In a second hand bookshop I recently found a book (published in the 1960s) which was a series of essays in praise of capitalism, by Ayn Rand and a few others.
The most striking thing about her ideas is how they became so popular. Rand was a Russian immigrant who fled the Bolshevik Revolution, and thus became an ardent anti-Communist and arch-capitalist. Considering her traumatic early life experience, it´s not hard to see why.
Her school of thought can be traced through the 20th century to today: from the the actions of financiers that led to the Great Depression; to the formation of the Chicago School; to the establishment of Monetarism and "Reaganomics"; to Newt Gingrich´s "Contract with America" in the 1990s; to the actions of the "Neocons" during the Bush II administration; and finally to the beliefs of the Tea Party.
What all these successive "belief systems" share is a core value that government (and collective action) is by nature evil, and that individuals (human beings) are by nature good. Looking at this viewpoint from a different, moralistic, way: altruism and selflessness (according to Rand´s logic) is precisely what led to Communism, therefore the only way to defeat this "evil" is to abolish government and allow private individuals the right to figure things out for themselves.
From Dante´s description of Lucifer as the fallen angel who fell in love with humanity and loathed the collective moralising of God, Rand´s moral compass seems very close to the beliefs of Lucifer. Because, in essence, it could be argued that Lucifer was humanity´s first model for anarchism: to destroy all things that hold humanity back from the unrelenting pursuit of self.
This, then, is the conclusion of Rand´s creed: the ultimate, individualistic pursuit of selfishness. Rand argues that human progress only happens in societies which are rational and free - by which she means free of government regulation, government welfare (because she sees "welfare" as an intrusion into the lives of individuals) and so on. She argues that all human discovery happened when people were free to pursue their goals free of government influence.
All this sounds idealistic and appealing to an extent (as it is meant to), but it disguises a ruthless truth: that unregulated capitalism in the real world leads inevitably, not to a free market heaven, but to an oligarchic hell. Companies, by their nature, are psychopathic: they care about the profit motive, and are very far from "rational". Short-termism, making a quick buck, cutting corners, downsizing, these are all words that abound in the capitalist world created by the disciples of Ayn Rand like Alan Greenspan and the like. Let´s not forget that now there are only a few major banks left in the USA, thanks to the deregulation that Rand promoted, and created the conditions for the financial crisis. Goldman Sachs is now the primary shareholder of the USA; many of its former employees now run the government, or ran the last one.
So the primary economic model that runs the largest, most important economy in the world, was devised by....well, you know what I mean.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Obama´s Luck: is he a Clinton, or a Carter?
With the midterm elections this November, and the fact that Obama and the Democrats are expecting to lose out to the Republicans, what might this mean for Obama´s presidency?
The fates of the last two Democratic presidents at the same point in their terms may hold some answers, both positive and negative.
Carter, coming to power on the back of a wave of anti-Republicanism in 1976, faced a host of domestic problems. In the midterms if 1978, inspite of these problems, and the fact that he was quickly seen as well-intentioned but ineffective leader, the Democrats lost only a small number of seats. That said, two years later, with a resurgent GOP and a charismatic leader, Ronald Reagan, Carter was trounced in the 1980.
Clinton came to power in 1992 but made a number of mistakes, so by the 1994 midterms the resurgent Republicans, led by aggressive speaker Newt Gingrich, wiped out much of the Democrats power base. That said, Clinton quickly found his feet and bounced back, Gingrich´s power went to his head, and by 1996 Clinton was a shoo-in to win a second term, and did. We all know the rest.
So where does this put Obama in 2010? The way that the Republican grassroots base has been hijacked by the Tea Party seems similar to the way that Reagan took the Republicans in a new, even more right-wing "free market" direction after 1976, when the Monetarists and bankers took command of Reagan´s economic policy.
The problem with drawing too many similarities to Carter´s fate is that the Republicans of 2010 do not seem to have a charismatic leader (as they had in Reagan in 1978), apart from the antics of Sarah Palin, who largely appeals to the party base rather than the wider public.
This is why the fate of Clinton might offer more hope for Obama. The antics of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party have more in common with the theatrics of Newt Gingrich in the ´90s. Assuming that the Democrats are badly defeated in November, the Tea Party may well commit the same error that Gingrich made - becoming arrogant in the extreme, to the point that turns off ordinary people.
This is the Democrats secret hope now, no doubt. This gives Obama hope for the chances of winning a second term if the Tea Party bandwagon´s wheels quickly start falling off once it is given the limelight of political responsibility after success in the midterms. Certainly, the behaviour of the partisan Tea Party gives some weight to this point of view.
The Democrats dread, therefore, is that the "guy on main street" may see the antics of the Tea Party, but still consider them the lesser of two "evils" - the "evil" of big government versus the "evil" of no government, and prefer no government interference to well-intentioned initiatives from Washington.
The complicating factor in all this is the economy. The "recovery" has yet to really take hold, and the country may well remain sluggish beyond 2012, because recoveries after crises are never quick to take hold. After the "lost decade" of the 2000s that the Bush administration presided over added weight to the lie that Republicans are responsible managers of the economy (under Reagan and Bush Jr, they allowed the national debt to balloon to offset low taxes). And yet, people are turning back to them so quickly after the tumultuous first two years of the Obama administration. Patience may be a virtue, but it is one that is sorely lacking in many Americans in need of jobs and financial assistance.
The horrible irony is that the Republicans may be rewarded for not only wrecking the economy, but also sabotaging the recovery.
The fates of the last two Democratic presidents at the same point in their terms may hold some answers, both positive and negative.
Carter, coming to power on the back of a wave of anti-Republicanism in 1976, faced a host of domestic problems. In the midterms if 1978, inspite of these problems, and the fact that he was quickly seen as well-intentioned but ineffective leader, the Democrats lost only a small number of seats. That said, two years later, with a resurgent GOP and a charismatic leader, Ronald Reagan, Carter was trounced in the 1980.
Clinton came to power in 1992 but made a number of mistakes, so by the 1994 midterms the resurgent Republicans, led by aggressive speaker Newt Gingrich, wiped out much of the Democrats power base. That said, Clinton quickly found his feet and bounced back, Gingrich´s power went to his head, and by 1996 Clinton was a shoo-in to win a second term, and did. We all know the rest.
So where does this put Obama in 2010? The way that the Republican grassroots base has been hijacked by the Tea Party seems similar to the way that Reagan took the Republicans in a new, even more right-wing "free market" direction after 1976, when the Monetarists and bankers took command of Reagan´s economic policy.
The problem with drawing too many similarities to Carter´s fate is that the Republicans of 2010 do not seem to have a charismatic leader (as they had in Reagan in 1978), apart from the antics of Sarah Palin, who largely appeals to the party base rather than the wider public.
This is why the fate of Clinton might offer more hope for Obama. The antics of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party have more in common with the theatrics of Newt Gingrich in the ´90s. Assuming that the Democrats are badly defeated in November, the Tea Party may well commit the same error that Gingrich made - becoming arrogant in the extreme, to the point that turns off ordinary people.
This is the Democrats secret hope now, no doubt. This gives Obama hope for the chances of winning a second term if the Tea Party bandwagon´s wheels quickly start falling off once it is given the limelight of political responsibility after success in the midterms. Certainly, the behaviour of the partisan Tea Party gives some weight to this point of view.
The Democrats dread, therefore, is that the "guy on main street" may see the antics of the Tea Party, but still consider them the lesser of two "evils" - the "evil" of big government versus the "evil" of no government, and prefer no government interference to well-intentioned initiatives from Washington.
The complicating factor in all this is the economy. The "recovery" has yet to really take hold, and the country may well remain sluggish beyond 2012, because recoveries after crises are never quick to take hold. After the "lost decade" of the 2000s that the Bush administration presided over added weight to the lie that Republicans are responsible managers of the economy (under Reagan and Bush Jr, they allowed the national debt to balloon to offset low taxes). And yet, people are turning back to them so quickly after the tumultuous first two years of the Obama administration. Patience may be a virtue, but it is one that is sorely lacking in many Americans in need of jobs and financial assistance.
The horrible irony is that the Republicans may be rewarded for not only wrecking the economy, but also sabotaging the recovery.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
The Devil Votes Republican
The popularity of the Republican is a true work of art. It is a political organisation whose continual success and re-invention can only be explained through the kind of cunning that Satan himself would be proud of.
First of all, a brief history.
Created around the time of the Civil War, the first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln (who has been admired by many ever since). Although he was assassinated, the party went on to dominate US politics for the rest of the 19th century, being in power almost continually throughout the Gilded Age, all the way up to the Great Depression (excepting Woodrow Wilson and Grover Cleveland). Its low point was the twenty-year absence from power while FDR and Truman ruled the roost at the White House.
The modern Republican Party came about through the efforts of Ronald Reagan (for Eisenhower and the Nixon-Ford administration ran the country as moderates in the traditional Republican mould). Since the time of Reagan, the GOP has morphed into something else; an altogether more fearsome creature.
What does the Republican Party stand for?
A good question, considering its continual success and re-invention. First of all, who votes for them, and why?
A short answer could be average God-fearing, socially-conservative patriots, who fear the government, want to pay low taxes, have the right to earn their money and defend the "average guy on the street", be fiscally responsible, and to be defended against foreign enemies. In other words, traditional Protestant values that have existed in the American psyche since Washington´s day.
The beauty of the Republican Party is that they have successfully been able to persuade people that the country´s best interests are best served with them, and been able to persuade them that this is still true even when faced with clear facts that show them the opposite.
"The country´s best interests" though, depends on how you define them. Where most people might see "the country´s best interests" as meaning "the people´s best interests", the Republican Party sees this as meaning "the best interests of those who own the most in the country".
Foreign policy is an instrument of trying to expand the commercial interests of its funders. This does not equate to the same thing as the people´s interests, as the companies that fund the GOP simply want to expand abroad; if that means closing a factory in Michigan to relocate abroad, then great, as money knows no borders. In this logic, there is no such thing as the "national interest"; as these companies own or buy influence over the nation´s assets, these companies are the "national interest". Patriotism is nothing more than a
The Republican Party´s Foreign policy is, in fact, it´s only real "policy".
What stands for "Domestic policy" is nothing more than another instrument to make the conditions best for those who control the most; deregulation of banking (as first pushed by Merril Lynch´s Don Regan, who acted as Ronald Reagan´s Treasury Secretary and later Chief of Staff) is essential to this function. As are all forms of deregulation. For the companies with the most can only flourish the most if there are no rules holding them back.
"The government does best when it does the least" - this is the Republican slogan. A beautiful logical absurdity: by definition government exists because there is an absence of something. If government exists only to destroy then government by definition is no real government at all. In its place there is a vacuum; anarchy.
The Republican Party seems to want to create a form of anarchy whereby the American people simply pay taxes to fund the "defence of the nation" (meaning "commercial expansion of the elite´s foreign interests"). Taken to its logical conclusion, domestic policy would no longer exist: the government has outsourced all its domestic operations so that it no longer needs to directly spend money on any of its citizens. The people fend for themselves while the "government" uses its taxes to expand its foreign operations. And as the government´s interests expand abroad, this necessarily leads to a further degradation of the conditions at home.
There is a word for this. It´s called tyranny.
This is the Republican dream. To allow this dream to become a reality, vote Republican. Vote Satan
First of all, a brief history.
Created around the time of the Civil War, the first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln (who has been admired by many ever since). Although he was assassinated, the party went on to dominate US politics for the rest of the 19th century, being in power almost continually throughout the Gilded Age, all the way up to the Great Depression (excepting Woodrow Wilson and Grover Cleveland). Its low point was the twenty-year absence from power while FDR and Truman ruled the roost at the White House.
The modern Republican Party came about through the efforts of Ronald Reagan (for Eisenhower and the Nixon-Ford administration ran the country as moderates in the traditional Republican mould). Since the time of Reagan, the GOP has morphed into something else; an altogether more fearsome creature.
What does the Republican Party stand for?
A good question, considering its continual success and re-invention. First of all, who votes for them, and why?
A short answer could be average God-fearing, socially-conservative patriots, who fear the government, want to pay low taxes, have the right to earn their money and defend the "average guy on the street", be fiscally responsible, and to be defended against foreign enemies. In other words, traditional Protestant values that have existed in the American psyche since Washington´s day.
The beauty of the Republican Party is that they have successfully been able to persuade people that the country´s best interests are best served with them, and been able to persuade them that this is still true even when faced with clear facts that show them the opposite.
"The country´s best interests" though, depends on how you define them. Where most people might see "the country´s best interests" as meaning "the people´s best interests", the Republican Party sees this as meaning "the best interests of those who own the most in the country".
Foreign policy is an instrument of trying to expand the commercial interests of its funders. This does not equate to the same thing as the people´s interests, as the companies that fund the GOP simply want to expand abroad; if that means closing a factory in Michigan to relocate abroad, then great, as money knows no borders. In this logic, there is no such thing as the "national interest"; as these companies own or buy influence over the nation´s assets, these companies are the "national interest". Patriotism is nothing more than a
The Republican Party´s Foreign policy is, in fact, it´s only real "policy".
What stands for "Domestic policy" is nothing more than another instrument to make the conditions best for those who control the most; deregulation of banking (as first pushed by Merril Lynch´s Don Regan, who acted as Ronald Reagan´s Treasury Secretary and later Chief of Staff) is essential to this function. As are all forms of deregulation. For the companies with the most can only flourish the most if there are no rules holding them back.
"The government does best when it does the least" - this is the Republican slogan. A beautiful logical absurdity: by definition government exists because there is an absence of something. If government exists only to destroy then government by definition is no real government at all. In its place there is a vacuum; anarchy.
The Republican Party seems to want to create a form of anarchy whereby the American people simply pay taxes to fund the "defence of the nation" (meaning "commercial expansion of the elite´s foreign interests"). Taken to its logical conclusion, domestic policy would no longer exist: the government has outsourced all its domestic operations so that it no longer needs to directly spend money on any of its citizens. The people fend for themselves while the "government" uses its taxes to expand its foreign operations. And as the government´s interests expand abroad, this necessarily leads to a further degradation of the conditions at home.
There is a word for this. It´s called tyranny.
This is the Republican dream. To allow this dream to become a reality, vote Republican. Vote Satan
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Progress...and the real meaning
Stood in crowded conditions, barely able to move, for hours each day.
These were the conditions that slaves in past centuries were shipped in to their new places of work.
These are also the conditions which millions of us tolerate today when we go to work.
The difference? Slaves had no choice. People today choose to tolerate much the same conditions every day that slaves fought to break away from two hundred years ago.
Transport to and around town was fifteen miles per hour by horsecarriage.
In many cities in the world, it takes about the same.
The difference? Horseback was the fastest way of getting around. Now we have buses and the technology for more efficient transport networks. But most people still prefer to go by car and sit in the traffic jam. So people choose to tolerate (while stressing about) travelling at the same speed society did a hundred years ago.
People work twelve-hour days, but are paid for only eight of them.
During the Industrial Revolution this was the norm, as workers rights were still in their infancy. In the 21st century much of industrialised society work exactly the hours, just doing different jobs.
The difference? Two hundred years ago workers had no rights. Now workers still work under the same conditions because they feel "obliged" by the work environment.
So what happened? Where is the "progress"?
Johnathon Swift got it right in "Gulliver´s Travels" when he said that all that changes in human society were simply advances in technology, not society. He used the example of warfare, but it could be applied to just about anything; the media (newsprint giving way to TV and the internet); working conditions; lifestyle.
Real progress should be about human life becoming easier - that´s what all the scientists of the past fantasised about: humans having no work. But the reality has become the opposite. Human society merely uses technology for its own ends.
Email and the internet brings more obligations to our lives (if no-one is ever out of touch with the office any more, where does quality free time come into the equation?).
Increased traffic slows down our lives precisely while we are expected to work and operate faster. The result: stress.
As cities get bigger as we are encouraged to move into them for work purposes, it makes travel more a part of life than it was for workers even before the Industrial Revolution: "commuting" is just another word for slave transportation.
So what is the answer?
Think about this: time and money are all relative concepts. Does it matter if we work an extra few hours per day, or a few less? Does "work" ever stop? Saying that "I need to get these things done" at work is a meaningless statement because there´s ALWAYS something that needs to be done: that´s the nature of work.
Better for society to think like this: keep to regulations about working hours (as in France). Because if we all stick to the same standards, nobody will be competing to do too much, or worry about trying to do more than someone else. If we limit the amount of commuting in cities (by trying to organise society better so that cities don´t get too big, but grow at a sustainable rate) then society will be better overall.
Health suffers from all the stresses caused by the "pressure" from modern living. The problem is that the human mind is expanding at a rate that out human metabolism has difficulty in keeping up with. Don´t forget that we´re only a few thousand years a from hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Our bodies need time to regenerate each day; psychologically, we need quality free time. We need trees. We need silence, at least once a week.
OK, that´s all. Thanks for your time.
Good day and good luck, people!
These were the conditions that slaves in past centuries were shipped in to their new places of work.
These are also the conditions which millions of us tolerate today when we go to work.
The difference? Slaves had no choice. People today choose to tolerate much the same conditions every day that slaves fought to break away from two hundred years ago.
Transport to and around town was fifteen miles per hour by horsecarriage.
In many cities in the world, it takes about the same.
The difference? Horseback was the fastest way of getting around. Now we have buses and the technology for more efficient transport networks. But most people still prefer to go by car and sit in the traffic jam. So people choose to tolerate (while stressing about) travelling at the same speed society did a hundred years ago.
People work twelve-hour days, but are paid for only eight of them.
During the Industrial Revolution this was the norm, as workers rights were still in their infancy. In the 21st century much of industrialised society work exactly the hours, just doing different jobs.
The difference? Two hundred years ago workers had no rights. Now workers still work under the same conditions because they feel "obliged" by the work environment.
So what happened? Where is the "progress"?
Johnathon Swift got it right in "Gulliver´s Travels" when he said that all that changes in human society were simply advances in technology, not society. He used the example of warfare, but it could be applied to just about anything; the media (newsprint giving way to TV and the internet); working conditions; lifestyle.
Real progress should be about human life becoming easier - that´s what all the scientists of the past fantasised about: humans having no work. But the reality has become the opposite. Human society merely uses technology for its own ends.
Email and the internet brings more obligations to our lives (if no-one is ever out of touch with the office any more, where does quality free time come into the equation?).
Increased traffic slows down our lives precisely while we are expected to work and operate faster. The result: stress.
As cities get bigger as we are encouraged to move into them for work purposes, it makes travel more a part of life than it was for workers even before the Industrial Revolution: "commuting" is just another word for slave transportation.
So what is the answer?
Think about this: time and money are all relative concepts. Does it matter if we work an extra few hours per day, or a few less? Does "work" ever stop? Saying that "I need to get these things done" at work is a meaningless statement because there´s ALWAYS something that needs to be done: that´s the nature of work.
Better for society to think like this: keep to regulations about working hours (as in France). Because if we all stick to the same standards, nobody will be competing to do too much, or worry about trying to do more than someone else. If we limit the amount of commuting in cities (by trying to organise society better so that cities don´t get too big, but grow at a sustainable rate) then society will be better overall.
Health suffers from all the stresses caused by the "pressure" from modern living. The problem is that the human mind is expanding at a rate that out human metabolism has difficulty in keeping up with. Don´t forget that we´re only a few thousand years a from hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Our bodies need time to regenerate each day; psychologically, we need quality free time. We need trees. We need silence, at least once a week.
OK, that´s all. Thanks for your time.
Good day and good luck, people!
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Istanbul, summer 2010: A Chronicle Of Absurdity and Despair
We arrived in Istanbul on the 1st July.
When we arrived our main priorities were getting a flat, a job, and getting married.
To know properly about getting married we went to the British Consulate the day after we arrived (Lala had asked the Turkish embassy in Baku about this, but had been given the moronic answer that foreigners can´t get married there, while I did some research on the internet for the procedures). They told us that we had to wait three weeks before we could put up a marriage notice, according to the regulations. Very Well.
We then looked for a flat in the meantime. We were staying on Asmali Mescid street in Taksim, a routinely noisy place at night, and the noise and crowds of Taksim quickly wore us down in a matter of days. We first looked for a flat in Bakirkoy, but then switched to Atakoy and after viewing several flats, found one which we liked. Atakoy is not a cheap place to stay, but the price was reasonable (for Isranbul) for a fully-furnished modern flat with a sea view and surrounded by trees and peace and quiet.
That said, once we chose the flat, bureaucracy and fees got in the way. Requiring a deposit of two months up front, agents commission fees as well as a countersigner (though thankfully the landlord was happy for Lala to do the honours there), this gave us a day of stress and worry. Also, I had a stressful time trying to organise the money for these payments, which took some days and caused the agents a few insistent phonecalls to us. Not very pleasant, but we got the money and the flat, and moved in just under two weeks before we arrived.
It was at this point that I realised that my dear Istanbul was no longer the cheap metropolis I had once known. Money seemed to evaporate into thin air, creating more financial worry and stress on my part.
After the three weeks had elapsed, we returned to the UK consulate with my documents, only to discover that they needed a birth certificate with my parents name on it. I didn´t have one. This then meant I had to apply for one through the internet, and while waiting for this to arrive, sit around in our flat.
By this time it was early August, and the stress of trying to organise the marriage, and also try to get a job (though later in the month I was offered a job at British Side to start in late September; Lala still looking for work), we decided we needed a break from all the hassle and went to Bodrum for a few days. Even this, though, did not escape my financial worries (although hwe had a great time), as we had to stay two nights longer than we expected due to the coaches to Istanbul being so full.
We returned to Istanbul and my certificate had finally arrived, and so we could make the marriage declaration. I could then collect my certificate on no impediment three weeks later (at the start of September).
When the time finally came, we went to the Istanbul authority on the same day (this was a few days before our parents were due to arrive in expectation of our wedding day) to certify our documents. There was a problem. Lala´s Azeri documents had not been notarised in Turkey, but in Azerbaijan before we arrived. The Turkish authorities needed a document of no impediment from the embassy directly.
This then meant going to the Azeri embassy for two days (standing in a "queue", though this was just a list of names on a first-come-first-served basis, so we put our name on the list, went to a nearby cafe and periodically went back to see how the "queue" was moving). When she finally went inside, they said her document would take three days to process.
Then there was the medical certificate. We had to go to a medical centre to have a "check up" (in reality the doctor asked us two questions), and then, we had our birth certificates notarised and translated (although these had already been checked by our national embassies in order to get a document of no impediment). By this time, it was the third week in September.
Once Lala´s document from her embassy was ready to collect, we then realised that we had to get our passports translated and notarised as well. All these delays meant that our parents´time here would no longer include staying for our wedding. We went to the local registar in Atakoy, only to be told of a final, absurd, hurdle. Even though we were staying in a rented flat in Atakoy, because we didn´t have residence permits (we were still tourists at the time), according to Turkish procedures, we were supposed to stay in a hotel and get a document from the hotel saying we were registered guests there. It was the evening of this day when, hearing this news, we were almost ready to have a nervous breakdown. These procedures had not been mentioned by any of the authorities.
By this point, I had burned through a large portion of my savings (so that I was getting worried how I could possibly organise my finances), but I should also talk about Lala´s job-searching exploits. As an Azeri with a CELTA, after applying at countless schools, by late August only English Time had expressed an interest in her (then the woman offering the job went to the USA, leaving her Turkish understudy in charge, who then forgot all about the job offer). Perhaps it was for the best anyway, because by the second half of September, finally Lala´s luck changed and she got three job interviews. Two were part-time teaching positions, while the third was teaching Russian (Lala´s first language) at ILM. Then, when she called to confirm about the ILM job they replied that they only wanted "Russian" teachers; incredibly, they did not believe that Lala, being from Azerbaijan, could possibly know Russian so well. They never bothered to check, though, because they didn´t speak Russian.
So I started work at British Side while Lala was waiting for her visa run before she could start the part-time teaching jobs in October. We were both on three-month visas, and though I had managed to get a residence permit organised, Lala still needed to renew her visa.
To save on money, she got a bus to Georgia (Bulgaria and Greece requiring visa paperwork) on the 28th September. Then, at the Turkish-Georgian border, she was told that she had overstayed her visa by two months, and had to pay a fine and be allowed back into Turkey three months later. Or be deported and not come back for five years. Now, this is the thing: when she arrived the customs said her visa was valid for three months, as was mine. But, over the summer the Turkish aurthorities had decided to clamp down on their flexible regulations. The UK was also in the firing line, but the British authorities had managed to make the Turks see that tightening visa regulations would damage British tourism, so had postponed their plans for UK visas. The Azeris I guess had no such luck, as Azerbaijan had earlier this year tightened on its visa-free regime to Turkey (partly because Turkey had sought better relations with Armenia); in response, Turkey did the same to Azerbaijan. Now Azeris could only stay in Turkey for one month, not three. Except that for Lala to be fined retrospectively for overstaying what had been a three-month visa was absurd. Of course, we didn´t know about these visa changes until this morning. Teaching English is practically impossible for Lala in Turkey.
So now, Lala is no longer in Turkey, and I am stuck here for the time being. No wedding, no fiancee. Life without love is a prison. Going home to an empty flat full of your partner´s belongings is a heartbreaking experience. I only hope a solution and a way out of Turkey come up soon.
When we arrived our main priorities were getting a flat, a job, and getting married.
To know properly about getting married we went to the British Consulate the day after we arrived (Lala had asked the Turkish embassy in Baku about this, but had been given the moronic answer that foreigners can´t get married there, while I did some research on the internet for the procedures). They told us that we had to wait three weeks before we could put up a marriage notice, according to the regulations. Very Well.
We then looked for a flat in the meantime. We were staying on Asmali Mescid street in Taksim, a routinely noisy place at night, and the noise and crowds of Taksim quickly wore us down in a matter of days. We first looked for a flat in Bakirkoy, but then switched to Atakoy and after viewing several flats, found one which we liked. Atakoy is not a cheap place to stay, but the price was reasonable (for Isranbul) for a fully-furnished modern flat with a sea view and surrounded by trees and peace and quiet.
That said, once we chose the flat, bureaucracy and fees got in the way. Requiring a deposit of two months up front, agents commission fees as well as a countersigner (though thankfully the landlord was happy for Lala to do the honours there), this gave us a day of stress and worry. Also, I had a stressful time trying to organise the money for these payments, which took some days and caused the agents a few insistent phonecalls to us. Not very pleasant, but we got the money and the flat, and moved in just under two weeks before we arrived.
It was at this point that I realised that my dear Istanbul was no longer the cheap metropolis I had once known. Money seemed to evaporate into thin air, creating more financial worry and stress on my part.
After the three weeks had elapsed, we returned to the UK consulate with my documents, only to discover that they needed a birth certificate with my parents name on it. I didn´t have one. This then meant I had to apply for one through the internet, and while waiting for this to arrive, sit around in our flat.
By this time it was early August, and the stress of trying to organise the marriage, and also try to get a job (though later in the month I was offered a job at British Side to start in late September; Lala still looking for work), we decided we needed a break from all the hassle and went to Bodrum for a few days. Even this, though, did not escape my financial worries (although hwe had a great time), as we had to stay two nights longer than we expected due to the coaches to Istanbul being so full.
We returned to Istanbul and my certificate had finally arrived, and so we could make the marriage declaration. I could then collect my certificate on no impediment three weeks later (at the start of September).
When the time finally came, we went to the Istanbul authority on the same day (this was a few days before our parents were due to arrive in expectation of our wedding day) to certify our documents. There was a problem. Lala´s Azeri documents had not been notarised in Turkey, but in Azerbaijan before we arrived. The Turkish authorities needed a document of no impediment from the embassy directly.
This then meant going to the Azeri embassy for two days (standing in a "queue", though this was just a list of names on a first-come-first-served basis, so we put our name on the list, went to a nearby cafe and periodically went back to see how the "queue" was moving). When she finally went inside, they said her document would take three days to process.
Then there was the medical certificate. We had to go to a medical centre to have a "check up" (in reality the doctor asked us two questions), and then, we had our birth certificates notarised and translated (although these had already been checked by our national embassies in order to get a document of no impediment). By this time, it was the third week in September.
Once Lala´s document from her embassy was ready to collect, we then realised that we had to get our passports translated and notarised as well. All these delays meant that our parents´time here would no longer include staying for our wedding. We went to the local registar in Atakoy, only to be told of a final, absurd, hurdle. Even though we were staying in a rented flat in Atakoy, because we didn´t have residence permits (we were still tourists at the time), according to Turkish procedures, we were supposed to stay in a hotel and get a document from the hotel saying we were registered guests there. It was the evening of this day when, hearing this news, we were almost ready to have a nervous breakdown. These procedures had not been mentioned by any of the authorities.
By this point, I had burned through a large portion of my savings (so that I was getting worried how I could possibly organise my finances), but I should also talk about Lala´s job-searching exploits. As an Azeri with a CELTA, after applying at countless schools, by late August only English Time had expressed an interest in her (then the woman offering the job went to the USA, leaving her Turkish understudy in charge, who then forgot all about the job offer). Perhaps it was for the best anyway, because by the second half of September, finally Lala´s luck changed and she got three job interviews. Two were part-time teaching positions, while the third was teaching Russian (Lala´s first language) at ILM. Then, when she called to confirm about the ILM job they replied that they only wanted "Russian" teachers; incredibly, they did not believe that Lala, being from Azerbaijan, could possibly know Russian so well. They never bothered to check, though, because they didn´t speak Russian.
So I started work at British Side while Lala was waiting for her visa run before she could start the part-time teaching jobs in October. We were both on three-month visas, and though I had managed to get a residence permit organised, Lala still needed to renew her visa.
To save on money, she got a bus to Georgia (Bulgaria and Greece requiring visa paperwork) on the 28th September. Then, at the Turkish-Georgian border, she was told that she had overstayed her visa by two months, and had to pay a fine and be allowed back into Turkey three months later. Or be deported and not come back for five years. Now, this is the thing: when she arrived the customs said her visa was valid for three months, as was mine. But, over the summer the Turkish aurthorities had decided to clamp down on their flexible regulations. The UK was also in the firing line, but the British authorities had managed to make the Turks see that tightening visa regulations would damage British tourism, so had postponed their plans for UK visas. The Azeris I guess had no such luck, as Azerbaijan had earlier this year tightened on its visa-free regime to Turkey (partly because Turkey had sought better relations with Armenia); in response, Turkey did the same to Azerbaijan. Now Azeris could only stay in Turkey for one month, not three. Except that for Lala to be fined retrospectively for overstaying what had been a three-month visa was absurd. Of course, we didn´t know about these visa changes until this morning. Teaching English is practically impossible for Lala in Turkey.
So now, Lala is no longer in Turkey, and I am stuck here for the time being. No wedding, no fiancee. Life without love is a prison. Going home to an empty flat full of your partner´s belongings is a heartbreaking experience. I only hope a solution and a way out of Turkey come up soon.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Things aren´t what they used to be...
After recently reading about how much of a sex god JFK was, someone might be led to think "why did Jacqueline put up with it all?".
This is a good question, and when I read about stories in, for example, the "Daily Mail" that criticise our modern culture and lack of family values compared to the "Golden Years" of the 1950s, that´s when I start to wonder about some people´s memory of the past.
Question: do people have more social freedom that fifty years ago? Obviously, yes.
Question: Is that a good or bad thing? Yes and no.
It´s easy to think of the years in the past when the divorce rate was much lower, families stayed together, and so on, but all that "domestic bliss" was a double-edged sword.
Much of that "bliss" was a cover behind rampant adultery on the part of men, not to mention domestic violence that went unspoken of publicly. All that occurred in the privacy of the home fifty years ago is now very much considered part of the public domain.
The reason why Jacqueline never considered divorcing the rampantly adulterous JFK was probably because she simply was able to tolerate it. Fifty years ago, there were also far more loveless marriages of convenience (JFK and Jacqueline one of them, as I understand), but both parties tolerated making such a sacrifice for a "greater good". Related to that is the fact that social intolerance was also tolerated far more: racism was a part of life for many blacks; the gay community tolerated and adapted to their hidden status. Everywhere, people were making sacrifices with their personal freedoms and rights, making do with a half a life.
Am I saying this was better in some ways? No; just different.
With the rise of civil rights in the sixties and seventies there also came a subsequent increase in individualism and self-interest. I think the two points are related. Greater personal freedoms naturally gives people a greater sense of entitlement, and are less willing to make sacrifices in their personal happiness for the sake of others.
Nowadays we´re living in a much more tolerant society; and also intolerant. Fifty years ago, people tolerated intolerance in society. Nowadays, people are intolerant to intolerance. Fifty years ago, people made sacrifices everyday; nowadays, people find it more difficult.
The rise of individualism can be linked to the collapse of the "family" unit. That´s what social conservatives say, anyway. But the "family unit" had been living as a sham for decades before the social evolution that occurred in the 1960s. You only have to look at the private lives of the "iconic" rich and famous (who some in the media still gold up as moral paragons of virtue - Churchill, an alcoholic; FDR had a sham marriage for decades; Sinatra was a womaniser; and so on) to see that.
No, things aren´t what they used to be. But, then again, they never were in the first place.
This is a good question, and when I read about stories in, for example, the "Daily Mail" that criticise our modern culture and lack of family values compared to the "Golden Years" of the 1950s, that´s when I start to wonder about some people´s memory of the past.
Question: do people have more social freedom that fifty years ago? Obviously, yes.
Question: Is that a good or bad thing? Yes and no.
It´s easy to think of the years in the past when the divorce rate was much lower, families stayed together, and so on, but all that "domestic bliss" was a double-edged sword.
Much of that "bliss" was a cover behind rampant adultery on the part of men, not to mention domestic violence that went unspoken of publicly. All that occurred in the privacy of the home fifty years ago is now very much considered part of the public domain.
The reason why Jacqueline never considered divorcing the rampantly adulterous JFK was probably because she simply was able to tolerate it. Fifty years ago, there were also far more loveless marriages of convenience (JFK and Jacqueline one of them, as I understand), but both parties tolerated making such a sacrifice for a "greater good". Related to that is the fact that social intolerance was also tolerated far more: racism was a part of life for many blacks; the gay community tolerated and adapted to their hidden status. Everywhere, people were making sacrifices with their personal freedoms and rights, making do with a half a life.
Am I saying this was better in some ways? No; just different.
With the rise of civil rights in the sixties and seventies there also came a subsequent increase in individualism and self-interest. I think the two points are related. Greater personal freedoms naturally gives people a greater sense of entitlement, and are less willing to make sacrifices in their personal happiness for the sake of others.
Nowadays we´re living in a much more tolerant society; and also intolerant. Fifty years ago, people tolerated intolerance in society. Nowadays, people are intolerant to intolerance. Fifty years ago, people made sacrifices everyday; nowadays, people find it more difficult.
The rise of individualism can be linked to the collapse of the "family" unit. That´s what social conservatives say, anyway. But the "family unit" had been living as a sham for decades before the social evolution that occurred in the 1960s. You only have to look at the private lives of the "iconic" rich and famous (who some in the media still gold up as moral paragons of virtue - Churchill, an alcoholic; FDR had a sham marriage for decades; Sinatra was a womaniser; and so on) to see that.
No, things aren´t what they used to be. But, then again, they never were in the first place.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Here's One Way To Fix The Middle East
The situation in Palestine/Israel looks as bleak as ever; the Palestianians politically divided into to semi-autonomous mini-states, with the Israeli government ruling over each of them with impunity.
For the purposes of Israeli "security", the Palestinians in the West Bank live in an area surrounded by a wall: a wall which conveniently slices of chunks of supposedly "Palestinian" land for Israel proper; and behind the wall, Israeli "settlers" live in towns and villages, guarded by Israeli soldiers at dozens of checkpoints throughout the territory.
The Palestinians in Gaza, due to the territory being ruled by the more actively-proactive regime of Hamas, rather than the more passive regime of Fatah in the West Bank, are collectively punished by the Israeli administration: borders allow only a trickle of aid through to Gaza, and the sea is blockaded. Any attempts at breaking the blockade are either turned away, or, as was recently shown, violently dealt with.
Before the founding of Israel, the Jews had no homeland to call their own. Since the founding of Israel, the Palestinians have had no homeland to call their own.
The current situation is unsustainable. Niether the Israelis or Palestinians would accept rule by the other. The wounds of the past decades are too deep; both sides hold too much hate of the other to contemplate further humiliation.
Very well, then. If neither side can tolerate the other, here's the alternative. Clues to a possible solution lie in comparisons to other situations elsewhere; such as in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Lebanon, Kosovo and South Africa. Strands from how each of these situations were solved seems the be the only way I can think of to make some kind of fair peace exist in the Middle East.
Step 1:
If Israel wants to treat the Palestinians as second class citizens, then the world community should deal with it in the same way as the aparthied regime of South Africa. It cannot claim to be a "Western" country whilst holding such contempt for so many of its own citizens. Sanctions, international isolation, and so on, are the way to bring sense to the Israeli government and to the negotiating table with the UN. In the USA, this involves removing the legitimacy of the Israel lobby by a widespread campaign educating Jews that the government of Israel is doing the worst possible job for promoting the cause of the Jewish people.
Step 2:
The territory of Israel/Palestine becomes part of a UN trustee-ship. The "government" of the territory passes to the UN secretary-general (or an internationally-trusted understudy); ministers to the government comprise (as in Lebanon, another multi-faith democracy) a balance of the different faiths represented in the territory at the 1947 levels (i.e. wiping the slate clean and putting the clock back to last time the UN last considered the Palestinian Question, as since 1947 Jews have moved to the territory with the express purpose of boosting their cause for seperate statehood).
Step 3:
The policing and defense of the territory (as now in Northern Ireland) is also comprised of a balance of the different faiths in the territory. The police force is overseen by an impartial foreign high representative (as in Bosnia), and at street-level, foriegn peacekeepers are mingled in with the native police force (as below).
At a defence level, the territory has a multi-faith multinational peacekeeping force (e.g. including the UK, France, Russia, Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan and China), each of the half-dozen or so countries involved with a force of around 5-10,000 troops.
This provides no guarantees, of course, but it at least takes the responsibility of statehood out of the hands of the Israelis and Palestinians till a time in the future (ten years? more?), when they can actually start to think of each other as real human beings, and then consider living together without UN paternalism. But, if they're going to act like a bunch of schoolchildren, what else can you do?
For the purposes of Israeli "security", the Palestinians in the West Bank live in an area surrounded by a wall: a wall which conveniently slices of chunks of supposedly "Palestinian" land for Israel proper; and behind the wall, Israeli "settlers" live in towns and villages, guarded by Israeli soldiers at dozens of checkpoints throughout the territory.
The Palestinians in Gaza, due to the territory being ruled by the more actively-proactive regime of Hamas, rather than the more passive regime of Fatah in the West Bank, are collectively punished by the Israeli administration: borders allow only a trickle of aid through to Gaza, and the sea is blockaded. Any attempts at breaking the blockade are either turned away, or, as was recently shown, violently dealt with.
Before the founding of Israel, the Jews had no homeland to call their own. Since the founding of Israel, the Palestinians have had no homeland to call their own.
The current situation is unsustainable. Niether the Israelis or Palestinians would accept rule by the other. The wounds of the past decades are too deep; both sides hold too much hate of the other to contemplate further humiliation.
Very well, then. If neither side can tolerate the other, here's the alternative. Clues to a possible solution lie in comparisons to other situations elsewhere; such as in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Lebanon, Kosovo and South Africa. Strands from how each of these situations were solved seems the be the only way I can think of to make some kind of fair peace exist in the Middle East.
Step 1:
If Israel wants to treat the Palestinians as second class citizens, then the world community should deal with it in the same way as the aparthied regime of South Africa. It cannot claim to be a "Western" country whilst holding such contempt for so many of its own citizens. Sanctions, international isolation, and so on, are the way to bring sense to the Israeli government and to the negotiating table with the UN. In the USA, this involves removing the legitimacy of the Israel lobby by a widespread campaign educating Jews that the government of Israel is doing the worst possible job for promoting the cause of the Jewish people.
Step 2:
The territory of Israel/Palestine becomes part of a UN trustee-ship. The "government" of the territory passes to the UN secretary-general (or an internationally-trusted understudy); ministers to the government comprise (as in Lebanon, another multi-faith democracy) a balance of the different faiths represented in the territory at the 1947 levels (i.e. wiping the slate clean and putting the clock back to last time the UN last considered the Palestinian Question, as since 1947 Jews have moved to the territory with the express purpose of boosting their cause for seperate statehood).
Step 3:
The policing and defense of the territory (as now in Northern Ireland) is also comprised of a balance of the different faiths in the territory. The police force is overseen by an impartial foreign high representative (as in Bosnia), and at street-level, foriegn peacekeepers are mingled in with the native police force (as below).
At a defence level, the territory has a multi-faith multinational peacekeeping force (e.g. including the UK, France, Russia, Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan and China), each of the half-dozen or so countries involved with a force of around 5-10,000 troops.
This provides no guarantees, of course, but it at least takes the responsibility of statehood out of the hands of the Israelis and Palestinians till a time in the future (ten years? more?), when they can actually start to think of each other as real human beings, and then consider living together without UN paternalism. But, if they're going to act like a bunch of schoolchildren, what else can you do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)