or sex.
3) It is provoking and has sexual connotations
4) did not help in making the point, which is breast cancer
Let;s respond to this one by one. 1) yes, it is excluding men, but breast cancer is predominately something that women have to deal with, like pregnancy, and the whole point of the joke was to keep it as an insider's joke, which made some people happy. Also many gender equality movements exclude men.
2) I don't think it was sexist to think women can have sex or bags(I've understood this term broadly),
3) I believe women who read this note and put status signs up are able to make this judgement for themselve - they are not stupid
4)Yes, I agree on this issue. it could've been done much smarter, but if the whole point was to draw attention, it succeeded - but I agree it could've been much more linked to the actual cause and abit more stylish. And this point, I think is shared by most people (from the conservatives, to not so conservative, and the times)
Also, my beef with this was that the statement about this whole status update was stated as a "fact" where it is really a "opinion". And the nature of the statement was potentially be offensive to those who participated in the whole scheme. It also had a bullying nature, where it made those who participated feel like they were ignorant and were impediments to the feminist cause.
But more importantly, let's talk about the number 3, provocative and sexual innuendo part of the problem, which is probably the biggest problem the supporters for "the joke being sexist/objectifying" group.
I have always faced criticisms from women on this issue. The example here shows women noting where they put their purse, but give the reader the notion that this is where they would like to have (their bag) sex. This isn't funny at first site, but if you have several status updates doing the same thing, it could be funny.
But whichever the case, even if this were actually about sex, I don't find it objectifying. Definition of objectifying is to make something as if it were an object, rather than a person. Me talking about where I would like to have "it", whatever it may be, does not objectify me. Perhaps it shows that I am a sexual person who may like to share my preferences with others. However, making me into an object it does not. I am also aware that many women are objectified and are objectifying themselves as nothing but something to have sex with. This, if chosen out of ignorance or is forced, it is bad/horrible. But since one of the core human essences are being sexual beings, it is natural to show one's sexual side as well. Ofcourse the stupidity of this is that some women objectifying themselves, may encourage men to think that of other women. However, just because men have dominated the territory of sex for a while now, does not mean that we should shun it as being a wasteland, a place no real feminist goes, unless you want a full on battle to tear down the land - to talk about it seriously.(I am referring to comments such as "If you want to talk about sex openly, admit that you've had it at least once when you didn't really feel like it.Or how you REALLY like it. Or masturbation. Or something"... which indicates sex is supposedly something women should never make light of or joke about). I think women should take the reins of women's sexuality discussions into our own hands but we should also be able to see the lightness in it as well. Thus women in charge of showing women's sexuality, not men in their own fantasy way. The first seasons of sex and the city did improve this aspect... although the later seasons were as if I was watching the video version of Cosmopolitan.
But again, do not discourage women in talking about sex, period, due to the scares of objectifying themselves.The problem with this is that it is dangerously close to the religious/conservative views on how women should be chastised and prude, and women do not have sexuality or their sexualities should be a secret. Ofcourse there are women all over the spectrum of sexual freedom. But to shun the side where one believes women should have fun too and can freely talk and make jokes about sex, to shun those who are not afraid of the male penis, is also not feminism. The problem is that once you do this, once you mark that out of the feminist map, you will have women who will not be able to own their own sexualities, and again this is a battle lost against the conservative male view. Also, it is losing your (potential) freedom to own your own sexuality. Coming from very prudent/conservative countries (I also mean the US here), I know how this could go. Some women believe that equal rights is to make men(and women) fear talking about sex and sexuality, rather than enabling women to take power and lead in the discussion of sex. Where it is believe that sexuality/sexual things are evil, too private to be talked about. This is not a society I will like to live in, nor do I believe is a gender equal society.
Last point I want to make is the ease of calling thing sexist. Being Asian, I also have the god given right to call things racist (no, I don't really but you get my point). Now with both things, its like calling wolf. Once you start calling everything sexist/racist, the gravity of your voice becomes weaker and weaker, since you are thought to be someone who will always be calling "wolf!". Also, the people who can join you in the cause becomes smaller and smaller, since you are excluding diverse views. I believe that this is one of the reasons some women themselves do not want to be categorized as feminist, due to that many "feminists" have marked the line way too strict, restrictive and aggressively and then marked it as being a "general feminist rule". Making feminism something like a totalitarian regime is not something we should aspire to. Taking a strong stand is one thing, being facist is another.
---
someone posted a blog post on this discussion (from the opposing view) - although I disagree with parts of the point 1 & 3 - first of all sex is the way to catch EVERYONE's attention, and I don't think others were excluded, you could've easily did something such as putting a ribbon on your photo, or a link (again its your choice). which is something I also did. but I understand what he's getting at, and is much clearer than what was being mentioned in the previous discussion, so thanks chris!
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Watch out Nederland
"Extremists cause serious damage to you and your society"
Yes, the day that I was dreading is finally here. I mean it was here since a few weeks ago, but the point is that what has once been a feared thought, is now reality. What is it, you ask?
The Dutch government coalition, after several unsuccessful mix matches, which included 6 parties at one point, is now one where the Dutch Conservative party (VVD) and the Dutch Christian Democrats(CDA) is in alliance with the one and only that party with the crazy (fake) blond haired guy, Dutch Freedom party (PVV).
You might think it is really nothing and that everyone knows that he is not meant to be taken seriously. However, I also say that one crazy guy somewhere on his own shouting out things is one thing, him being in the main cabinet coalition is another.
I wonder whether the government understands the gravity of their judgment- I’m looking at you VVD! I understand that for them the main goal was to have a coalition where they can take the majority in parliament to form a cabinet. I’m sorry to say this, but the most important goal in politics is to gain and maintain power- the other political ideals are just small peculiarities that come with the game. Thus, in some way it is understandable that they had to resort to this result.(also I would like to point out some of the members from the other two parties are very against this coalition that they have stepped down – thank you!)
However, it is also clear that this move is potentially putting everyone – yes not only the Dutch but us, the stinking foreigners you guys want to kick out – in danger. Again, one guy shouting obscenities about someone else’s religion is one thing. To have him as a legitimate government party leader is another. Although I am not saying Muslims are aggressive by nature – no, that’s what Geertje is saying. What I want to point out that there are some groups of the Muslim community that have shown that they are able to inflict harm on to society if they feel it necessary. (I also want to point out extremist Christians have also shown this potential several times, and I’m sure other religious extremists are also similar..) Now to have a guy who openly insults that religion and clearly stating that he wants the people who follow this religion, as well as all non-"western"(read blond) foreigners - out of the country he is living in, and to put that guy not only in parliament but also as one of the main government party leaders,… in my opinion that is just putting a big bull’s eye mark straight into the country we call low lands.
What this does is not only putting those who believe in this ideology in danger – which makes sense, since if you want “freedom of speech” as Geert Wilders puts it, you also have to deal with the consequences of your choice – but also others who believe that nut is just plain crazy in danger as well. And this includes those of us who did not even get to have a say in this whole issue.
So, who is to blame here? Of course Geertje is, or his parents or whoever raised that nut case. But also, I blame the sensation seeking news media who has given him too much air time and made his populist ideas go through to the public. Of course the media was the one who had put a stigmatized image on the Muslim community in the Netherlands, showing them off as ganstas and terrorists that disrespect the “Dutch norms”. However, it is also the general public who gave their precious votes to this nut case. I don’t care what type of shit you were fed by PVV or the media. By principle you should never vote for someone whose main message is of hatred and segregation of society. It’s your faults and now it’s the rest of us who have to live with it.
Seriously, I have to take the train to work and take several types of public transportation which could be prone to terrorist activities, and Mr. Wilders you have made my already stressed out life more stressful to think that your voice of hatred will come back and bite, unfortunately not you but us in the ass.
Also, this has not been noted enough, but migrants are not here to use your welfare states. We are here/were here to build up this place, and have contributed so much in terms of not only economic growth but also enhancing society culturally.(not to mention feeding the poorly fed Dutch)
To finish up, Geert Wilders is currently on trial on charges of inciting hatred. I hope, not just for myself but for the sake of all the people who live here, that he is charged. I hope that at least the Dutch judicial system is wise enough to know and show that hatred is not the way to go at things, and it is not okay to trash others, since it does come with consequences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)