This is the blog of a Norwegian (Marianne, aka 'M') who moved to Australia in 2007 to be with Roger (aka R) and feels lucky to have escaped a comparatively communistic country with ridiculous weather!
Archive listing for December 2008
Heaven is smiling
Posted in 'Life in Oz' on December 2, 2008
The smile is formed by the moon, Venus and Jupiter:
(Photo by R)
Europe and Africa miss out on this because when the sun sets the moon is between the planets, and in Usa it's upside down forming a frown.
I love the last comment in the news article on it:
And perhaps it should tell Americans being frowned upon to have a long, hard look at themselves...
Some idiot has gotten the idea into his head that teachers marking schoolkids' work with red pen is harmful to the kids, 'endangering their mental health' and 'upsetting them'.
Queensland's Deputy Opposition Leader Mark McArdle told parliament today that teachers were being advised to reconsider their pen choice because it may offend children.
I'm pleased to see that 99% of the commenters disagree completely.
I particularly like these two:
I used to cry at school when I got a poor mark with a red pen, it was so much easier to cope with when it was in blue... Black was almost as bad as red though. Green was my favourite.
and:
There is nothing wrong with red pens, its the X's that I find offensive, if we dont want to offend any children, lets stop marking their work all together. Why dont we stop using white paper incase it offends the aboriginal children? All paper should come in a wood grain finish so there is no distinct colour or visual bias. Hell, lets close down schools and stop teaching them for fear of offending them. Think of the money we'll save. less taxes. YEAH
Yeah, what kinda weakling kid gets upset by red pen marks?
Ivana on 06 Dec, 2008 - 11:24 am:
Well, there are children who are weak by nature, and their needs must be met by any civilized society. But this is not the topic of the discussion.
Many parents in the industrialised world seem to want to go to extremes to "protect" their children these days. A bit of red ink shouldn't cause a nervous breakdown.
Always appreciate your observations, Marianne. Sånn skal det være, as you say in Norwegian.
Hvor er Ivar? Jeg savner ham.
M on 06 Dec, 2008 - 12:18 pm:
Yes, of course the kids with special needs should be tended to, but any normal kid needs to have or develop thick enough skin that they can handle being told they are wrong without getting traumatised by it.
I don't know where Ivar is, maybe he got sick of my blog:)
Ivar on 07 Dec, 2008 - 4:31 am:
Ivana, her er jeg :)
M, No not sick of it yet, just busy doing other stuff ;)
Sorry fogot to comment on the post...
So what happens if they get stars and A+ and what not in red ink... do the kids get upset then? I doubt the teacher changes pens for a "great work" comment vs "need more work" comment...
Stupid stupid.
M on 07 Dec, 2008 - 10:49 am:
My teacher always wrote everything with a red pen, the good comments and the bad. I've also had teachers who wrote everything with a green pen, but I found it not as easy to see where they'd made comments, and always prefered the red pen.
Ivar on 07 Dec, 2008 - 12:26 pm:
Well the obvious choice would be to choose something that sticks out from the students writing so that it could be easily seen... but I guess that could upset the kids then huh ;)
Santa
Posted in 'Random stuff' on December 5, 2008
What might you do if you're a middle aged paedophile man who wants access to lots of children?
lol, I wonder how they screen them? because obviously this would be the type of job that a paedophile would try to get.
Do all Usatians whinge this much?
Posted in 'Usa bashing' on December 6, 2008
Usatians are grumbling that their tax money was used to rescue an Australian tourist who got lost in Alaska. Whinge, whinge, whinge.
An Australian who went unprepared into Alaska's winter wilds faced a
frosty response after his $US93,000 ($144,000) taxpayer-funded rescue.
Of course they are absolutely right, if people don't have a spare $100,000 to fund their rescue, then they should be left to die. That's how the Usatian medical system works isn't it? No insurance = no treatment?
Of course it's a different story here, where everyone receives the medical treatment or rescue/help that they need for free. Which is probably why no one here says anything every time a Usatian tourist gets into trouble and requires rescuing. (Which is about once a month, I am reminded of a recent rescue of a Brit and a Usatian which cost $400,000). We're all just happy that they were found alive. Also a reflection of the fact that we're a friendly bunch.
The article is also completely one sided, so we don't have the rescuee's version. It said he complained there was no internet, when he might just have asked if they had internet where he stayed.
If anyone is as stupid to go on a trip unprepared (or inadequately equipped) after being warned by locals of this, I am of the opinion that they should have to pay for the rescue. Whether it being from the ocean outside Australia or Alaska or anywhere else in the world.
With all these insurance companies, I'm sure they could get some kind of insurance for their "adventure" even though the insurance fee may be a bit steep :)
I think you'll find that society generally looks after the stupid people more than it should in many situations.
Thats why the world is getting dumber. Normally, nature would weed out the stupid people and stop them from spreading their genes, because stupid people usually get themselves killed. But in our lovely little society, no one thought of that, and we've all become obsessed with saving the lives of everyone.
M on 07 Dec, 2008 - 10:47 am:
Ivar: You *should* prepare yourself when going on an outback/mountain/great barrier reef adventure, and you *should* listen to advice from the locals. But obviously a lot of people don't. They are not familiar with the area or climate, and they underestimate the force of nature.
Yes, you could make every tourist pay for their rescue, but the way I see it, it all works out in the end. We rescue other countries' tourists for free, and other countries rescue our tourists for free.
R: I like the saying:
"I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?"
:)
Ivar on 07 Dec, 2008 - 12:24 pm:
Yeah I know "should" is the key here... a lot of people like to follow that advice a bit liberally at their own leisure, thinking "nothing will happen to me".
R: You're right, the natural way of weeding out the stupid is somewhat being hindered by society's obsession of risking others life and limbs to rescue the stupid.
M: "I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?" - Good idea, just remember to also remove the possibility of lawsuits because of this... :)
Arild on 08 Dec, 2008 - 12:49 pm:
In Norway we also rescue stupid tourists for free. I think it's OK.
But the rescuers might be sued if they can’t manage to save the poor bastard.
Some years ago a British base jumper got killed in Norway.
He hit the mountain and landed on a cliff several hundred meters above the ground.
His sister was not happy with the effort the volunteers gave (risking their own lives), and for that reason she sued them.
She also blames the Norwegian authorities because it’s not forbidden to jump from this mountain….Yeah, right...That would have stopped him…
Isn’t this ironic…
It would have been easier to understand if she was American…
R on 08 Dec, 2008 - 12:56 pm:
that's ridiculous. I hope she didn't win!
Arild on 08 Dec, 2008 - 1:26 pm:
No, I think the case was dismissed. But then she threatened to bring the case further to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg.
I feel sorry for her brother, but this guy was living a dangerous life. He knew the risks, I hope.
M on 08 Dec, 2008 - 1:48 pm:
Yeah, cuz base jumpers never jump from illegal places....
What an idiot.
Mumbai attacks
Posted in 'Usa bashing' on December 7, 2008
Mumbai was recently the target of a terrorist attack. This is of course tragic, but that has all been covered by the news and numerous blogs, so I won't go in detail about that.
What I do find amusing (lacking a better word) is how Usatians seem to think that every terrorist attack anywhere in world must have everything to do with how much some terrorists hate Usa.
I didn't pay much attention to the news during and after the attacks (I don't like the news), but I did hear mentioned that the attack was done by Pakistani terrorists, and that it most likely had something to do with the ancient conflict/tension between India and Pakistan.
I was therefore rather surprised when I saw mentioned in a Usatian forum that 'we now have so many terrorists groups to worry about, and of course they all hate us (Usatians)', as if terrorists hating Usa had something to do with the attacks, which is what the original forum post was about.
A few days later I read this blog post, which is written by a Norwegian living in Usa. For those of you who don't read Norwegian, she is basically saying that the combination of the death on black Friday and the Mumbai attacks have left Usatians feeling a bit blue. When I commented and asked what the Mumbai attacks had to do with Usa, she answered that they had targeted foreigners, Usatians and Brits in particular. (I'm not criticising Randi here, she's prolly just repeating what she was told on the news.)
Here, here and here also says the attacks were aimed at foreigners, Usatians and Brits especially.
This inspired me to do some research. This is what BBC says:
Last week's attacks shocked the country, with many describing it as India's 9/11.
India's 9/11, not "another 9/11".
The Wikipedia article does not mention that it has anything to do with Usa, but does say:
The attacks have damaged India's already strained relationship with Pakistan.
"This time, there was a multipronged approach. It wasn't just about targeting Indians. It was an aim, but it wasn't the only one," Gohel said. "They also wanted to go after Westerners, as well. They wanted to create a lack of confidence in people traveling to India, hit at the economy, hit at the tourism industry."
They went after Westerners to damage India's reputation, not specifically to kill Westerners.
And here's an article which pretty much proves that foreigners were not the target of the attacks:
...why did the shooters fire so indiscriminately on ordinary Indians at the train station, a popular cafe and the hotels?
Less than 30 of the 188 dead were foreigners...
(...)
Look at their targets. The two hotels they attacked--the Taj and the Oberoi--are old, iconic Indian hotels. It used to be true that these places were affordable only by Westerners. But this is no longer true, and it's one of the big changes over the last ten years in India. The five-star hotels today are filled with Indians.
(...)
the real business center of Mumbai is now out by the airport and this is where the 'Western' hotels he mentions are primarily located.
As I suspected, the Mumbai attacks had nothing to do with Usa (nor UK, nor Australia, nor any other western country who had people killed in the attacks). Does it hurt the Usatian ego to know that there are terrorists out there who don't care about Usa?
M: For one who doesn't like the news, you have done some painstaking research to make your point ;)
Quite apart from the tragedy in Mumbai is that fact that we are now supposed to change the (German, English etc.) names of several countries and cities which have been long-established in our languages.
A bit bothersome is that Bombay has suddenly become Mumbai, Peking Beijing, Canton Guangzhou etc. Perhaps next year Warsaw/Warschau will become the impossible Warszawa.
Reminds me of an old Soviet joke:
Interviewer with elderly man:
Where were you born?
- St. Petersburg.
Where did you grow up?
- Petrograd.
Where do you now live?
- Leningrad.
Where do you expect to die?
- St. Petersburg.
M on 09 Dec, 2008 - 10:03 am:
I don't mind doing research when it means I get to do some Usa bashing:)
I wouldn't say the changes have been sudden, I've known them as Mumbai and Beijing for years....
Norries have known always Warsaw as Warszawa/Warsawa:)
R on 09 Dec, 2008 - 10:22 am:
Well! I didn't know that Bombay had changed, and I didn't know that Peking had changed. They never annouce these things, so how would i?
I had heard of beijing and mumbai, and just assumed they were different cities.
What's the point in changing the name? seems like an expensive waste of money to me.
Ivana on 10 Dec, 2008 - 12:09 am:
Most certainly is a waste of money and, frequently, a tool of governments wishing to push a political or nationalistic agenda.
The German towns of München, Nürnberg and Braunschweig are still referred to as Munich, Nuremberg and Brunswick in English-speaking countries. Fine with me.
M on 10 Dec, 2008 - 10:29 am:
Yes, a lot of languages have their own names for towns around the world. One could argue that all names should be pronunced like they are pronunced by the natives of the country, but they are sometimes very difficult to pronunce correctly, so why not just make up you're own name for them which suits your language and is easy to pronunce? I don't really see a problem with that,,
But in the case of Bombay and Mumbai it's different, because they are completely different names and Mumbai is easy enough to pronunce. Munich and München are just variations of the same name.
Q on 10 Dec, 2008 - 3:11 pm:
From what I heard, the president of Pakistan has been going on about "stateless actors", meaning that the attackers only trained in pakistan, in Kashmir to be precise. Pakistan has as much contorl over going ons in Kashmir as India has it over their part of it (Kashmir was divided betwen pak and ind).
I believe the attackers were stateless actors, their aim was to distract Pakistan from a mountain pass, which is a line of supply to international forces in Afghanistan.
Pakistan and India are always in a hurry to start shooting at each other, since 1947, they have had 3 major wars (if you count the independence mess in 1947/48) and countless little "yo mama is so fat" jokes at border lines.
Is it me or is USA is like a little kid with ADD?
Ivana on 11 Dec, 2008 - 3:30 am:
ADHD, with emphasis on the H.
While US foreign policy in the past decade deserves thorough censure, it would be VERY interesting to see what would happen if the US were to cut off all aid to Pakistan, which I have heard amounts to a billion dollars/year.
At this point in its history, the US should recognize when a failed government is a failed government, as it did belatedly with the Kuomintang in China in 1949 and the Thieu regime in Vietnam in 1975.
While it may sound a bit harsh, it would be probably be best for the US to cut its losses and let Pakistan collapse in a cloud of dust, permitting stateless actors to do their worst to each other in their attempts to jockey for power.
M on 11 Dec, 2008 - 10:49 am:
I agree, the natural thing to happen when a country can't manage itself is for it to collapse 'in a cloud of dust'.
Then I guess the other countries in the region will swoop in and take over the whole country, unless they learn to manage themselves very quickly.
Failure should not be subsidised.
Q on 12 Dec, 2008 - 6:48 am:
Interesting, so you guys think US should cut it ties with pakistan and move on?
What about accepting reasonability for current state of pakistan? how is the US responible?
Well, I wouldn't go as far as calling Pervez musharraf a great leader or the best thing that ever happened to pakistan, but he was good when it came to keeping people in control, he didn't take bullshit for answer.
Overall pakistan was doing better under Pervez musharraf in education, health and transport departments and he created so many jobs for people (with good pay even). He did him self no favor with the public when he sided with US and allowed pakistan to be used a step stone into Afghanistan, I guess his reason was billions dollars in aid (which would've been put on hold i'd say if he said no to US), which he used to enhance pakistan internally, and he even managed to sit down and have talks with India.
Being army minded (or maybe a control freak), he did things without heeding advise from pals, so they turned on him, and away he went, and the new guy, Asif zardari is clone of Tony blair..just with a mustache and brown. He will lick America's ass for just about anything.
M on 12 Dec, 2008 - 9:53 am:
Yep, I think if Pakistan NEEDS Usa to stay on its feet, then it should be declared a Usatian colony or protectorate or whatever.
OR cut ties with Usa and prove that they are self sufficient. A country shouldn't have to rely on aid from another country to stay on its feet.
And Usa needs to get its butt out of other countries' business anyway.
Ivana on 12 Dec, 2008 - 2:45 pm:
Q: I am not so certain the US can realistically be held responsible for the current state of chaos in Pakistan.
Since it opted to break away from India in 1947, Pakistan has been on a bumpy road, lurching from one crisis to another, suffering from the geopolitical ghost of the odious Jinnah. It has not had one leader worthy of admiration, with the notable exception of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, whom Zia ul Huq executed.
While Musharraf put on a good face to the world, he botched things magnificently by himself without US help.
R on 12 Dec, 2008 - 3:18 pm:
Yeah Qads, just cos you were born in Pakistan and lived there most of your life, and went back there this year for 3 months to get married, what would you know, you muppet!
lol
Q on 12 Dec, 2008 - 8:00 pm:
Ivana: How can US can not be held responsible?
Pakistan will have to satisfy the US administration and the Congress on three fronts – fighting terrorism, ceasing nuclear
proliferation, and moving towards democracy – before it can earn the $3-billion (5 year aid) package the White House has put on the table.
Pakistan didnt opted to break away from India, it didnt want to stay under british rule, but after the british left, there was a power struggle between muslims, hindus and sikhs. Leaders at that time thought partition was a good idea, and it wasnt simple as "oh, lets break up, shall we? jolly good!", thousands of peoples died in the movement, on both sides.
For a country with only 61 years of history under it's belt, pakistan is not doing bad, major part of that is aids from other countries. Pervez musharraf managed to pay some of it off, which was a first in a long while, but pakistan still owes US A LOT of money, and you dont say no to someone who has been feeding you and has a habbit of attacking countries jsut cos it thinks its a good idea (dont say UN would've steped in).
Pakistan is on welfare, it can't get a job due to being physically incapable. It needs aid just any like any other 3rd world country. Unfortunly US have put more money into it than any other, hence it gets to say how things go.
M on 12 Dec, 2008 - 8:19 pm:
If Pakistan is inacapable of ruling itself without with all this financial aid, it should have done the responsible thing and stayed under British/Indian rule.
They can't just go 'oh we wanna be independent', break away, kill thousands of people, and then rely on other countries to support them. First of all, relying on financial aid is not being independent anyway, and second, having other countries tell them what goes because of the financial aid is not independent either.
So it's gone from British/Indian rule to Usatian rule. And they think that's an improvement?
Look what the cat dragged in
Posted in 'The cats and the dog!' on December 13, 2008
When Julie decided to grace us with her presence this morning, she also brought along this little guest:
It is a bearded dragon. I put Julie inside and we kept all the cats inside until we were convinced that the lizard had left the garden.
After looking at photos of other bearded dragons, I now see that this one is rather skinny, but hopefully it will be ok.
Their emotions often seem to prevail over good marksmanship. The Turks and, later, the Israelis have creamed them every time.
Wonder whether he got his shoes back?
M on 16 Dec, 2008 - 11:04 am:
I would say not. Prolly confiscated by Bush' guards.
Did you notice how long it took before anyone reacted? He had time to throw a shoe, bend over and take his other show off, then throw that too, before anyone did anything.
If he'd had a gun, Bush would be dead.
Ivana on 16 Dec, 2008 - 1:00 pm:
Yes, everyone seemed stunned.
The delayed reaction of his guards really has people talking over here. Many believe these guys were thinking of their own well-being first, sensing the objects might be bombs.
A pity to have wasted two apparently good shoes on a bad president.
R on 16 Dec, 2008 - 1:00 pm:
They should be thinking of their own well-being first!
Why risk your life for Bush??!
Ivar on 22 Dec, 2008 - 3:14 am:
R: Maybe because thats what they are paid to do? I would think that future employment would rely on what they do in situations like this? Why hire bodyguards at all if they cant guard?
Q on 22 Dec, 2008 - 10:34 am:
If it had been a gun or a bomb, what future employment? =P
M on 22 Dec, 2008 - 10:41 am:
Q: hehe good point:)
If it had been a bomb, there would have been nothing to guard anyway, so why kill yourself when it's not gonna make a difference?
R on 22 Dec, 2008 - 10:42 am:
Ivar, you missed my point. I was pointing out that Bush isn't worth dying over.
Ivar on 22 Dec, 2008 - 12:04 pm:
Q, if it was a gun, they most likely would be alive since they didn't do their job, and M, if it was a bomb they would probably be dead anyway so why not do their job?
R,Didn't really miss your point, and even though Bush may not be worth risking the life for (not many are imo), the bodyguards future employment still depends on how they do their present job... and if I needed a bodyguard, I would not hire one that didn't react when a situation arises. And definitively not if he didn't react because he didn't think it was worth risking the life for. That defeats the whole point of having a bodyguard.
R on 22 Dec, 2008 - 12:11 pm:
Lighten up Ivar, I was being funny.
The guards didn't react because they saw it was just a shoe.
Ivar on 22 Dec, 2008 - 12:32 pm:
R, being funny or not, seeing it being a shoe or not... would you hire a bodyguard (if you needed one) that doesnt react when things start flying?
Oh and I'm fairly laid back most of the time, as I am in this case as well :)
You know you love your cat when...
Posted in 'The cats and the dog!' on December 20, 2008
Julie decided to lie across the mouse mat and cord and pressed the keys on my keyboard every time she stretched and put her head out for a scratch every time my hand came near her..
and I couldn't bring myself to move her because she looked so cute and all she wanted was to be near me<3 I even stopped using my mouse because it made her shift uncomfortably:)
('You know you love your cat when'... started here.)
We are now in Emu Plains, near Sydney, to see R's parents. We flew this time and then took a train from Sydney airport. We left home at 12:30pm and arrived at the train station in Emu Plains at 6:45pm (which is 5:45 Brisbane time). Bit quicker than driving....
Despite R assuring his parents repeatedly that we would be fine walking 1 km from the train station to their house, they insisted on picking us up. Probably because R happened to mention that we didn't actually know the way from the train station to the house....
When we arrived they served us a lovely, healthy dinner. I think I ate a bit much... We then went for a walk along the river. NSW is on daylight savings time, which means the sun doesn't set until 8:30, so it was only just starting to get dark when we returned to the house (after nearly getting lost). I like this area, in addition to the lovely river, it has lots of trees and nice houses and not a lot of traffic. Very tranquil.
We're staying until Sunday, and will be going to the Blue Mountains to have a look around and also some other stuff which we haven't really planned yet.
I hated leaving the cats, especially Julie, because she's so upset at having to stay inside, and she doesn't like anyone but me (altho she's finally starting to warm up to R), so it will be hard on her to be away from me for a week. She'll live of course, and she's in good hands, but I still don't like it. And I hope the birds don't forget all about human contact.
Well, strictly speaking it's not a review, as we haven't travelled with them and won't be travelling with them after finding out how expensive and amazingly unprofessional they are.
We are going back to Brisbane on Sunday, but due to there being work done on the railroad getting back to the airport via train would be very time consuming and inconvenient. So we decided to have a look at how much it would be for a shuttle bus which goes directly to the airport. I found a business - BusyBus - which specialises in this, and sent them an email. Here is the exchange which followed:
From: "Busy Bus" busybus@tpg.com.au Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 1:21 PM To: Marianne Subject: RE: BusyBuses Contact Form
The charge will be $ 115.00, one way
From: Marianne Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 2:46 PM To: Busy Bus Subject: RE: BusyBuses Contact Form
Thats a ridiculous price for that short distance. I can fly to Melbourne for less than that!
Who do you think you are???
From: "Busy Bus" busybus@tpg.com.au Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:16 PM To: Marianne Subject: RE: BusyBuses Contact Form
Well fuck wit, if I had 300 people on the bus I would be able to do it for cheaper, but when after tolls, drivers wages, fuel, insurance, rego and servicing the company only makes $13, why would I want to take you for 115.00, we only make money when there are more people on the bus?
From: Marianne Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 6:24 PM To: Busy Bus Subject: RE: BusyBuses Contact Form
lol, you need to run your little business better then.
lets see:
mini bus holds 10 people = $575.00 per trip one way fuel: $10 Drivers wage: $50 (generous) Rego: lets say it's $1000 per year (huge exaggeration) : $2.73 per day Insurance same as rego, lets make it $3 per day
Total costs: $65.73 per trip, if you just did one trip per day
Total profit: $511.27 per trip carrying 10 people for what, 2 hours work!
Do 5 trips per day, and your total profit per day is $2556.35
per week: $17894.45
Minus GST and it's $16267.68 PER WEEK PROFIT
Looks like the business to be in!!!!!!
Your reply is good enough to go in my blog tho. Thanks.
From: "Busy Bus" busybus@tpg.com.au Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 9:09 PM To: Marianne Subject: RE: BusyBuses Contact Form
No dick it is 105.00 for one person, 115 for two 125.00 for three, total for 12 passengers $185.00 (cheaper more passenger there are, not like the airlines), if I could get 2556.35 per day I wouldn’t be bothered answering messages to idiots like you….. one can only dream
From: Marianne
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 9:59 PM
To: Busy Bus
Subject: RE: BusyBuses Contact Form
Anger management issues much?
At $13 profit for 2 hours work I don't know why they even bother staying in business, they'd make more money working at maccas! And the $13 doesn't add up anyway. At $115 the profit is still $49.27, and that's exaggerating a lot about the daily expenses.
And obviously the $185 for 12 people is only if they all know each other, if they take us and then find another 2 people, then those other 2 people will also have to pay $115.
So totally unprofessional, verbally abusive, and they also lie. Nice work.
it is 105.00 for one person, 115 for two 125.00 for three, total for 12 passengers $185.00
That suggests he just does one trip per booking, instead of doiung it the smart way, and having slots that people can book. 12 strangers paying $40 each (fair price) = $480 per trip which is way better than his genius idea of only getting $185... no wonder he is abusive, his business must be going down the toilet being structured like that.
We can rent a car and drop it off at the airport for $25 + fuel for the 45 min drive
Q on 24 Dec, 2008 - 1:21 am:
wow, that is just stupid, forward his emails to few newspapers or something.
Ivar on 24 Dec, 2008 - 3:31 am:
LOL
He must be an American... ;)
M on 24 Dec, 2008 - 11:21 am:
Yes, quite ridiculous o_O
Good for a laugh tho:)
Ivana on 24 Dec, 2008 - 11:30 am:
I don't quite agree, Ivar, as such a blatant lack of professionalism would condemn even the most slimy American businessman to the lower pits of economic bankruptcy within a few months. Investigative journalism, particularly out here in the West, is what these guys fear the most.
Q is right, Marianne: it might be interesting to forward his emails to your local newspapers, preferably those which are not under the controll of big business interests. Just make certain that he couldn't swing around like a cobra and take legal action against you.
A happy Christmas to all/ God Jul alle sammen/ Frohe Weihnachten an alle.
Ivar on 24 Dec, 2008 - 12:18 pm:
Ivana,
I was being facetious, M likes to bash USA so I'd was just trying to be funny...
The lack of professionalism as documented in the emails would, in the US, as you say get public quite fast and be very detrimental to the business. With that said, I think that this lack of professionalism can be found everywhere though.
Regardless how rude or annoying the customer is, the reply should always be polite, after all the customer is whos paying you... Even with a rather "unfriendly" reply that M had in the initial email reply. A no reply is better than what was replied here.
M on 24 Dec, 2008 - 3:56 pm:
Yes, I'm quite aware that my reply wasn't of the friendliest kind, but usually when we see people being rude to staff they still act professional, and would never respond abusively, which is the least you can expect when someone provides a service which you pay for.
That being said, I usually try to be friendly and polite to staff. It's just common courtesy.
Werner on 24 Dec, 2008 - 7:34 pm:
How can you say you think the norwegian weather is ridiculous when you are fronting a picture of nordlys? :)
Ivar: Thank you for your clarification. Et eksempel på norsk humor, humør? I am always confused by these two words.
R, perhaps you are wise to stay away from this complicated language!
In any case, I have observed that Norwegian humour, especially understatement, is as rich as what the English have.
Have no similar observations about the Swedes - do they actually laugh..?
M on 27 Dec, 2008 - 2:06 pm:
Humor = humour, humør = mood.
I don't know about the Swedish sense of humour, but they are a strange people....
R on 29 Dec, 2008 - 6:32 pm:
Just to answer a comment by Ivana about legal action, if what is said is true, then it can't be considered defamatory or slanderous, and can be printed. The newspaper have legal departments that make sure they dont print stuff that they can be sued over... usually!
Christmas
Posted in 'Random stuff' on December 25, 2008
I'm not sure if I've ever mentioned this in my blog before but... R and I don't celebrate Christmas. We don't really see the point, as it doesn't mean anything to us and we don't wanna do it just because everyone else is (which I think is why a lot of people do it). And I think that should be up to us; what we choose to celebrate or not celebrate shouldn't be decided by the rest of society. This ensures that only the people who sincerely enjoy Christmas celebrate it, and those who don't can do other things, rather than doing something they don't enjoy 'just because'. That's logical and fair isn't it?
I was lying in bed this morning, and because it's Christmas Day I was thinking about how Christmas is celebrated, and how most concerts and traditions commonly done show a rather interesting blend of paganism and Christianity. Apparently, no one seems to even notice this. They will sing songs about trees and Santa, and then sing songs about God's faithful servants. Am I the only one who finds that rather strange? Pick a religion and stick with it, I say.
It's fascinating that a lot of Christians decide to celebrate Christmas with paganism mixed in with it. The time of year it's celebrated, decorating the tree and giving gifts to people who already have everything, are all pagan traditions. Jesus wasn't born in December, he was born in September/October, and yet all Christians for some unknown reason choose to celebrate a pagan holiday in December, under the pretence that they are rejecting the pagan and commercial side of it, and celebrating the birth of Jesus (which they can't be otherwise they would celebrate his birth on his birthday) - and then they put their tree up and give each other gifts like everyone else. Strange.
And then I started thinking about Santa, and how it all started with St Nicholas hundreds of years ago. Apparently St Nicholas was some kind of miracle man who constantly donated time, money and services to helping the poor and other people who got themselves into trouble.
So instead of giving presents to kids who already have more toys than they know what to do with, and pretend they're from 'Santa', why can't we be more like St Nicholas and give all the presents to charity? That's how Santa got started after all. And make kids either give something of theirs, or make something and give it to charity. Or make them do work for charity organisations (depending on age).
Wouldn't that teach them more about compassion and life than simply showering them with presents they don't need?
Because of this thought, I also started wondering about how St Nicholas became today's Santa Claus. Most articles agree that Santa started as St Nicholas, but they all seem rather unclear on the transition between the two. Except this one.
Turns out this is another thing we can blame the Usatians for. It all started in the early 1800s with a poem written about St Nicholas, these days commonly known as 'The Night Before Christmas', where he is described much like Santa is today. After that there were a couple of other poems written, and then drawings, portraying him more and more like a jolly old fat fellow. By the 1920s he was well established as an icon of contemporary commercial culture. Coca Cola has used him since 1931.
So as usual, Usatians have to twist anything good in the world and corrupt it with their stupid ideas of how things should be - I like to call this phenomenon 'the world according to Usatians'. They can't handle that some good things originated in other countries, so they have to make it their own, and usually mess it up in the process.
Muslims celebrate two such occasions (Eid ul-Fitr and Eid al-Adha), aim of both is to be happy with one another to help the poor.
On Eid ul-Fitr, muslims must pay Zakat (a tax if you will on your riches) to the poor (those who can afford to pay). I think it's about £3 (or just about) for an average person.
On Eid al-Adha, animal sacrifices are made, and are split three ways, one share for the poor, one share for the relatives and neighbors and the last to keep to oneself.
M on 28 Dec, 2008 - 11:09 pm:
I think Christians should make it about charity too, you'd think they would reject the commercial side of it, seeing as it was their deity who was born and is supposedly celebrated at Christmas (but of course we all know Christmas isn't so much about Jesus as it is about spending as much money as possible, and getting pissed off if someone you gave a present to doesn't give you a present).
Could do without the animal sacrifices tho.
Ivana on 01 Jan, 2009 - 2:21 am:
I do not wish to sound culturally insensitive, but it seems that Islam is in need of some good PR.
Killing animals ritually; stoning alleged adulterers and gays; cutting off the hands of alleged thieves; contolling women dictatorally, not to mention installing and maintaining wretched governments where democracy is either curtailed or stamped out.
And, it appears, with very little self-criticism or debate among the clerics and other characters who hold the reins of power. Even in Hamburg there are are groups which have declared their intention of campaigning to introduce forms of Sharia locally and nationally.
I despair of the future of western Europe, where so many immigrants with this religion have been allowed to gain a foothold.
M on 01 Jan, 2009 - 7:34 pm:
I don't think any amount of PR can save islam now. Like it or not, muslims are more prone to becoming terrorists than any other religion, they treat their women like property whose duty it is to provide sex and children, and they don't like people from other religions.
And I know some muslims keep saying that 'most muslims are good people, you only ever hear of the bad ones', but I have yet to see the 'good' muslim community stand up and condemn terrorist acts and sexism, as well as everything else which is wrong with it.
Not to mention that there isn't one muslim country which is capable of managing itself, they are all 3rd world countries. That must mean something.
That may be 'culturally insensitive' of me, but I don't see why I should respect a culture which insists that half of all humans are inferior simply because of the way they were born.
R on 01 Jan, 2009 - 7:46 pm:
I think it is important not to completely generalise here, there are people who are muslim and reject the out-dated traditions of the way women should be treated. (Q for example) It would be good if this new generation of muslims is a prelude to the future attitudes of the whole.
Q on 01 Jan, 2009 - 8:00 pm:
First of all, I have never claimed to be a great muslim, I do what I can, what I say below or have said is basically my understanding and experience of Islam.
Killing animals ritually
And how is killing them without ritual working out for ya? it is not like "ohh! lets kill this sheep and throw it away", it is used for food, you should know that animals are treated with respect in Islam, I don't see how it is evil when it's done by uttering god's name and it is not evil when it is done in a slaughter house and sold in shops? at least with Islam's way, some poor people get fed.
Prophet Muhammad once said: "All creatures are like a family of God: and he loves the most those who are the most beneficent to His family." More info
Stoning alleged adulterers and gays
While I am not saying it is right to do, but requires four extremely well reputed eye-witness "accusers" to admit that they saw the defenders sexually interact. As for gays, I am not sure what is to be done with based on teachings of Islam (even the pope doesn't like em =P).
Cutting off the hands of alleged thieves
Again, alleged?!? show me your sources Ivana. Theft needs testimony of two qualified witnesses. I am not agreeing with this punishment, but pointing out the facts of it. But I do wonder about the point of putting people in jail, how is it helping anyone? it takes them off from the street for few years and feeds them with my tax money....why am I being punished for someone else's crimes? and when they do get out, some come back for worse.
controlling women dictatorally
erm, no, that's just men, not Islam, feel like reading?
not to mention installing and maintaining wretched governments where democracy is either curtailed or stamped out.
The whole reason west (the governments, not you) wants democracy in muslim nations is cos of the oil, looking past that, democracy is in islam, but leaders of such nations are bunch of idiots....I have seen this in person, to them, the whole idea of being a leader of country is to rape is left and right. It's all about power and money.
And, it appears, with very little self-criticism or debate among the clerics and other characters who hold the reins of power.
Go to many muslim gatherings do ya? oh wait....you must talking from what you know from western media. Yes, more could be done by clerics and what nots, it doesn't mean they don't speak up, now days, it seems not many want the trouble of being labeled a terrorist, so many people don't talk about it as openly as they should, and people who do talk shit (kill the non-believers and all that) get the spot light more often than not, it makes it all exciting! yay.....
M, heard of this little place called Saudi Arabia? (you did say one!)
Saudi Arabia's economy is petroleum-based; roughly 75% of budget revenues and 90% of export earnings come from the oil industry. The oil industry comprises about 45% of Saudi Arabia's gross domestic product, compared with 40% from the private sector (see below). Saudi Arabia officially has about 260 billion barrels (4.1×1010 m3) of oil reserves, comprising about 24% of the world's proven total petroleum reserves
M on 01 Jan, 2009 - 8:49 pm:
While I am not saying it is right to do, but requires four extremely well reputed eye-witness "accusers" to admit that they saw the defenders sexually interact. As for gays, I am not sure what is to be done with based on teachings of Islam (even the pope doesn't like em =P)
I think the fact that stoning to death is still an acceptable form of execution does not help islam, despite needing four witnesses before it can be done.
But I do wonder about the point of putting people in jail, how is it helping anyone? it takes them off from the street for few years and feeds them with my tax money...
So you're saying cutting their hands off is better than putting them in jail? Putting them in jail might have its flaws, but at least it's a little more civlised than cutting people's limbs off.
controlling women dictatorally
erm, no, that's just men, not Islam,
While SOME western men treat women badly no matter what religion they are, it's *commonly* done in muslim countries, and is considered normal, rather than being considered unacceptable and disgusting behaviour like it is in western countries.
The whole reason west (the governments, not you) wants democracy in muslim nations is cos of the oil
Yes, that's prolly true, but being democratic and therefore part of trade agreements would benefit these countries' economics, and so it would be a win-win situation for everyone. What's wrong with that?
M, heard of this little place called Saudi Arabia?
Yes, I have. Here's what Wikipedia says:
the law requires that all Saudi citizens be Muslims. Religious freedom is virtually non-existent. The Government does not provide legal recognition or protection for freedom of religion, and it is severely restricted in practice.
(...)
Freedom of religion is severely limited. Islam is the official religion. Under the law, children of male citizens are considered Muslim, regardless of the country or the religious tradition in which they have been raised. The Government prohibits the private and public practice of other religions.
So they may have lots of money, but they are still not living up to the standard one expects of today's countries. In fact it's even worse that Saudi Arabia is being this stupid, because with all their money you'd think they would have the resources to manage their country properly.
R on 01 Jan, 2009 - 9:05 pm:
Sentences to stoning or stonings without a sentence were also reported within the last years from Sudan, Saudi-Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
In October, 2008, a Somalian girl, Aisho Ibrahim Dhuhulow was buried up to her neck at a football stadium, then stoned to death in front of more than 1,000 people.
Amnesty International later learned that the girl was in fact 13 years old (i.e. a child) and had been arrested by the al-Shabab militia after she had reported being gang-raped by three men.
Now, do you know why every white person isn’t a member of the KKK? – it’s because the majority of people see what they do, and decide that they do not want to be associated with a group that does and says and believes what they do. It’s a basic decision. If you don’t agree with what the group does, you don’t be a member.
So, why would you want to be part of a religion that condones the utter stupidity quoted above? Surely you would be completely embarrassed and ashamed to be a Muslim after learning that this happens, and would seek to distance yourself from the cause of the behaviour – i.e. ‘belonging to Islam’.
Don't take this the wrong way Q, but if I learned that that is how my religion reacted to a poor defenceless 13 year old girl who was attacked and did nothing wrong - by smashing her skull in while she watches, I would start a personal campaign to bring the religion down. What sort of animals do you have to be to do this? How can they live with themselves for murdering the girl like this? Where in the Koran does Allah say that if a child gets attacked and raped, she should have her head smashed in until she is dead?
It is utterly disgusting. I doubt any god of love would condone this murder, (“hate the sin, love the sinner”) It's clear the Islam religion has gone off the rails. How can I respect the religion after learning this? Every Muslim needs to condemn this stupid barbaric murderous unjust act, and bring the murderers to justice. Anything less (such as doing nothing) means they agree with the murder.
I hope that child becomes a martyr and a catalyst for reform in Islam.
---
And what of the lack of free will in Islam? Shouldn’t a person have the right to choose which religious faith they follow? it appears in Islam they do not, because there are consequences if they change from Islam. There is a story of a Muslim who went to Europe to live and converted to Christianity, then when he returned home, his own family shunned him and his dog was stoned to death.
Why?
Why are Muslims so scared of one of their own changing to Christianity that they forbid it, and commit personal attacks? How is that treating animals with respect?
And you can’t say "oh that's just one idiot" because it isn’t. That is what happens all the time BECAUSE they are Muslim. If the ‘idiot’ was a Christian, the ‘idiot’ wouldn’t do that!.
Why is it that in Saudi Arabia, you are not allowed by law to be anything but a Muslim? Why do they feel a need to force people to be Muslims? How can a religion that is so scared of other religions be one someone would want to be part of?
Q on 01 Jan, 2009 - 11:09 pm:
M---
So you're saying cutting their hands off is better than putting them in jail? Putting them in jail might have its flaws, but at least it's a little more civlised than cutting people's limbs off.
Nay, I just find the punishments for crimes unfitting.
Raped someone? go to jail....hardly fitting, the rape victim is suffer for years to come, and in much worse ways than just being locked up.
Killed someone? go to jail..........really? who gave you the right to take a life, sometimes, by killing one person, you effectively ruin many lives. Maybe not "eye for an eye" deal, but at least make the murderer work for rest of his life and give a share of his earnings to vicitm's family?
While SOME western men treat women badly no matter what religion they are, it's *commonly* done in muslim countries, and is considered normal, rather than being considered unacceptable and disgusting behaviour like it is in western countries.
oh? how commonly is it done? would you say every minute of the day? oh wait.....it happens in uk too!
Every minute in the UK, the police receive a call from the public for
assistance for domestic violence. This leads to police receiving an
estimated 1,300 calls each day or over 570,000 each year. (Stanko,
2000). Of these, 89% were calls by women being assaulted by men.
However, according to the government National Delivery Plan, less than
24% of domestic violence crime is reported to the police
It is not considered normal to hit one's partner, If I were to hit my mrs, not only would I have the shit beaten out of me by her, rest of the family will see to it that I am disowned.
I cant really comment on SA being stupid or not, you wanted to know a rich country! =P
R---
The Quran does not mention stoning as a punishment for adultery. The only punishment for adultery is lashings. The adultery is only proved when four eye witnesses testify that the man and woman have indeed gone further than just embracing and kissing, to have sex. The crime is also proved if one bears witness against his or her own self four times, or if there is a pregnancy. Though some hadith(too many cooks!) allow stoning, the Qur'an does not explicitly prescribe stoning as a punishment.
At the end of the day, its the people who do this, its much like "guns don't kill people, people do".
Think of god as a gun manufacturer, beacuse, lately I think that's what we really are. God just forgot to put a warnning lable on us.
M on 01 Jan, 2009 - 11:16 pm:
The Quran specifically says you're allowed to hit your wife, as long as the object with which you hit her is no bigger than the size of a toothbrush. I see that as a problem in your religion.
(So you're not allowed to hit your wife, but she gets to hit you whenever she gets upset?)
Maybe your family or Pakistan doesn't consider it normal, but many muslims and muslim countries do.
I didn't want to know a rich country, I wanted one that's not 3rd world, and no religious freedom means it's still in essence a 3rd world country.
Q on 01 Jan, 2009 - 11:35 pm:
Her hitting me is fine by me, it..er....you dont wanna know!
size of a toothbrush? can it be a small knife? O_o
R on 02 Jan, 2009 - 2:31 am:
Q: How are the muslims allowed to get away with murdering a 13 year old child because she was attacked?
Islam condones this. If it does not, the men who killed her would have been kicked out of Islam. violence, brutality and the rape of girls as young as 7 was the way of Muhammad. Muhammad slaughtered 900 Jews in one day, after he captured them in a raid that he started. How did he decide which ones to kill? - the ones who had started to grow pubic hair!
Later in my research on Islam I learned about the marriages of the Prophet to his first wife when he was 24 years old and 16 years her junior. She was a rich, twice divorced lady who proposed to Mohammed for his hand in marriage and he accepted it. Then after she died at age 72 when he was 56 years of age he married a 7 year old girl. Supposedly had sex with her when she was 9 years of age, and pronounced her mother of all Muslims at the time of his death when she was only 16 years old. So that she would never be able to marry another man.
In the last 8 to 10 years of his life the prophet Mohammed married some 15 to 46 women. Muslim apologists say that these women were all widows and that they had no place to go and no one to take care of them so God ordered his prophet to marry them. I find this excuse so preposterous. Ayesha whom he married when she was only seven years old was a child. Zynab was married to prophet¹s adopted son and was quite happily married till he asked his son Zayd to divorce his wife so he could marry her. In order to get the approval of the Gorish tribe, he brought the excuse that "a Muslim man is not allowed to raise another man¹s child, therefore, Zayd is not his son, because he adopted Zayd prior to his ordaination as a Muslim prophet." That is the main reason adoption is not legal in Islamic countries. And Reyhaneh was a beautiful married woman when her husband was decapitated by the prophet¹s bandits and taken to the prophet¹s bed the same night. These women were not widowed. They indeed had some one to take care of them .
Islam suffers from a complete lack of centralised information organisation. Everyone is left to themselves to work out what is what. Beliefs, practices and traditions are passed on only from family to family, and of course, they are changed and modified slightly each time. The only thing you have in common is the Koran, which most of you don't read anyway.
And one thing about treating animals with respect, how is killing one treating it with respect?
Ivana on 02 Jan, 2009 - 1:52 pm:
Have been out of cyber contact for a few days and have read with interest how this debate has developed.
Q, you have answered our questions with great eloquence, and I thank you for enlightening, although perhaps not convincing, me in several areas. Also, thanks to you, M, for allowing us this space.
How ideal it would be if we humans beings could permanantly discard the trash pushed in our directions by intolerant, religious fundamentalism, whether it be Hindu, Christian or Muslim.
R on 02 Jan, 2009 - 4:25 pm:
I: Well, I do. I only believe that which is proven to me, and as such any religious stuff is automatically excluded from my life.
Blue Mountains
Posted in 'My travels' on December 28, 2008
On Friday we went up to the Blue Mountains. R has been there before and assured me that I would like it, and I did. Here are the photos.
We are going home today, we decided to take the regular train/bus, despite it taking longer than it should. It will take us about two hours to get the airport, instead of one. We will arrive at Brisbane airport at 8 pm, and will be home shortly afterwards.
It has been fun visiting R's parents. R is very cheeky with his mum (jokingly of course) and his dad thinks it's really funny, and then gets in trouble with R's mum for thinking it's funny:)
Nice mountains, they should offer paragliding back to Katoomba!
Noticed your comment about the muslim girls who were made to cover up in 27C, not that I am advocating why it's right etc, just thought you'd like to know that the head covering comes in quite a range, one for every type of weather condition one might say, it has some what of a fashion appeal these days.
M on 28 Dec, 2008 - 11:06 pm:
Fashion appeal. Yeah cuz sexism is so stylish.
the mountains were kewl, you should go some times:)
Q on 29 Dec, 2008 - 4:17 am:
If one is to suffer, why not suffer in style! =P
M on 29 Dec, 2008 - 4:52 pm:
So even tho covering up is meant to protect women from being perved at by men, it's perfectly ok trying to look sexy while covering up? They are in other words making covering up sexy.
Kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it?
Q on 29 Dec, 2008 - 6:41 pm:
I wouldnt call what they are wearing "sexy", to me it looks like more beads and colours.
M on 29 Dec, 2008 - 6:51 pm:
Maybe not, but they are trying to make it look good. Why make yourself look good if you'd rather not be looked at?
Q on 30 Dec, 2008 - 1:09 am:
M, It's not an head cover wearing individual's fault for this "fashion wear", for all we know, It's some corporate thinking there's a market for it, and you know how whacky fashion designers can be, they even made swimsuites for muslim women...and they should tell you something.
You really need to look at this more thoroughly, yes women are forced to wear head covers in 3rd world countries, but there are many educated women in westren side of the world, with jobs, who choose to do it, why they do it is not my problem, they have a choice. I am pretty sure this fashion is aimed at them, and not the 3rd world women who have bigger worries than what colour scarf they want to use to cover their head.
M on 30 Dec, 2008 - 1:17 am:
There would be no business for the corporations if people chose not to wear them.
I wasn't discussing the sexist side of it, I was saying that when the whole point of covering up is to hide any bulges that men may enjoy looking at, then why would you make yourself look good while trying to cover up anything that's interesting to look at?
In the western world they have a choice of covering up or not, but if they over up for religious reasons then it's completely illogical for them to try to look good at the same time. Who are they trying to look good for?
0 Comments [+] | Entry Link
Subscribe [+]
