EU Spectacle
The word spectacle is carefully chosen, since this is what the current drama of which Greece is the symptom, not the cause, has become. It no longer bears any relationship to coherent democratic leadership or process of governance in a workable political and currency union. The cancellation at a moment’s notice of a summit of all EU leaders is extraordinary.
There is a problem with Greece, but it is not that difficult to solve. Indeed this blog working alone would be able to negotiate a workable solution. What is proving impossible is to find an acceptable solution, because the institutions normally established to process decision making at national and international levels are not there, or there in such abundance nobody can detect who is in charge. And to make matters worse the structure of the currency itself is unsustainable as it lacks a treasury and a finance minister answering to an elected government. A committee of finance ministers at loggerheads, elected by only one member state in each case, on conflicting mandates and to differing electoral timetables will work only in the good times and becomes dysfunctional under pressure.
So all we know at this moment is that Greece may or may not go bust tomorrow, the euro looks more like an impediment to growth than an engine of it, and the reputation of the EU as a coherent political union is severely damaged. Beneath that a big gap is developing between the north and the south of Europe, between the politicians and their electors everywhere and between those in the eurozone who want to stand firm to high principle even if it brings the whole thing down, led by the Germans, and by those who feel pragmatic reality demands compromise, led by France and Italy.
At the heart of of this crisis now engulfing the whole EU are three violated principles. You cannot have a democratic political union without an elected forum from which all authority flows. You cannot have a currency which cannot be printed. You cannot have capitalism which does not permit debtors to go bust. The first is violated because the whole EU is wrongly configured. The last two are rescinded because Germany says No.
Don't you believe in the slippery slope? Once you allow an exception there will be more and more exceptions and then you won't have privacy on your phone at all. I see that in many situations about many subjects. Besides, Apples supposedly CAN'T unlock the phone. It requires a password which they do not possess. The password was set by the previous owner.
Have you been following the news about government snooping? Granted you don't have any real way of knowing what's real and what's exaggerated. But recently we read that when you drive through a government check point (here that's the border patrol on the highway) they can read what's on your computer if your computer is on. We've driven through many of these check points including last summer on the way back and forth from the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. Anonabox will help prevent this supposedly. That's one of many reasons I don't fly anymore. They started the business about photographing you as you would look without your clothes on as you boarded or something like that. They don't do that on the cruise ships. If they did, I would never have boarded the Queen Mary 2. I don't know about you, but I find this impossibly shocking no matter what the reason. I don't think any of this is really related to stopping terrorists, but even if it were, I would think it is unjustified. It's a way of making the terrorists win, to stoop to such things.
This you might actually find amusing. It obviously comes from doing research for my novel about Napoleon. I read about the famous incident involving Closing The Gates At Hougoumont. I've even found a wonderful painting about it that I'm going to use. But yesterday I thought of a way to apply it to the house here. Lately we've been having problems not only with people snooping around the yard (witness the men who tried to climb over the wall last month and were caught on the surveillance camera!) but with wild animals. For instance rabbits have been gnawing away at the Italian blue cypress trees and the juniper trees and bushes we've been planting around the perimeter of the property in the backyard. Already a small area of our front yard has high brick walls that actually keeps the rabbits out. If we could afford to extend the brick walls around the backyard it would do the trick. We could close the gates at Hougoumont right here at our house. Even if we could do a portion of the backyard it might help. Chain link is good, but apparently rabbits can tunnel under it if there is a gap. They can't tunnel under brick walls.
Sorry but I am rather rushed tonight, so this is a quickie from my phone. I cannot share your privacy anxiety. Everything is potentially visible on the net and it does not bother me. Neither does being photographed naked in security if it helps keep people safe. Either you live on a desert island cut off from civilisation or else you enjoy all the benefits and all as snags of the modern world. You cannot have one without the other.You are just burdening your life with a lot of needless anxieties. What on earth does it matter if you get photographed anyway?
As for rabbits and things, we have the same problem in the country. People have cats or dogs which kill them or the foxes and buzzards get them.
As far as the Anonabox is concerned, five or ten years ago I would not have thought I had any use for it either. But my experiences in the past few years changed my mind entirely. I told you for instance that Helga has developed a group of fans on Facebook who sent her love letters and the like. Sometimes they report where they think she is located. I'm taking a course right now online with the RWA. They highly recommend that you keep you physical location secret. And I've noticed that Facebook has started to post your physical location every time you make a post unless you strike it out. And in America if they know your name and what city you live in, they can look you up in the property records, get your address, and conceivably appear in front of your house just like the mover did.
By the way, I have actually purchased the Anonabox. It is supposed to be delivered any day now. I'll let you know how it works once we have it installed.
As far as being photographed naked, maybe you think like most men but most women would be appalled. Even if they board planes under such conditions, they don't like it. Some probably refuse the way I would. It's just the thought of the thing that bothers you. I would have nightmares about such an experience. Remember, this is pretty bad stuff. It's not Gone With the Wind or something like an historical romance where Rhett Butler watches Scarlett descend the stairs and says he can imagine what she looks like without her dress on.I don't think one hundred years ago in polite society anyone would ever have thought of exposing women to such a nightmare. It shows you how much things have changed for the worse since WW1.
You said you don't mind if it keeps people safe, but what if it doesn't? I think all this nonsense about Homeland Security and domestic measures to fight terrorism are just politics and don't have anything to do with terrorism. The elite of society aren't exposed to such horrors. They take private jets, etc. I feel angry and insulted by such measures.
Linda wrote: "As far as being photographed naked, maybe you think like most men but most women would be appalled. Even if they board planes under such conditions, they don't like it. Some probably refuse the way..."It does not show a literal naked picture as far as I know, but an outline of the person without the clothes to check for concealed weapons. People who refuse cannot board and that's that. It has nothing to do with modesty, sex, gender or anything. it is about life and death. Modern women simply don't think like that.
Linda wrote: "You said you don't mind if it keeps people safe, but what if it doesn't? I think all this nonsense about Homeland Security and domestic measures to fight terrorism are just politics and don't have ..."Linda that is such rubbish. You are way out of touch with the wicked ways of the modern world and what has to be done to protect against them. It is not personal. It affects everybody equally.
Obviously modern women think like that. Am I not a modern woman? I DO THINK LIKE THAT. I have actually talked to other women who think like that, my sister for example. My mother thinks like that, too. So do some of the ladies I correspond with online. By the way, there are other people who avoid flying, and that is one of the reasons. I understand by the way that photographing people naked is something that is not allowed in German airports as being too intrusive. That was true the last time I heard about it. I don't know if anything has changed since. I think it is highly improper and shows a government out of control in snooping in your private life.
I don't think I am out of touch. I think I am being shrewd about what is really going on. Homeland security and these crazy measures they institute have very, very little to do with catching actual terrorists. These stupid measures are put in place to mollify the mobs who demand action because they are afraid of what they see on the news. Short of banning the news there is nothing else they think they can do besides engage in searches and the like. Terrorists get around them and find ways to blow things up anyway. The only effective measure in the long run is what nobody wants to face for some reason I can't determine --- occupation of the territories in the MIddle East that are causing the problem.
What about the elite? As far as I know there are no inspections of being boarding private aircraft?If I get a chance I'm going to have Gary write a paragraph about what he thinks of Homeland Security and all the intrusive measure they enact. It's also just a power grab. If you don't restrain people, they'll grab as much as they can and keep on grabbing. Just imagine the potential abuse in snooping in people's lives in the airport, at the bus terminal, with roadblocks on the road, snooping online, etc. It violates your privacy as an individual. It's enough to make you wish the internet, etc had never been invented to begin with.
I don't think it has anything to do with stopping terrorists to inspect passengers at airports, train stops, on the highway, at cruise ports, etc nor do I think it has anything to do with stopping terrorists to ban $100.00 bills, insist that the government know your street address, have the government recording all your email, etc. BUT EVEN IF I DID THINK IT COULD STOP TERRORISM I would say forget it anyways and do something else. I think your right to privacy is sacred and should not be infringed for any reason at all. As Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death."
You says I am out of touch with the wicked ways of the modern world. I don't think the world is anymore wicked than it has ever been. That is a myth. People just like to say so to justify their power grabs. By the way, there is an economic thrust to all this government intrusion, too. The government keeps on getting bigger and bigger and hiring more and more people. Those people want to keep their jobs. The private sector gets smaller and smaller. I don't like any of it.
Linda wrote: "Obviously modern women think like that. Am I not a modern woman? I DO THINK LIKE THAT. I have actually talked to other women who think like that, my sister for example. My mother thinks like that, ..."It is a kind of x ray not an ordinary photograph and I still disagree fundamentally with your view. The first duty of the state is to ensure the safety of its citizens. But I cannot comment on Homeland Security because here it is different. But I have never encountered a single woman or girl who had the slightest objection to a security search. They would far prefer that to being blown up.
But I do accept that social conventions in America are much more traditional than here. We have a lot of pomp and ceremony and dressing up which makes us seem old fashioned, but underneath it all we are socially very liberal and advanced. Also women demand and are given absolute equality with men.
Do you realize that the only reason the mover started to stalk us to begin with had to do with one of these federal government rules about banking? It's a long and complicated diversion, but ultimately if they hadn't enacted all this stupidity after 9/11, the mover would never have existed.
The referendum to decide whether the UK leaves the EU is on June 23, so the campaign is getting under way. I think you will be interested in this piece about our lack of a constitution.http://www.malcolmblair-robinson.co.u...
There is also the latest Trump comment
I like your way of equating "liberal and advanced". Why do you think liberal means advanced? That shows a certain prejudice there for certain. I'm listening to an audio book right now called The Most Dangerous Book. It is about the reception that Europe gave to Tacitus's Germania for centuries up to the Nazis. Everybody including the Nazis wanted to frame their histories and their ideologies in accordance with the Greeks and Romans. It was a powerful conservative pull. Then it all went awry during WW1 and WW2 from which the continent of Europe has not yet recovered. I'm sure it will have to recover sooner or later. What it comes down to is that conservative is more traditional and more normal as a way of thinking. I think one of these days "liberal" will go out of fashion once more. P.S. The Romans used to think in a super conservative fashion. They looked back to a golden age and thought everything in the present was always in decline. They eschewed change when they could and looked back to the ancestors.
I doubt if all women in England demand "absolute equality". That sounds like poppycock for sure. Women are different from men and have always been so. However I don't view them as the "weaker sex" at all. I think they are the sex that has always been in control of social norms and customs. The mores of all societies, the social customs, the marriages, the traditions, have all been established by women. Women are the arbiters of fashion, marriages, customs, households, etc even in the Arab world. Men need protected from women. However that doesn't mean that women should be in the army, navy, or air force or should be an airplane pilot or a policeman, etc. Traditionally they have defined certain areas for themselves for reasons of their own mostly for the sake of raising families which has always been their chief concern. All this women's lib stuff is really an economic phenomenon. The middle class wants more money. Both husbands and wives work, etc. If the breadwinner earned enough money, there would be little in the way of women's lib.
By the way, my view of women's lib is backed up by anthropology.
Can't say that I've met that many Brits over the years. But the ones I have met especially on the Queen Mary 2 don't always conform to your liberal notions. Many seem like throw backs to a different era. Sometimes i think it is one hundred years ago to listen to them speak about "the old empire" and "boys" who carry their luggage and "natives".
I don't think the alternative to a security search is being blown up, especially not the part about the xrays, photos, or whatever they are. It's just a notion of Homeland Security which seems to start all these fads. Think of the McCarthy era in the 50's. Everybody was a Communist and was dangerous. Now it's that everybody is a terrorist and dangerous. Nonsense! You still haven't answered what about those on private aircraft and jets? They don't have xrays or even metal detectors!
I bet I could find Brits online who agree with me just as you could find plenty of Americans who would agree with you or who would agree with any possible viewpoint you could think up. I know I was talking to a lady online a couple of years ago who like me thought that Tony Blair was the greatest Prime Minister she could ever remember.
You know me well enough to realize that I am never going to agree with all this stuff so we will just let it rest and agree to differ!
Linda wrote: "Can't say that I've met that many Brits over the years. But the ones I have met especially on the Queen Mary 2 don't always conform to your liberal notions. Many seem like throw backs to a differen..."Yes but most of the Brits who travel on it are throwbacks. It is really designed as an American experience of Brutishness, but Britain has moved on. It is like Brits coming to Disney, they love it and think of it as America.
The Germans don't have body scans at airports, do they?
Who in the heck is Boris? I've never heard of him before! Sounds like an eccentric nut. But your article deserves further comment later. Very insightful.
Linda wrote: "The Germans don't have body scans at airports, do they?"I am not sure, but if one European country has them they all will in time. Nobody would be allowed to opt out
Boris Johnson is an MP and also Mayor of London, which means he runs the capital. He is very clever and Britain's best known and most popular politician. He is surrounded by media wherever he goes and will almost certainly replace Cameron. He is part Russian, part German, part Jewish, is a Classical scholar. Educated Eton and Oxford. Speaks several languages including Russian.He may be Prime Minister soon. He was at school with Cameron.
You say most of the Brits who travel on the Queen Mary 2 are throwbacks. But they must be throwbacks of all ages and several different economic groups. I'm not talking just about well to do people. I'm talking about college professors, an accountant from Oxford that I met, speakers who sail on the ship such as the naval architect of the Queen Mary himself, as well as ordinary Brits who are interested in visiting relatives in America but who don't like to fly. You can dismiss them as "throwbacks" but that's just a convenient way of dismissing the diversity of opinion in Great Britain. For instance I could guarantee that all opinions exist in America, especially in California which can be credited for inventing a lot of the nonsense that goes on to begin with. There are people who are Neo-Nazis. There are super liberal types who want to ban all people in national parks. Others want only electric cars. Some think that America should have a monarchy like Great Britain. Others think that we should be part of the Soviet Union, now the Russian Confederation. Others think that we should make colonies of the rest of the world. Some think anything you can imagine from liberal to conservative to off the charts.
You make Boris sound like another Benjamin Disraeli.
Go look it up about Germany. I think they have opted out for sure at least the last time I've heard. Remember they don't allow google earth either. They think it is an invasion of privacy to have people taking pictures of either themselves or their property. As far as Germany opting out of a rule of the EU, you make it sound like the EU has some powers of enforcement. Besides like the Russians I always think of Germany as the EU.
Rushed tonight so will have to pass on this. But the EU does have powers of enforcement including a Supreme Court, fines and sanctions. But mostly it is for minor stuff and consensus rules generally. When new laws are enacted they have to be approved by all 27 countries. It has its faults but when you consider what went before, it is a miracle.And in spite of setbacks all the countries in the EU are a good deal more stable and prosperous than before. That includes Britain.
Linda wrote: "Go look it up about Germany. I think they have opted out for sure at least the last time I've heard. Remember they don't allow google earth either. They think it is an invasion of privacy to have p..."Checked this out quickly for you. Body scanners are banned in Europe incl UK because of fears of increased cancer risk from the rays. It is an X-ray image not a naked photograph. You can't tell who it is. The ban has nothing to do with modesty.
They are still allowed in the US.
Linda wrote: "Go look it up about Germany. I think they have opted out for sure at least the last time I've heard. Remember they don't allow google earth either. They think it is an invasion of privacy to have p..."Germany is the biggest financial power and therefore it has to agree to the key issues, but culturally it is nowhere near so powerful. But the reason that all Europe (incl Germany) wants Britain to stay is that GB is the counter balance which reduces Germany's dominance.
By the way it is announced today that the London and German Stock Exchanges are in merger talks.
Linda wrote: "You say most of the Brits who travel on the Queen Mary 2 are throwbacks. But they must be throwbacks of all ages and several different economic groups. I'm not talking just about well to do people...."By throwback I meant that nowadays people who travel a lot or go on holiday a few times a year, want to get there quickly and do not regard the journey as part of the break.
In the old days the actual travel bit was the main part. Sea voyages etc. So QM2 people have to have time and money to spare, it is part of their vacation. Cruising is a huge industry and very popular here, but it is not a means of getting from A to B which is what I was talking about.
I know they are allowed in the US. That is what I am protesting about. I didn't know about the UK, but I had heard that Germany had banned body scanners in airports and rightly so. Paranoid reasons resonate with me fine. But also there is the privacy concern. The government is becoming too intrusive.
If Great Britain is the counter balance which reduces Germany’s dominance I can’t see why Germany would want it. Also I can’t see why Great Britain would want to be part of an organization which has Germany’s stamp on it. German and London stock exchanges are in merger talks? Really? That does sound strange!!! What language will they speak?
The Queen Mary 2 is part of getting from point A to point B even nowadays if you mean transatlantic from New York to Southampton or Hamburg IF you are somebody who doesn't like to fly. It's not just a matter of a vacation and spending leisure time. It's paranoia. And I am not the only one.
Linda wrote: "The Queen Mary 2 is part of getting from point A to point B even nowadays if you mean transatlantic from New York to Southampton or Hamburg IF you are somebody who doesn't like to fly. It's not jus..."Yes I suppose.
Linda wrote: "If Great Britain is the counter balance which reduces Germany’s dominance I can’t see why Germany would want it. Also I can’t see why Great Britain would want to be part of an organization which ha..."There is no enmity or rivalry between the Brits and the Germans now. And there is a lot of German owned industry in the UK, including Rolls Royce cars and Bentley Cars. All educated Germans and business Germans speak English, some without any accent. English is the common language of the EU. And it is English English, whereas Israel speaks American English.
Germany feels more comfortable if Britain backs her, and Germany's backing for Britain always ensures GB gets its way, or close to it. It is back to the two great Protestant powers, although religion plays no part now except in Ireland, where it is everything.
Queen Mary 2 as well as other cruise lines frequently advertise "no fly" cruises, especially from Southampton. It seems to be popular. People don't want to fly even to get to the cruise port to begin the cruise.
"No enmity or rivalry between the Brits and Germans now" is what you say. I don't believe it for a moment. Old ways die hard. Both countries are still in the running for the chief power in Europe. I have noticed on the ship --- where everything is always translated into German as the ONLY foreign language they accommodate this way --- the British casting a wary eye on the Germans. One of the ladies who was supervising collecting your passports the first morning you were aboard on deck 3 made a joke about the "Germans sneaking aboard last night at 3AM. You've got to watch out for those Germans". She was talking about the customs officers who sail the ship back and forth from New York to Southampton to Hamburg, etc whereas American customs officers are never aboard but make everybody get off in New York. Other ladies in Sir Samuels on deck 3 kept on trying to listen to what some German ladies were saying at the next table. Then they said "Sh-h-h-h-h!" to the Germans and made hand signals trying to get them to shut up. They thought they should be listening to an announcement being given in English, though other British and American speakers were continuing to talk and not listen to it. The British ladies gave the Germans a very hostile look. At another time in the Britannia dining room also on deck three at dinner I heard some Brits behind us at another table (though there was a party of Germans sitting at the table beside us), making disparaging remarks about "Germans" not being quite "civilized" and "what can you expect of them?"Also some of the photos I noticed of Merkel and the British Prime Minister a few years ago in 2011 when I was blogging about the EU looked rather formal, stiff, and frosty. It reminded me of photos I've seen of summits between American Presidents and old Soviet leaders in the past.
As far as what remarks the Germans were making about the British or even the Americans it is hard for me to say. I don't speak German. Germans seem to be more private and restrained. However when we were in Germany in certain restaurants workers were speaking to each other in German assuming none of us could translate. But Gary told me that he picked up on the word "Hitler". He listened and claimed they were speaking about "the good old days under Hitler when things worked better". Now this had nothing to do with the British. Hitler admired the British. He didn't have anything against Britain except that they wouldn't sign his treaties. And the US he had nothing to say about. I get the idea the Germans would just like to be left alone by the British and Americans so they can do what they want in Europe. Things would be quite different without an Anglo presence.
No wonder they speak American English in Israel. The New York Jews practically founded the place.
Linda wrote: "Queen Mary 2 as well as other cruise lines frequently advertise "no fly" cruises, especially from Southampton. It seems to be popular. People don't want to fly even to get to the cruise port to beg..."Here are some figures.
Southampton is Europe's busiest cruise port and handles 1.5 million passengers per year.
Heathrow and Gatwick, the two main airports serving London (there are two others) handle 110 million passengers a year. The two smaller ones handle 33 million a year. So flying is clearly the more popular by a margin.
Forgot London City airport. Close in and therefore cannot handle biggest jets because of short take off. That has about 4 million passengers a year.
I never disputed that flying is more popular than cruise lines. I just said that there is a group of people who don't like to fly or who don't want to fly. I am one of them. I will not fly no matter what. There would have to be a general evacuation of the area before I would get on an airplane. By the way, the last time I flew was a couple months before I got married. The last occasion was when I flew from Pittsburgh to the Raleigh-Durham Airport one August to take my master's oral exam in English at Duke. Then I flew back again to Pittsburgh and got married in October. Before that I used to fly back and forth to college when I wasn't taking the train from Bryn Mawr to Pittsburgh or when my father wasn't picking me up in the car. I also flew back and forth to Europe on four occasions when I was in junior high and high school. So when I had a big plane scene at the end of Dark 2 I was writing from experiences about flying on planes that I will never forget.
Yes that's interesting, but I would not have any use for such a thing.