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 The last two are rescinded because Germany says No.
As I said before hopefully this will be the current occupant of the White House's last visit to England. You will not have to be bothered by him anymore no matter how popular you think he is. That is the one thing that is guaranteed in world politics and events this year. Someone will replace him. He will be gone by early next year no matter what.I made a bet with Gary in 2008 when he was elected. I said I wouldn't pay any attention to him and wouldn't even look at him. Gary didn't think I could hold to that but I have, and 8 years later I can honestly say that I couldn't pick him out of a line up. I don't really know what he looks like, and I have absolutely no idea what his voice sounds like. I have never listened to a sound bite or even one of his speeches or State of the Union addresses.
"Trade" within the US isn't even trade. It is just shipping items from one place to the other. It is called interstate commerce. Some states have laws that you can't order wine in the mail and have it shipped to that state. California posts weirdos at some of its borders with other states to check and see if you are bringing fruit in. But there's not much in the way of restrictions. I can remember a crazy scene on the Canadian border with Alberta. The border guards boarded our RV searching for dog food of all things. There was some unspecified scare about a certain kind of dog food. Fortunately we didn't have any. And that was the border between Alberta and Montana. Generally that border is free of most restrictions, too.
You would think that LLBean would figure the customs duty into the shipping price and would collect it ahead of time for you. Why didn't they do that?
I thought that England imported James 1 from Scotland after Elizabeth 1. They were called the Stuarts, right? I call that an historical relationship. And as the British Empire spread I assumed that both Ireland and Scotland were subsumed into it. Besides, Scotland is too small to be a separate country. For that matter so is Ireland. Ireland wouldn't even exist as a country right now if it weren't for the Americans. How about that as an opinion? It is too small and too poor. Remember the potato famine?
Where it gets difficult with the trade from the US to Europe is when I want to buy a gift and send it to somebody over there. If I go out to the store and buy a soup ladle and wrap it myself I can send it to my friend Gertrude in Austria. But when I try to buy something on Amazon.com and have it sent, forget it unless it is a book. I used to try this even with my editor Christine Boness at Christmas time. Same problem unless I buy the gift on Amazon.de and have it sent to them. We even did this when we went to Europe and needed to buy a European fan. We couldn't get it sent to our house here back in the States. So we bought it on Amazon.de and had it sent to the first hotel on the triptik in Germany. We picked up the package when we arrived and carried it with us back onto the ship and then back into our car. We still have it now.
Linda wrote: "As I said before hopefully this will be the current occupant of the White House's last visit to England. You will not have to be bothered by him anymore no matter how popular you think he is. That ..."I know you are a conservative, but I am not clear why you are so hostile to Obama. I know it has nothing to do with colour. There are good and bad Presidents but I am unclear why you had this extreme reaction to him.
Linda wrote: "You would think that LLBean would figure the customs duty into the shipping price and would collect it ahead of time for you. Why didn't they do that?"Because tarrifs are import taxes which must be paid by the importer in the country of arrival. They cannot be paid by the exporter. That is how international trade works.
Linda wrote: "I thought that England imported James 1 from Scotland after Elizabeth 1. They were called the Stuarts, right? I call that an historical relationship. And as the British Empire spread I assumed that..."Yes when the Tudor line ended with Elizabeth who never married the next in line was James. Elizabeth and James's mother were cousins. But he was James VI of Scotland. And Elizabeth I was never queen of Scotland. So the current Elizabeth is their first, but England's second.
Scotland and Ireland's relationship with England had nothing to do with the British Empire. That was quite separate. In fact Scotland played a large part in developing the Empire. Many saw it as an Anglo Scottish Empire.
Scotland is a country and has been for 2000 years. There is nothing wrong with small countries. They are not world powers but they are an important part of civilisation. It is like townships and villages alongside cities. You need both.
Regardless, LLBean should have charged you for it when you ordered it and paid it as it arrived in the country automatically somehow. You shouldn't have been bothered by the postman at your door. That seems old-fashioned somehow and not very efficient. And I know you can waive the import duties for certain items such as books.
There is plenty wrong with small countries especially these days. It is the same thing with small companies, I'm afraid. You have to get larger all the time. That is one reason Hitler wanted to expand Germany's borders. That is one reason the US has an advantage. When you combine the US with Canada (North American market) it is the largest country in the world, even larger than Russia. Scotland and Ireland are way too small to be independent anymore. It is silly for Ireland to belong to the EU. It's got the wrong currency zone. The pound sterling is fine. Britain should be trying to expand its borders, not the opposite. That is why it has greater influence in the days of the British Empire when the sun never set on the British Empire.
My list against the current occupant is so long that it wouldn’t fit on the computer screen and that is saying something considering that it is infinitely expandable. For one thing —- and I don’t think I mentioned this before —- he won against Senator John McCain of Arizona. I voted for the Republican nominee in that election and resented the fact that the Democratic nominee won instead.
In the days of Queen Victoria it would have been inconceivable for either Ireland or Scotland to break away from Britain, the UK, the British Empire, or whatever you call it. You shouldn't let Scotland go. You shouldn't have let Ireland go either. The US wouldn't be slow to exert its influence over Canada if need be. During the Second World War the US government built a road through Canada to connect it to Alaska called the Alaska Highway for security reasons. US policemen and border guards chase into Canada on a regular basis. Bush referred to the Canadian army as "our troops".
Linda wrote: "Regardless, LLBean should have charged you for it when you ordered it and paid it as it arrived in the country automatically somehow. You shouldn't have been bothered by the postman at your door. T..."Linda, there is a thing called the law. You may not like it but it has to be or there is anarchy. If LL Bean had a branch here there would be no problem but I imported it from the US., so I am legally liable for the tax. Amazon set up in the UK and Europe for that very reason. I cannot buy from Amazon.com when in the UK.
Linda wrote: "My list against the current occupant is so long that it wouldn’t fit on the computer screen and that is saying something considering that it is infinitely expandable. For one thing —- and I don’t t..."Yes but in a democracy you have to accept the outcome even if you do not like it. McCain was yesterday's man and out of date. It was a terrible error of judgement to choose Palin as his running mate. She was an international joke.
Linda wrote: "There is plenty wrong with small countries especially these days. It is the same thing with small companies, I'm afraid. You have to get larger all the time. That is one reason Hitler wanted to exp..."I disagree with all of that!
Linda wrote: "In the days of Queen Victoria it would have been inconceivable for either Ireland or Scotland to break away from Britain, the UK, the British Empire, or whatever you call it. You shouldn't let Scot..."Nevertheless Canada is an independent state, a member of the Commonwealth and the Queen is Head of State. Bush referred to our troops, if he did, either because he was an idiot or he did not know what he was saying. Canada is a very different country to America. And I have been to both.
Actually Irish home rule was frequently discussed in Victoria's time. But the problem is Linda however much you love the past you do not live in it and today people see things differently. And by shutting yourself off from the news you make yourself even more out of touch. I simply don't know why you do that. You are such a hands on engaged person I would have thought you would want to be at the cutting edge of events.
I don't think it has anything to do with anarchy or law. I just said that LLBean should collect the duty and pay it on your behalf as a service when they ship to you abroad. Also if somebody in the States sent you a gift from LLBean they should be able to pay in advance. In the days of computers I don't see why this isn't possible. It only sounds logical. I'm not saying the import duty isn't paid. I'm saying that LLBean should perform the service of paying it for you.
I don't accept the outcome when I don't like it. And I don't forget about it either. in addition just to list another reason Gary dislikes him so much that he blames him for just about everything that has gone wrong between 2008 and now. Since he pays attention to the news and I don't the current occupant sounds like a disaster of epic proportions greater than the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD. In addition to that Gary has worked on a number of legal cases that have opposed his administration including opposing the health care bill. An attorney in Maryland was funding the case and doctors who were being put out of practice by the administration were the plaintiffs. In addition to that Gary gets word through the legal grapevine of horrendous stories about people he appointed to the Supreme Court. They didn't recuse themselves when asked to by the Chief Justice. (Of course I think Roberts is a disaster, too, and he was a Bush appointment). And in addition to that he does little or nothing about the war on terror. And in addition to that . . . And in addition to that . . . etc etc etc
I have always preferred the past to the present. That was originally what attracted me to ancient Rome. It was a history that was over and finished, a kind of time capsule that would never ever change. You could return to it at any time and find it exactly the same. That has the kind of stability that I like. It seems reliable and certain. If you are working on a series of novels you won't find your plot upset by some recent event. This once happened to me with a contemporary novel, and I swore never to plot something like that again. There are no recent events to the history of Rome. Also ancient Rome doesn't have to be politically correct. In fact, it never will be now since it can't change. Values here are eternal. And remember, I just like my former editor from Hamburg, Christine Boness, I don't like things to change.
Canada isn't all that different from America, and I have visited it three times, once as a kid in fifth grade when we went to Niagra Falls, and twice as an adult when we visited Alberta. The companies are almost all the same, and they participate in the same economy. There are so many Americans running around Canada (that is by far the "foreign country" that most US Americans visit) that the Canadian government has to put out propaganda pamphlets about what is the meaning of being a Canadian and about why Canada is separate from the US. The US government does not put out such pamphlets about what is the meaning of being a US citizen and why the US is separate from Canada. Until recently you didn't even need a passport to go there, just your birth certificate.
You say, people see things differently now. But alas not everyone does! I don't for one. And minorities need to be protected against the tyranny of the majority.
Lots of good and valid points. Off now till return from Ibiza.
As far as why I don't like following the news, I don't even watch TV. I watched TV the most when I was a little kid. Even then I wasn't glued to the tube. By the time I got to seventh grade and junior high school or middle school, I stopped watching TV all together. Only when I got to college did I watch the reruns of her favorite TV show with a friend I met there. I also met Gary and watched the reruns of his favorite TV show with him. I also started to watch Masterpiece Theater. But I didn't watch anything else, including the news. My habits just continued. When it got to be the internet age, we watched even less TV. We disconnected our cable TV in September of 2002 for good. The last thing I ever watched was Bush speaking to the UN about Iraq. We've never gotten TV since, and since I'm on the internet all the time social media and looking up articles on this subject or that, being on Amazon, working on my books, etc takes up the time I might otherwise spend on watching TV or watching the news. P.S. One exception to what I said was that we watched media coverage of 9/11 all day long in September of 2001. But that was a big, big exception.
Also I question the value of the news presented in commercial media. Isn't a lot of it just for escapism or entertainment? Doesn't it have to be? It's not as if we could tune into a professor presenting the news to you and doing academic commentary on it as he was doing so. That might be worth watching. You would get an actual objective presentation not just splashy pictures and clips designed to evoke an emotional response from viewers.
Once my agent wanted me to do a TV script for a teen show. I had to watch a couple episodes. Then I wrote the script. I remember having to arrange for commercial breaks every five to seven minutes during a half hour show. You couldn't get much done in that length of time. But it really demonstrated to me what the real purpose of TV is --- commercials!
Linda wrote: "Also I question the value of the news presented in commercial media. Isn't a lot of it just for escapism or entertainment? Doesn't it have to be? It's not as if we could tune into a professor prese..."American commercial news is dreadful. The kind you yearn for is what we have all the time. Everything is analysed by leading academics, think tanks, experts etc and nothing is taken at face value. Then on major issues there are documentaries which challenge all aspects to try and give you the truth. It is completely different to the stuff you get which is just awful. Whenever I visit the US I am appalled by it and shocked how little the people know of what is going on. There are no commercial breaks either.
Recently we had a discussion about the BBC and how it was supported and financed. You know I don't approve of public support and public tax support for TV stations. If the government interfering is what it takes to parade academics before you on TV, forget it and let them stay at the universities. The devil can quote scripture for his purpose. So can the government when it wants to parade academics before you to back up what it's up to.
American TV is run by commercial entities. The news is produced by commercial entities. There is no other way to support it. It has to have "mass appeal" which is what makes it so "low". But at least the government must keep its hands off the media. So in that respect it is honest even if it is stupid and sensational. If you let government interfere in your media you are going down the slippery path the Russians have always followed. The government there interferes in everything.
What is interesting and what I don’t think I have observed to you before, American newspapers USED TO BE more accurate. The newspaper articles I read from 100 years ago were more factual and better edited than the ones from today. They were less likely to be sensational. This applies to papers like the New York Times. Why would this be so? Your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps they were more high style simply because the audience was smaller. They were meant for businessmen. And the word “men” here is significant. Women were not the intended audience.
In particular when I was researching the Lusitania I read old newspaper articles and looked at the front pages of old newspapers. The presentation was more serious and less sensational. There were no psycho-babble articles or anything resembling it. Nor were there clippable coupons for the grocery store or so much as a TV section (not invented yet).
It is easy to see how as media developed it became bigger and bigger and more and more sensational. The only way to do this was to grab the attention of increasing numbers of people, taking news down to the least common denominator. The only way you could add professors to this mix would be if you woke up tomorrow and the population had changed. Suddenly the masses loved professors and couldn't do without them. You can't have the government doing it for you. The people would have to want it which seems impossible.
i think the internet has made things even worse. The audience is potentially even bigger than TV. Inventions like you tube have made mass communication instant but at the same time so non objective and non academic that anything goes. You see this in your email, too. I constantly get email masquerading as being email from your bank or from the IRS, but really it's a scam. Anybody trying to broadcast objective news in this environment would be squelched rapidly. There are even signs that academia itself is being corrupted by mass market entertainment. I have sources that tell me professors have kids vote on which courses they want to take and design them so that students agree to sign up for them. You see all sorts of monsters in history courses, etc.
The newspaper industry is in sharp decline which is why they use dumbed down content to attract readers. More and more papers are now concentrating on their on line editions. The view here is that there will be no print daily newspapers within ten years. One reason is that the news is way out of date by the time they print it and only old people rely on it. I never ever buy a newspaper. Everything is on line and immediate. Most news travels by social media and Twitter initially and that is what alerts the newsrooms.The other thing is that newspapers used to help people form opinions about issues. Now people are much better informed so they form their own opinions and make up their own minds which is why politics is much harder to follow and predict.
My view is that the discovery of steam power which drove the industrial revolution and railways which opened up travel, changed the nature of human civilisation. Now that real time information and news can travel all over the planet in seconds the effect is going to just as profound. It is already having a huge impact on work patterns and social attitudes.
I'm sure that there will be no print newspapers soon. I am surprised that anybody still prints them. For the past several weeks the local newspaper has been leaving a Sunday paper in my driveway. I didn't order it. I can't get them to stop and certainly don't intend to pay for it. Maybe it's some sort of promotion. The only thing it is good for is to use to wrap things in boxes, perhaps to use as cat litter in a pinch. All I am doing is making an historical reflection that the print newspaper of 100 years ago were superior in content to what they print today and to what you generally find online. The audience is too mass, that's what I am saying. When the audience was more limited they could print better stuff and get away with it.
I think the same thing is true with fiction. The nineteenth century was the golden age of the novel in English literature. Literary novels were popular. I think that the flags were lowered across Britain for the death of Little Nell in Charles Dickens's novel The Old Curiosity Shop. That would never happen again today. The Charlotte Bronte was popular. In America you had Nathaniel Hawthorne. At that time period you had just enough readers but not too many. Nowadays the literary novel his hidden from view and the fiction is all mass pulp stuff.
It only makes sense that in this time period of mass pulp entertainment you have mass pulp news. It is always slanted, exaggerated, etc. It is better to hear about what happens second hand than to be directly exposed to the onslaught of crazy stories online. I'd sooner believe that a dinosaur will be elected the next President than believe the latest story picked up online. I might as well believe that the world is flat than believe some of the wild economic predictions. And this can have a worse effect on actual events than you might think. Part of the reason John McCain didn't win in 2008 was the reporting of the economic downturn that autumn by the liberal media.
If the media of 1915 had reported the sinking of the Lusitania the way they do nowadays America would have entered World War 1 that summer instead of in 1917.
Linda wrote: "If the media of 1915 had reported the sinking of the Lusitania the way they do nowadays America would have entered World War 1 that summer instead of in 1917."I do agree.
Linda wrote: "It only makes sense that in this time period of mass pulp entertainment you have mass pulp news. It is always slanted, exaggerated, etc. It is better to hear about what happens second hand than to ..."I know you both find Obama a political disaster but whatever the benefit McCain may have bought domestically his winning would have been a calamity for America's reputation. You see America was literally hated in the UK for dragging us into a futile war under false pretences which did more harm than good. If on top of that it had rejected the black candidate for President and chosen the white one it would have been seen as racism not politics.
American race riots and things like shooting unarmed black fugitives by white policeman get much more coverage here and in Europe than in the US.
Rejecting a black candidate for President and choosing a white one would be seen as racism? That sounds like political correctness gone mad!!! As far as I am concerned, you don't even look at the color. It should be of no importance at all. Besides, before that date all Presidents had been white so if McCain had been elected it would hardly have been an issue.The fact that you say he was hated in Britain wouldn't mean much to Americans. I don't know if McCain was really disliked by all Britains as much as you say anyway. Just as I don't speak for all Americans you don't speak for all Britains. And in addition I haven't seen any black Prime Ministers in Whitehall yet either.
I think that the real reason McCain didn't win was the economic downturn in September of 2008. That would mean that the party in power, Republican, would be defeated at the polls. As far as McCain's military background, that was just what was needed at the time and it is still needed.
I don't believe in affirmative action either. And I certainly don't believe in affirmative action at the polls. That would be like reverse prejudice!!! You are saying you should be prejudiced against a white candidate like McCain just because he is white. If he were black, you would like him better. To me that doesn't sound right.I think it is prejudice in action to say that you will give preference to blacks in hiring or in college admissions just because they are black. It should be like certain contests I've entered where the name of the person is concealed and you don't know whether he is black or white or Jewish or Christian or a Martian until after you have selected him.
My alma mater, Bryn Mawr, pretends to be one of those liberal wacko places that wants to do affirmative action. They are always looking for more minority groups to admit. They want alumnae to do interviews of high school students in their communities and then recommend girls for admission. I cannot understand this sort of thinking. Nor do I believe in colleges like Bryn Mawr that find it their mission to admit only women. If I don't believe in it, why did I go there? Therein lies a long tale . . .Basically at the time I thought I wanted to be an archaeologist, and they had a good program in archaeology. But I couldn't stand being around the ladies morning, noon, and night. During my last semester there I went to live at Haverford, the cooperative men's campus next door. And I transferred in the middle of my junior year to Duke.
Linda wrote: "Rejecting a black candidate for President and choosing a white one would be seen as racism? That sounds like political correctness gone mad!!! As far as I am concerned, you don't even look at the c..."No, the fact was at the time McCain was seen old and out of date, too conservative and backward looking and a very weak option, so almost everyone here was backing Obama. So if he had lost it would have been seen as a vote for the wrong man because the right one was black.
People were utterly fed up with the Bush era which was regarded as a disaster. They hoped Americans would end it and they did. I know for conservatives like you and Gary it must have been painful.
The more things change, the more they remain the same. Email, computers, technology . . . They should make more of a difference than they do. Why do employers build buildings for employees except in the cases where you actually do have to be physically present such as when you are a waitress or a teacher, for instance? Why don't businessmen meet in a teleconference all the time? Why do they bother to fly on business trips? Why can't people get married online? I think a lot of it is tradition. The Industrial Revolution has made a big difference but not as much as it could have.
If shootings in America get more TV coverage in Europe it sounds like Europeans are looking at it as escapist drama. Since they don't have guns they think it is more exotic and wild. That's what I mean by the news these days. It doesn't contribute much except entertainment.
I'm sure America is viewed the world over as a spectacle, as entertainment and something to gawk at and talk about. It is obviously in everybody's face. America does things that affect most other people around the globe. So naturally everything it does is the subject of commentary, analysis, and just plain old gossip. Without America what would you do, talk about Britain and the Queen?By the way I just read this morning that in order to visit Buckingham Palace as a tourist when the family isn't in residence you have to go through airport like security? What is going on here?
Linda wrote: "The more things change, the more they remain the same. Email, computers, technology . . . They should make more of a difference than they do. Why do employers build buildings for employees except i..."Hang on that's not right. Loads of people nowadays work from home or are flexible in their location. My youngest son's HQ office is in London, he is formally employed from the Barcelona office in Spain and works from the apartment in Ibiza. From there he has conference calls with several international locations at once and flies all round the world on flights booked from home. None of that would be possible even ten years ago.
Linda wrote: "If shootings in America get more TV coverage in Europe it sounds like Europeans are looking at it as escapist drama. Since they don't have guns they think it is more exotic and wild. That's what I ..."Believe me Linda nobody regards America's gun problem as entertainment. They are shocked and appalled not only by the events but by the fact that the American public will not allow any attempt to control guns.
All the elements of the U.K. send MPs to Westminster but it is a fluid structure totally different to the United States. The Republic of Ireland is fully independent, is a separate member of the EU and uses the Euro, but the border with Northern Ireland is open and Irish Nationals who have made their homes in any part of the U.K. can vote in Westminster elections. Ireland is regarded as a separate country, has its own diplomatic corps, seat on the UN etc and is not in NATO. It has an elected President as Head of State. The Queen is head of state of everything else.
To the German mind it is chaos. But to the British, with their love of nuance and hidden meanings and power behind power it works perfectly. It is always evolving and adjusting and will continue to do so. That is why it has been going for so long.