I'm totally confused about 2009. I don't know if it was good or bad. There were parts of it that were good, especially the first 3 months. There were parts that were bad, annoying, and neverending. Sometimes the year was also just another year.
I can't think of any terribly bad moments. Sure, sometimes the stress was extreme and that was very hard to take. But somehow I'm at least still alive. I think the reason why I don't look back at 2009 and see an amazing year is because of an anger issue that has come up. I have been fighting with authorities for about half a year now and it has caused a lot of pain and impatience on my side. I can't just act like everything is normal and go on with my life as if it's two different things: My life and my visits to this place. Every time I face having to go to this place again, my mind gets very negative. I don't want this. But to stop the bad thoughts, I would have to stop even going there.
There are no specific events in this year that I would like to focus on. I see it more as a whole thing this time and not several different aspects determining the value of the year. It was the first time I spent a whole year (January until December) with one company. My contract will reach deep into 2010 and hopefully beyond that.
Somehow the look into the future is very cloudy and foggy. I notice that I could look at the glass half empty or half full, but somehow, I prefer half empty. There are good things that are supposed to happen in 2010. But I first want to wait and see if they happen, and when they do, if I also get what I expect from them. I also have to see about my contract and what comes after that. If things turn out the way I deserve (not just the way I expect), then I think it can be a good year. But I also expect challenges and a difficult time dealing with my new life.
It's also the end of a decade, and I always seem to forget that. I remember how my parents didn't wake me up in 1989 even though I had asked them to. I missed that transition. In 1999, I was of course awake, and it was the end of a millenium. In 1979, I was not even born.
Many of us will remember how we were looking forward to 2000. It doesn't even feel so long ago, does it? Maybe it has to do with the way things have not changed. When you compare 2000 with 1990, the music, clothes and way people act is different. The cars are different. Microwaves, vaccuum cleaners and all that stuff are different. But now, what's different? The music from the beginning of the decade doesn't sound so much different, at least not so different compared to the other decade beginnings. We have reached the end of the scale when it comes to improvement and development. There were no major innovations that I can recall, at least none that are used in everyday life. Pain-free dental care is still in its childhood shoes and never wanting to grow out of it. And you, chocolate with few calories who is still in development, I'll see you when my children are in their teens.
The internet improved, youtube, wikipedia and all the others only came to their full potential when the decade was already half way over. But that's like talking about windscreen wipers as a new sensation when it's only part of the car, which is the real sensation.
The new decade will be a decade that sees me going from 26 up to 35. That is, if I can pull myself together. We will see crazy years like 2013, 2017 and other odd years. It sounds very dark, not so nice and fresh like 2000 or 2008. But it's not what matters.
Hm... the sinking of the titanic will be 100 years old in that decade, I think. And lots of other stuff. Many people turning 100 years old. Whatever.
Not sure how to welcome the new year. It's like seeing a friendly face while expecting to be deceived and getting one's arm broken once you reach out with your hand. I will keep my eyes open and stay very suspicious of the new year.
In total, the decade was good, and the year 2009 was just strange. 2009 was really bizarre. I mean, when you only look at the small events, it should have been really cool, meeting Marit again and all that stuff, but then it's still weird how my feelings can be so mixed.
For the new year, I wish for a little less annoyance, hope that my sanity stays strong, and I hope to become rich for no reason. That's all.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
Ralf Schumacher - here we go again
I was more than annoyed when t-online.de released another article with speculations of Ralf Schumacher's possible return to Formula 1. Keeping in mind that all the speculation is only worth talking about because Michael Schumacher will drive in F1 in 2010 makes it kind of sad. What kind of career is that when you always have to rely on your brother to make your own career work?
When I read the article, there were actually some things that surprised me:
1. The article contained information that can not be labelled as "shit" unless it's all a lie.
2. There is new information.
3. The circumstances have changed.
So what is it that's worth saying about this? Well, one thing first, a return of Ralf Schumacher is still something I doubt a lot. Two years absence of a driver who won 6 races in his 11 years career and is going to turn 35 years old next summer, Last podium finish in 2006, last win in 2003, that doesn't sound very inviting for team owners. Unless he wants to help a team that need development aid.
The things that have changed since the last time we heard about Ralf are that there are more teams in F1 than last season, that means that even if all drivers who drove in 2009 stayed in F1 (and not even that is the case), there would still be seats left to be filled by newcomers and comeback drivers. Plus, Ralf already had an offer from a new team, plus he rejected it. Sounds like someone who is very sure of himself.
Ralf said it's not about money, and it's also not about signing the next best deal. He wants to see a perspective. There are three teams of the established, successful teams, that still have one seat per team left to fill. And the article suggests that Ralf Schumacher's name is being discussed internally. I'm not really sure what to make of this, though. Discussing lots of names is not a guarantee for a return. I also think that these teams would rather choose a driver who drove in 2009, or at least a driver who drove the latest cars, either as a test driver or maybe someone who left a team recently for whatever reason. There are still some drivers that come to mind before Ralf pops up. I'm very doubtful. I would give it more thought if only the media didn't push the topic so hard.
In the end, it reminds me very much of the swine flu: You hear about it so much, it's so damn important, be warned, be warned, but in the end, everyone says it's only a stupid flu. We get so desensitised by crazy news that we stop caring about the things that might actually turn out to be true. I don't know when, but there will be a point when something bad will happen only because of how the media didn't know their limits.
Totally denying a return of Ralf Schumacher after Michael signing a 3 year contract just some days ago would be wrong. There were other old drivers who have been speculated to return. But it just seems a little odd, you know. Considering the fame of Ralf's older brother, the speculations about Ralf himself always seemed very much out of proportion compared to Michael, who was often in the center of speculation but it never seemed forced but rather according to what was really about to happen eventually.
You can compare it to movies. The hype about Michael is like the hype for a Steven Spielberg movie. You know there has to be a hype, but at least you are not being fooled. Ralf is more the Roland Emmerich type. Lots of explosions, lots of patriotism, lots of drama, but in the end, you once more get fooled into seeing another dull movie drowning in CGI effects.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Stupid reasons for having a child
First, we deal with mistakes that can be made in a marriage. How many mistakes can T-online.de find to ruin a marriage? Let's find out:
Six mistakes. Let's click on the article:
Seven mistakes. So let's click on the list:
Six mistakes. That's very consistent.
Now that we got this out of the way, let's talk about children. Having children of one's own is a very personal decision that many couples have to go through. However, there seem to be people who go on a crusade and try to talk others into having children by writing books about it. Again I found something on T-online.de that annoyed me.
The article was called "12 reasons to love babies". But what's confusing enough is that the article itself mentions a book that says something like "101 reasons to love babies". So what do you want? 12 reasons or all 101 of them? Make up your mind, dammit!
The article writer decided to go with only 12 reasons, and he or she had the courtesy to pick a variety of them, and didn't shy away from including some of the dumbest in the list. I will list them here and make my comment on each of them:
1. Because you learn from babies not to take yourself so seriously:
Babies show their parents that it's not about oneself (how ironic, keeping in mind that babies only care about themselves). They teach their parents responsibility for other people [...], they scream at mama and papa if they want something and cuddle with them when they did well. Author Katrin Knoppe is right: "Egocentrics can't be good parents".
Well here is my comment: FUCK YOU! The most egocentric, egomaniac and egoistic people are children, nobody else! Not only does the author turn around the argument and make a fool of herself in her argumentation, she also uses the egoism suggestion as a dirty means. Why doesn't she just say "everyone who doesn't want children is worse than Hitler".
2. Because you have made your babies yourself:
We have thrown our genes together and made a human being. Your wackiness and my sensibility are in this being. It has my eyes and your humour. Your hair and my stubbornness. Katrin Knoppe knows that this human will connect you and your partner forever. However, it is an entirely special and unique person.
Mother Teresa, um... I mean Katrin Knoppe is right. Yes. How beautifully said. Give her a medal for that. How romantic. But far away from the truth. While it is biologically true that you've given your crappy genes to yet another generation that might decide not to have children, and despite the fact that only a small fragment of yourself is still left in that big genetic pool that will be in the generation after that, you have successfully applied the most animalistic, instinct-driven reason for having a child. Good luck explaining to your child the reason for its existence with Darwinism, evolution and all that scientific stuff. Self-confidence, here we come!
Besides, is it just me or is this "connect you and your partner forever" the worst thing ever uttered? How many people get divorced again? Hello???
3. Because babies bring people together:
Most of all, babies bring the family closer together. The fresh new parents now enter the realm of responsible decisions. Thus, they come closer to their own parents who have been there for a while already. When raising a child, there will be moments of hurt and insecurity, because one knows it's about something really important. And who do you ask in such moments? Certainly not colleagues but family and friends.
You know... to me this sounds like this: When you're tired of realising that other couples who don't have children spend all weekend getting drunk and partying, you ask some suckers for help who are stupid enough to take care of your annoying little vermin so that you can have at least one weekend a month away from it and try to save your ruined marriage.
I'm serious, read it again, it translates word for word!
4. Because babies are not resentful:
Babies quickly take away their parents' bad conscience when they have made a mistake. Even though one has screamed at the baby and it cried a lot, everything is fine after some minutes of calming it down. This innocent love should never be exploited.
This part touches two topics without even attempting to. Which is funny. First it says that babies don't hold a grudge, which is partly wrong, and then, with only one sentence, it hints at the possibility of parents manipulating the child. Does that ring a bell? Well yes, it's something that all parents do. Never exploit innocent love? Too bad it happens everywhere. Religion is only the most heavy of those exploits. There are many more ways of exploiting the child that are less heavy.
Coming back to forgiveness of the child. If you scream at it, calm it down, scream at it, calm it down, scream at it, calm it down... it still ends up very fucked up. Just because the child displays calmness doesn't mean it's perfectly okay. It's not like a video game that loses all memory once you switch it off. It still remembers things on a subconscious level.
5. Because babies speak a foreign language that you will still understand:
I will spare you the details of this reason. It's only about babies being so cute and parents being curious about the baby language. I don't get it why people should make babies for that. If it's only for the cuteness, that's pure egoism. Go to any childcare centre and you can experience it on your own if you're so interested in baby language.
6. Because babies can cheer up about the same thing for the 1000th time:
"I've seen it all, I've been here before, I've tried it before, it's alright". Typical reactions of adults. A baby has nothing left for this kind of hype for change. Babies can be happy about the same toy over and over - as if it was the first time. For babies, life is rarely a routine, instead it's constant fascination and unending astonishment.
Do you realise the idealisation of babies in this paragraph? She got really carried away when she came up with this image of babies. I'm not saying it's not true, but she only shows us the cute side of babies once again. And again, she brings up another point without even noticing it. You wonder what it is? Check the part about the adult person. What does a baby become? A child, a teenager, an adult. At some point, you can't excite your offspring any more. Babies are like puppies: They are the children of adult beings and they eventually become adult beings. The risk is only seeing the cute phase and never even thinking about the bad times that will come.
7. Because you are finally the number one for another person: (oh no, now we're really diving into the shit)
Babies are often completely focussed on their parents, especially the mother. And they will then only be calmed down by the mother. "Nobody else, not even daddy, has a chance then". The unconditional trust that the own baby offers, gives the mother the good feeling to prove that she is worth the baby's love.
This blows my mind on so many levels. This is the reason, this! This is the reason why guys like me don't want children. I'm not talking about the child's way of acting, it's only a child. I'm talking about the mother. And do you notice that even the author loses her objectivity here (not that she ever had one to begin with). Even the author talks in this motherly way here. Okay, let's tear this apart step by step:
The headline: You are finally the number one for another person. I take this as a direct insult against me as a man. Who says that we don't love our wives and accept them as number one? Are we only after our career? Why do we not count?
Then the rest: Okay, fine, so the baby will focus on the mother, but only because she spends more time with the baby. I bet there are at least some babies that will only be calmed down by the father. But in general, the bond between the mother and the baby is so damn strong, holy and godly that the guy could just go and hang himself. If it wasn't for the money, he could just leave, seriously. He has nothing left to do except for help the mother in fulfilling parental duties.
8. Because you always rely on your instincts:
More motherly bullshit. Katrin Knoppe says don't rely on books too much, follow your instincts. How ironic that this comes from a person who writes a book. That's like a rapist telling other rapists not to rape.
9. Because the word "fear" gets a totally new meaning:
"Being a Mum or Dad is hell. From the day of procreation, you are in a state of fear (are you sure? I think you're still pretty much satisfied in that very moment, hehe). Fear of the life of your child", Knoppe says. Being overly careful becomes the standard procedure. And that is understandable, because nothing reaches as far as the love for one's own child - except maybe the fear for the child's well-being.
I'm sorry, did we drift off a little here, I thought this was supposed to be a book that gives reasons to have children, not to avoid having children.
10. Because you will be treated preferentially:
No doubt, there is a "baby card" you can play. In many areas you will be treated better when having a child with you. Because everyone gets so soft and careful when seeing a woman with a pram or because people think you're having a hard time being a parent anyway, also financially. Of course it's not correct playing the "baby card". On the other hand, the fact that you can play it shows that society is aware of the special needs that parents have.
So the reason for having a baby is that you can get your shopping done faster, and you can talk at the entrance of a grocery with another mother while your child drools on the floor and nobody will say a word, even if the child blocks the way? Damn you! Why does the author talk about egoism and then use that same egoism for her own agenda? Fuck the baby card, and fuck you, Frau Knoppe.
11. Because nothing goes as planned:
Babies act as they like (finally something I agree with). Parents are most of the time busy dealing with the unexpected. That can be pretty stressful (you're damn right). What it never leads to, though, is boredom (objection! there is boredom in bed!). Instead of routine and planning, spontaneity and small mishaps rule everyday life. And thanks to the baby, parents learn how to deal with surprises.
Another argument that's supposed to support the pro-child agenda. Honestly, I don't really get it. Sure, people who go on parties every weekend, travel a lot and like the thrill of an exotic and exciting life, they will somehow like the fact that it never gets boring. But they are also the kind of people who can do well without children. Other people, like me, don't want children exactly for the reason that nothing is predictable. Instead of rushing to the hospital every 5 days, I can just watch Die Hard on my tv, that's exciting enough for my taste. And to learn how to deal with surprises? No thanks, I think I can just survive the heart attack I get when my girlfriend gives me an unexpected present. So there is no need for any more training on this.
12. Because the first birthday is not the end: (well, at least in most cases)
Everything that's been difficult surely won't stop after the first birthday. It will continue being difficult and many obstacles will be in the way of the child and the parents. "There's nothing nice without anything difficult". But seeing how your child learns to walk and talk, how it goes to kindergarten, school, reaches puberty and grows up slowly, that's definitely worth it.
Unless.... you get divorced, then it's just fucking hell. OR if the baby is disabled. OR if it dies and your spouse never gets over the pain of the loss, no matter how much you love him / her. OR if it says "I hate you" and runs away to become a drug addict. The list goes on. But keep bringing up examples of a fairytale childhood, I'm sure everyone is going to be as lucky as you. You, dear Mrs Knoppe, have done a good job. And the most surprising thing about you is that, instead of making more babies (although I don't know if you have any), you even have time to write books for people who are not sure if they want children. People like my parents. And that makes me feel very uncomfortable.
Dear Mrs Knoppe... I know you are a businesswoman, trying to cash in on a popular subject. But please bear in mind that not all people are made for this "job". Dealing with parental stress is natural, but there are also other things that are natural. Scientists found out that relationships usually only last until the first baby is there, and keeping the relationship alive after that is hard work. Some decades and centuries ago, people had to stay together because the woman was totally dependent on the guy. These times are over, and this will lead to more single fathers and mothers, with chaotic results for the children. I warn you, Mrs Knoppe, do not cause the births of miserable children just because you think of people who don't want children as egoistic, selfish, unnatural traitors of human genetics and saboteurs of the German economy ("children are our future" etc.). I ask all of you out there: Think first, then have children. It's no big deal if you fail in your relationship, but if you give a small child a bad childhood, then you will be blamed.
Six mistakes. Let's click on the article:
Seven mistakes. So let's click on the list:
Six mistakes. That's very consistent.Now that we got this out of the way, let's talk about children. Having children of one's own is a very personal decision that many couples have to go through. However, there seem to be people who go on a crusade and try to talk others into having children by writing books about it. Again I found something on T-online.de that annoyed me.
The article was called "12 reasons to love babies". But what's confusing enough is that the article itself mentions a book that says something like "101 reasons to love babies". So what do you want? 12 reasons or all 101 of them? Make up your mind, dammit!
The article writer decided to go with only 12 reasons, and he or she had the courtesy to pick a variety of them, and didn't shy away from including some of the dumbest in the list. I will list them here and make my comment on each of them:
1. Because you learn from babies not to take yourself so seriously:
Babies show their parents that it's not about oneself (how ironic, keeping in mind that babies only care about themselves). They teach their parents responsibility for other people [...], they scream at mama and papa if they want something and cuddle with them when they did well. Author Katrin Knoppe is right: "Egocentrics can't be good parents".
Well here is my comment: FUCK YOU! The most egocentric, egomaniac and egoistic people are children, nobody else! Not only does the author turn around the argument and make a fool of herself in her argumentation, she also uses the egoism suggestion as a dirty means. Why doesn't she just say "everyone who doesn't want children is worse than Hitler".
2. Because you have made your babies yourself:
We have thrown our genes together and made a human being. Your wackiness and my sensibility are in this being. It has my eyes and your humour. Your hair and my stubbornness. Katrin Knoppe knows that this human will connect you and your partner forever. However, it is an entirely special and unique person.
Mother Teresa, um... I mean Katrin Knoppe is right. Yes. How beautifully said. Give her a medal for that. How romantic. But far away from the truth. While it is biologically true that you've given your crappy genes to yet another generation that might decide not to have children, and despite the fact that only a small fragment of yourself is still left in that big genetic pool that will be in the generation after that, you have successfully applied the most animalistic, instinct-driven reason for having a child. Good luck explaining to your child the reason for its existence with Darwinism, evolution and all that scientific stuff. Self-confidence, here we come!
Besides, is it just me or is this "connect you and your partner forever" the worst thing ever uttered? How many people get divorced again? Hello???
3. Because babies bring people together:
Most of all, babies bring the family closer together. The fresh new parents now enter the realm of responsible decisions. Thus, they come closer to their own parents who have been there for a while already. When raising a child, there will be moments of hurt and insecurity, because one knows it's about something really important. And who do you ask in such moments? Certainly not colleagues but family and friends.
You know... to me this sounds like this: When you're tired of realising that other couples who don't have children spend all weekend getting drunk and partying, you ask some suckers for help who are stupid enough to take care of your annoying little vermin so that you can have at least one weekend a month away from it and try to save your ruined marriage.
I'm serious, read it again, it translates word for word!
4. Because babies are not resentful:
Babies quickly take away their parents' bad conscience when they have made a mistake. Even though one has screamed at the baby and it cried a lot, everything is fine after some minutes of calming it down. This innocent love should never be exploited.
This part touches two topics without even attempting to. Which is funny. First it says that babies don't hold a grudge, which is partly wrong, and then, with only one sentence, it hints at the possibility of parents manipulating the child. Does that ring a bell? Well yes, it's something that all parents do. Never exploit innocent love? Too bad it happens everywhere. Religion is only the most heavy of those exploits. There are many more ways of exploiting the child that are less heavy.
Coming back to forgiveness of the child. If you scream at it, calm it down, scream at it, calm it down, scream at it, calm it down... it still ends up very fucked up. Just because the child displays calmness doesn't mean it's perfectly okay. It's not like a video game that loses all memory once you switch it off. It still remembers things on a subconscious level.
5. Because babies speak a foreign language that you will still understand:
I will spare you the details of this reason. It's only about babies being so cute and parents being curious about the baby language. I don't get it why people should make babies for that. If it's only for the cuteness, that's pure egoism. Go to any childcare centre and you can experience it on your own if you're so interested in baby language.
6. Because babies can cheer up about the same thing for the 1000th time:
"I've seen it all, I've been here before, I've tried it before, it's alright". Typical reactions of adults. A baby has nothing left for this kind of hype for change. Babies can be happy about the same toy over and over - as if it was the first time. For babies, life is rarely a routine, instead it's constant fascination and unending astonishment.
Do you realise the idealisation of babies in this paragraph? She got really carried away when she came up with this image of babies. I'm not saying it's not true, but she only shows us the cute side of babies once again. And again, she brings up another point without even noticing it. You wonder what it is? Check the part about the adult person. What does a baby become? A child, a teenager, an adult. At some point, you can't excite your offspring any more. Babies are like puppies: They are the children of adult beings and they eventually become adult beings. The risk is only seeing the cute phase and never even thinking about the bad times that will come.
7. Because you are finally the number one for another person: (oh no, now we're really diving into the shit)
Babies are often completely focussed on their parents, especially the mother. And they will then only be calmed down by the mother. "Nobody else, not even daddy, has a chance then". The unconditional trust that the own baby offers, gives the mother the good feeling to prove that she is worth the baby's love.
This blows my mind on so many levels. This is the reason, this! This is the reason why guys like me don't want children. I'm not talking about the child's way of acting, it's only a child. I'm talking about the mother. And do you notice that even the author loses her objectivity here (not that she ever had one to begin with). Even the author talks in this motherly way here. Okay, let's tear this apart step by step:
The headline: You are finally the number one for another person. I take this as a direct insult against me as a man. Who says that we don't love our wives and accept them as number one? Are we only after our career? Why do we not count?
Then the rest: Okay, fine, so the baby will focus on the mother, but only because she spends more time with the baby. I bet there are at least some babies that will only be calmed down by the father. But in general, the bond between the mother and the baby is so damn strong, holy and godly that the guy could just go and hang himself. If it wasn't for the money, he could just leave, seriously. He has nothing left to do except for help the mother in fulfilling parental duties.
8. Because you always rely on your instincts:
More motherly bullshit. Katrin Knoppe says don't rely on books too much, follow your instincts. How ironic that this comes from a person who writes a book. That's like a rapist telling other rapists not to rape.
9. Because the word "fear" gets a totally new meaning:
"Being a Mum or Dad is hell. From the day of procreation, you are in a state of fear (are you sure? I think you're still pretty much satisfied in that very moment, hehe). Fear of the life of your child", Knoppe says. Being overly careful becomes the standard procedure. And that is understandable, because nothing reaches as far as the love for one's own child - except maybe the fear for the child's well-being.
I'm sorry, did we drift off a little here, I thought this was supposed to be a book that gives reasons to have children, not to avoid having children.
10. Because you will be treated preferentially:
No doubt, there is a "baby card" you can play. In many areas you will be treated better when having a child with you. Because everyone gets so soft and careful when seeing a woman with a pram or because people think you're having a hard time being a parent anyway, also financially. Of course it's not correct playing the "baby card". On the other hand, the fact that you can play it shows that society is aware of the special needs that parents have.
So the reason for having a baby is that you can get your shopping done faster, and you can talk at the entrance of a grocery with another mother while your child drools on the floor and nobody will say a word, even if the child blocks the way? Damn you! Why does the author talk about egoism and then use that same egoism for her own agenda? Fuck the baby card, and fuck you, Frau Knoppe.
11. Because nothing goes as planned:
Babies act as they like (finally something I agree with). Parents are most of the time busy dealing with the unexpected. That can be pretty stressful (you're damn right). What it never leads to, though, is boredom (objection! there is boredom in bed!). Instead of routine and planning, spontaneity and small mishaps rule everyday life. And thanks to the baby, parents learn how to deal with surprises.
Another argument that's supposed to support the pro-child agenda. Honestly, I don't really get it. Sure, people who go on parties every weekend, travel a lot and like the thrill of an exotic and exciting life, they will somehow like the fact that it never gets boring. But they are also the kind of people who can do well without children. Other people, like me, don't want children exactly for the reason that nothing is predictable. Instead of rushing to the hospital every 5 days, I can just watch Die Hard on my tv, that's exciting enough for my taste. And to learn how to deal with surprises? No thanks, I think I can just survive the heart attack I get when my girlfriend gives me an unexpected present. So there is no need for any more training on this.
12. Because the first birthday is not the end: (well, at least in most cases)
Everything that's been difficult surely won't stop after the first birthday. It will continue being difficult and many obstacles will be in the way of the child and the parents. "There's nothing nice without anything difficult". But seeing how your child learns to walk and talk, how it goes to kindergarten, school, reaches puberty and grows up slowly, that's definitely worth it.
Unless.... you get divorced, then it's just fucking hell. OR if the baby is disabled. OR if it dies and your spouse never gets over the pain of the loss, no matter how much you love him / her. OR if it says "I hate you" and runs away to become a drug addict. The list goes on. But keep bringing up examples of a fairytale childhood, I'm sure everyone is going to be as lucky as you. You, dear Mrs Knoppe, have done a good job. And the most surprising thing about you is that, instead of making more babies (although I don't know if you have any), you even have time to write books for people who are not sure if they want children. People like my parents. And that makes me feel very uncomfortable.
Dear Mrs Knoppe... I know you are a businesswoman, trying to cash in on a popular subject. But please bear in mind that not all people are made for this "job". Dealing with parental stress is natural, but there are also other things that are natural. Scientists found out that relationships usually only last until the first baby is there, and keeping the relationship alive after that is hard work. Some decades and centuries ago, people had to stay together because the woman was totally dependent on the guy. These times are over, and this will lead to more single fathers and mothers, with chaotic results for the children. I warn you, Mrs Knoppe, do not cause the births of miserable children just because you think of people who don't want children as egoistic, selfish, unnatural traitors of human genetics and saboteurs of the German economy ("children are our future" etc.). I ask all of you out there: Think first, then have children. It's no big deal if you fail in your relationship, but if you give a small child a bad childhood, then you will be blamed.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Names - the most complicated words of all
What do the following celebrity names have in common:
Michael Jacksen
Barack Obamo
Tiger Woulds
Madonni
Answer: They are horribly misspelled.
I would be punished if I made such mistakes while being paid to write articles about such people. But the funy thing is: It doesn't happen to these people.
Mailmen get punished if letters go missing.
Servicepeople get punished if they behave incorrectly towards customers.
Politicians get punished if they make comparisons with Jews or Hitler.
But two groups of people only get punished too late or not at all: People in the financial sector and media people.
The other day, there was a show where a young girl sang a Marit Larsen song, and the host of the show pronounced the name clearly as "Marit Larson". Why is it that someone who presents a show with pop music does not have to know the name of a singer that was #1 for 5 weeks this summer? Why? Are they only chosen for looks and charme? That's the problem in Germany, I think. Even the "[country] idol" winners of other countries sometimes succeed in the long run. Here, they only succeed for some weeks, in some cases even lose completely. The latest winner team of a pop group casting was called "some & any" by the producers of the show. How much does that say about the quality of the product? It almost sounds like a parody of a music group to be called like that.
But I'm drifting off. I'm now going back to names, and this here is something I found at T-online.de under the sports section:
Above you see an article select screen. One of them is about a new driver to enter Formula 1. His real name is Lucas di Grassi. But maybe because the guy who wrote the article was smoking some grass, he turned it into "di Grasso". But only at the top, because in the text below it is written correctly again. Now look at the next picture (below). You will see the exact same thing in the article itself. Wrong spelling, correct spelling. Copy and paste, anyone?
The mistake was not corrected even after days, so I gave in and wrote the T-online team a message and asked them to check their bloody spelling. It's still a shame that people get paid well for something so pathetic. How would you feel if someone misspelled your name twice and it only looks like a careless mistake, not a mistake because of a complicated name? I think you would be pissed off, too.
Michael Jacksen
Barack Obamo
Tiger Woulds
Madonni
Answer: They are horribly misspelled.
I would be punished if I made such mistakes while being paid to write articles about such people. But the funy thing is: It doesn't happen to these people.
Mailmen get punished if letters go missing.
Servicepeople get punished if they behave incorrectly towards customers.
Politicians get punished if they make comparisons with Jews or Hitler.
But two groups of people only get punished too late or not at all: People in the financial sector and media people.
The other day, there was a show where a young girl sang a Marit Larsen song, and the host of the show pronounced the name clearly as "Marit Larson". Why is it that someone who presents a show with pop music does not have to know the name of a singer that was #1 for 5 weeks this summer? Why? Are they only chosen for looks and charme? That's the problem in Germany, I think. Even the "[country] idol" winners of other countries sometimes succeed in the long run. Here, they only succeed for some weeks, in some cases even lose completely. The latest winner team of a pop group casting was called "some & any" by the producers of the show. How much does that say about the quality of the product? It almost sounds like a parody of a music group to be called like that.
But I'm drifting off. I'm now going back to names, and this here is something I found at T-online.de under the sports section:
Above you see an article select screen. One of them is about a new driver to enter Formula 1. His real name is Lucas di Grassi. But maybe because the guy who wrote the article was smoking some grass, he turned it into "di Grasso". But only at the top, because in the text below it is written correctly again. Now look at the next picture (below). You will see the exact same thing in the article itself. Wrong spelling, correct spelling. Copy and paste, anyone?
The mistake was not corrected even after days, so I gave in and wrote the T-online team a message and asked them to check their bloody spelling. It's still a shame that people get paid well for something so pathetic. How would you feel if someone misspelled your name twice and it only looks like a careless mistake, not a mistake because of a complicated name? I think you would be pissed off, too.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Have to write something
Oh no, it's already the end of November but I didn't post anything for this month. I have to catch up with it.
Okay, on Friday night I met Marit Larsen. But I don't really know what to mention. It was a great concert and I got to talk to her, but what else could I possibly say? Anyway, let's move on to other things. This is the shit I found recently:
I put my mouse in the middle of the pic and it said something about a person called "Demo Moore". Who is that? I can see Demi Moore there, but I don't know who Demo Moore is. Is that a demo version of her, like you get to see her, but it's only to check it out? I didn't know this kind of stuff is possible. Or maybe the picture itself is only a trial version and the people who made the article have to stop using the picture after some days... whatever.
Here you see an overview. There are several articles, but one appears twice. This happens when people rush things. I don't know what to say except this: They fucked up.
Margot Honecker is the widow of the last leader of East Germany. I put my mouse on the picture and it says: "sie liebt in Chile". She loves in Chile? What does that mean? Who does she love? Is that what she does for a living, to love in Chile? Oh... maybe you mean "sie lebt in Chile"? Because that would mean that she lives in Chile. How can someone add an additional letter like that by accident? That person must have been dreaming about his/her lover while typing this shit. I think they are on drugs all day, these fuckers from t-online.de
No idea what I will post here next, there are pics of Marit but this blog is mostly about complaining, so yeah... at least this should be okay for November. It's autumn, and maybe the cold weather will make some people write shit on the internet. Winter is coming and that's a great reason to publish articles stating wrong facts about health, causing panic about the flu, and other stuff like car accidents. I look forward to making fun of journalism again. Yay!
Okay, on Friday night I met Marit Larsen. But I don't really know what to mention. It was a great concert and I got to talk to her, but what else could I possibly say? Anyway, let's move on to other things. This is the shit I found recently:
I put my mouse in the middle of the pic and it said something about a person called "Demo Moore". Who is that? I can see Demi Moore there, but I don't know who Demo Moore is. Is that a demo version of her, like you get to see her, but it's only to check it out? I didn't know this kind of stuff is possible. Or maybe the picture itself is only a trial version and the people who made the article have to stop using the picture after some days... whatever.
Here you see an overview. There are several articles, but one appears twice. This happens when people rush things. I don't know what to say except this: They fucked up.
Margot Honecker is the widow of the last leader of East Germany. I put my mouse on the picture and it says: "sie liebt in Chile". She loves in Chile? What does that mean? Who does she love? Is that what she does for a living, to love in Chile? Oh... maybe you mean "sie lebt in Chile"? Because that would mean that she lives in Chile. How can someone add an additional letter like that by accident? That person must have been dreaming about his/her lover while typing this shit. I think they are on drugs all day, these fuckers from t-online.de
No idea what I will post here next, there are pics of Marit but this blog is mostly about complaining, so yeah... at least this should be okay for November. It's autumn, and maybe the cold weather will make some people write shit on the internet. Winter is coming and that's a great reason to publish articles stating wrong facts about health, causing panic about the flu, and other stuff like car accidents. I look forward to making fun of journalism again. Yay!
Friday, October 30, 2009
It's only a scandal if I'm not the customer but part of the scandal
I want to address a topic that really made me angry today. On this website that I often point out mistakes from, there was this article about my workplace (Agentur für Arbeit - the national employment agency). It was about a "scandal" with data protection.
The story went like this: Some unemployed people went to a talk show on tv and talked about their difficult situation. The days after, thousands of employees of my workplace throughout the country accessed the computer files of these customers who went to the talk show, because obviously, they were really interesting, so they wanted to read up on them. It became public that employees are so interested in people they see on tv. That's the scandal.
Below the article was a comment function, and of course, lots of idiots had to make their comments: "typical for Germany", "why not just implant a chip into anyone's brain", "they know what we're up to anyway", "the whole government is after us","it's like the spy system in former East Germany" and so on. Then I posted my comment and made some things clear:
1. Nobody in our institution is allowed to let any information leak to outsiders. What's in the agency, stays in the agency, no matter how many people in the agency are interested. Anything else would be a violation of laws and would result in being fired and possibly sent to prison.
2. It is a useful thing that the information is accessible throughout the whole country, because customers move, and if the information was only accessible to the employees who currently deal with the case, it would either require people at a different agency to ask the customer for all the information again, or it would take a while to unlock the files. Both would drive the customers, who are naturally very impatient and hate our agency, insane.
3. People who go to a tv show to striptease their life should not be surprised if they get a lot of attention afterwards.
More things should be pointed out:
4. Curiousity is a human character trait. If you trigger it, people will go after you.
5. Whenever I forbid customers at my workplace to change or ask for things on behalf of someone else (their children or husbands / wives), they become angry and never get it. They think I like to annoy them, but what I try to do is to stick to the rules. In 99 of 100 cases, a person trying to change something on behalf of someone who is not present will be a normal thing, without bad intentions, but in 1 out of 100 cases, it will be a jealous wife who caught her husband cheating on her and wants revenge. That is the reason why we don't let anyone access the files. But strangely enough, it's only a scandal when it's the way it's written in the article. People never see the other side of things.
Even worse, I once went to an authority where they asked me to show my private emails to them. And when I checked if it's legal, I was told that yes, it is legal, they are allowed to ask for that and I have to comply. Is that not a much bigger scandal? No... because it only affects me and few other people who add up to a minority that will never have a voice loud enough to scream.
It's really, really bullshit. You know, if the people at my workplace change the computer systems and make files harder to access anywhere in Germany, it will lead to side effects that will cause anger among the customers. People will wonder why it's impossible to access files. Even today, people come to us and say "hey, why don't you have any files, I was there only 5 years ago". Well, all the files will be deleted at some point, and that is also for a good reason. But it's never good enough. Never ever.
There was one scandal that I would really call a scandal at my workplace. One colleague (no idea who it was) tried to park her car on the public parking lot, but a customer took the place just before her and she was so angry that she showed him the finger and said "wait until I process your documents"... the crazy thing is that this happened in front of the customer and a witness that belongs to the customer. I would not be surprised if the person responsible will be fired. The damage done to the image of the corporation is so immense, and every day I try so hard to give my workplace a good image, but it's so hard with all the prejudice against us.
What remains is the fact that customers like to feel like kings, and they always want it their way. They complain about anything, and nothing is ever good enough. At the same time, they live in one of the wealthiest countries of all and receive benefits that other countries don't even offer in the first place. They are so spoilt, I sometimes say it's time for another world war so people learn to be humble again. Humility is a rare good nowadays.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Updates that suck
Recently, I had to bury what was left of Youtube's nice functions. It used to be such a good site once. But then, they changed the search function and made it so complicated for me to find the right videos. Now, our worst fears have come true. The new channel design, first a choice for those who liked it, was now forced on us all. And man, it really sucks.
It's as inconvenient as it can get. The featured video is so damn big that you have to scroll down for what feels like half a day to get to the channel information. The "videos" are now "uploads", first it's really confusing because you are wondering "so what is this... oh that's the person's own videos... thanks". Why always change the way things are called? Next time it's called "personal video" and "foreign video" for uploads and favourites?! Damn... and speaking of favourites, they are now, just like the uploads, in a long list, one video below the other. It used to be more convenient, you could see them in rows, easily 9 videos at the same time.
Also, when you click on any video, it loads directly in the channel of that person. But that's not what I want. When I click on a video, I want to go to the link where the video itself is, not watch it embedded in a channel. There is also the next fuckup. It doesn't display comments for the selected videos. Below the video is a text line that says "Show comments and related videos". But when you click on that, it does not cause a drop-down of comments and videos, it opens the damn page of the video itself and makes the video load all over again. What's the point of loading the video within the channel when all the convenience that comes from the video's page is only available when going to the page itself?!
There is another thing I really hate, and it has to do with Mozilla Firefox, or as I like to call it, Mozilla Firefucker. Usually something good, but it now has an irritating new function:
When I mark any text because I want to copy, delete or cut it out, a menu appears when right-clicking it. That is normal. But now, this menu suddenly disappears half the time within a split second and I have to do it again. Then the option on top is new... search menu... to me, this is entirely pointless because I already know what I want to do with my text. I usually want to insert it into some other blank space on a website I have already opened. It feels unnatural having to go down with my mouse until I can select copy. After doing it the same way for so many years, it's like learning to write again after a stroke. Can't things stay the same for once? What are they going to do next? Release every mouse with switched buttons? Or change the keyboard so that the upper line no longer consists of Q, W, E, R T in that order, but consists of the letters that are used to spell Bill Gates?
Or how about this: Get rid of all keyboards, and instead, make adapter cables so that you can connect a cell phone with the PC on the keyboard output and forever type with your cell phone instead of the keyboard. Judging what Youtube and others do, we will soon reach this level of discomfort. And they would market it as saving space, because a keyboard is so big while a cellphone is super small. So it makes sense, right? Right???
It's as inconvenient as it can get. The featured video is so damn big that you have to scroll down for what feels like half a day to get to the channel information. The "videos" are now "uploads", first it's really confusing because you are wondering "so what is this... oh that's the person's own videos... thanks". Why always change the way things are called? Next time it's called "personal video" and "foreign video" for uploads and favourites?! Damn... and speaking of favourites, they are now, just like the uploads, in a long list, one video below the other. It used to be more convenient, you could see them in rows, easily 9 videos at the same time.
Also, when you click on any video, it loads directly in the channel of that person. But that's not what I want. When I click on a video, I want to go to the link where the video itself is, not watch it embedded in a channel. There is also the next fuckup. It doesn't display comments for the selected videos. Below the video is a text line that says "Show comments and related videos". But when you click on that, it does not cause a drop-down of comments and videos, it opens the damn page of the video itself and makes the video load all over again. What's the point of loading the video within the channel when all the convenience that comes from the video's page is only available when going to the page itself?!
There is another thing I really hate, and it has to do with Mozilla Firefox, or as I like to call it, Mozilla Firefucker. Usually something good, but it now has an irritating new function:
When I mark any text because I want to copy, delete or cut it out, a menu appears when right-clicking it. That is normal. But now, this menu suddenly disappears half the time within a split second and I have to do it again. Then the option on top is new... search menu... to me, this is entirely pointless because I already know what I want to do with my text. I usually want to insert it into some other blank space on a website I have already opened. It feels unnatural having to go down with my mouse until I can select copy. After doing it the same way for so many years, it's like learning to write again after a stroke. Can't things stay the same for once? What are they going to do next? Release every mouse with switched buttons? Or change the keyboard so that the upper line no longer consists of Q, W, E, R T in that order, but consists of the letters that are used to spell Bill Gates?
Or how about this: Get rid of all keyboards, and instead, make adapter cables so that you can connect a cell phone with the PC on the keyboard output and forever type with your cell phone instead of the keyboard. Judging what Youtube and others do, we will soon reach this level of discomfort. And they would market it as saving space, because a keyboard is so big while a cellphone is super small. So it makes sense, right? Right???
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Emotional bankruptcy
I have lost all the energy that was left. The courage is gone, the will to keep going is gone. I just want to give up already.
Nobody knows how damaged I am inside. After answering so many questions and telling so many things, there is not enough soul left to feel anything but hopelessness.
I have reached the point when people talk about my life as something good, they say I'm about to enter a phase of happiness. But all that causes in me is to realise how unhappy I really am. Not only can I not share their feeling that my life is supposedly getting better, it even makes it worse because I am not just not happy, I'm unhappy. And to acknowledge that makes it feel so much more destructive.
I get mixed signals, too. I am often told that I am basically fighting for survival. They tell me that I have to see how I can earn a living that's enough to just stay alive, they say I need to look for an apartment, but that it's hard because I don't earn enough to even earn someone's trust to rent the apartment to me. I have a limited contract, so I might even not keep doing what I do. They tell me so many bad things and make me worry.... but it's the happiest time of my life. How does that work?
They make crazy plans and focus on details so tiny that I don't even waste a thought on them. Yet, these details are what other people focus on. Other people who do feel happy. I don't have the energy or optimism to consider these things. It's already amazing how some people seem to live in their own world like that. It makes me feel like someone suffering from serious depression on a sunny day when everyone is enjoying the sun, the flowers, and playing together. They see what I see, but the feelings are so different. I'm so distant from all this.
The stress and exhaustion from the last couple of months have sucked all the life out of me. When I thought I had enough, I still kept pushing myself further.... keep answering questions... keep playing the good person.... keep appeasing, keep saying it's alright, keep saying you're sorry. Then, at some point, I just want to be alone.
I'm starting to regret what I've done. I think I entered a one-way road that might go anywhere. Unhappiness, worries, fear. What I lose is the freedom to let it be my problem, and my problem alone.
It would be good to be able to cry. But crying implies some sort of relief. To be so finished that even crying is already a good thing. But I'm not at this point. I can feel sadness like a faint toothache, but it doesn't break through as tears because I'm too numb, too emotionally dead.
I can't even make them understand what my problem is. Just like back then when I was suffering from depressions. You can't share the feelings that other people have, but you can't make them understand why. Why it's not fun to look at a flower. Why it's not fun to play. They don't know why it doesn't feel good.
Even the supposedly best thing that happens in life is something I can't look forward to any more. Sometimes I wish I could escape. Run away and never come back.
The only thing that keeps me sane is my work, as limited as the contract may be. It's like a video game, I step into the shoes of someone else. I am not me as a private person, I am me as the service person, the data entry person, the teacher, the colleague, the guy who can say funny things because it's only work. I don't have to carry my problems around at work. All I think about at work is why this and that letter was sent to this and that person, or whether I can call this or that person because the appointment that's free would be tomorrow already and I can't send an invitation for something so soon. The problems at work are simple. A door doesn't close, that's annoying, but it doesn't make me worry for the rest of my life. Some beeping sound annoys me, but it's a small concern. The printer is so loud. Who cares. I like my work, and I never thought I would enjoy my work more than my private life. Now I know why workaholics exist. Even I find myself working more than usual.
When I was suffering from depression 10 years ago, I sometimes thought I would rather disappear from this world. There was only one thing I hated about it: Even if I felt very alone in this world, someone would always have to cry because of me leaving. I wished back then that at least nobody would care so I could die in peace and not with a guilty feeling. It's strange, but today I had this feeling again:"I wish nobody would notice that I exist, just so I can free myself of all burdens".
Now I'm wondering what would happen if I decided on different things: To pull through with everything despite the pain. Or throw away all plans just to be left alone for a while. To not give a damn at all and change my life completely. To start over in any thinkable way. To give myself up and not do anything any more except for going to work. Many possibilities. But whatever I do, I can only go one way and I only find out later what it was good for. And every time I go somewhere, I regret something.
It's a very lonely feeling being the only one who can't look forward any more while everyone else is, and at the same time being in the center of attention. It's a bizarre situation, like being the dead person in a funeral, just with opposite feelings. Everyone feels something strong, only you don't feel that way.
I will go to bed early tonight. And to express my state of going nowhere, I will not do anything to fall asleep earlier. I will just lie in bed motionless and not act until my sleep comes. If it doesn't come, I will stay up all night, but what I will not do is try to force myself to sleep by any means. I'm too tired to do anything any more.
Nobody knows how damaged I am inside. After answering so many questions and telling so many things, there is not enough soul left to feel anything but hopelessness.
I have reached the point when people talk about my life as something good, they say I'm about to enter a phase of happiness. But all that causes in me is to realise how unhappy I really am. Not only can I not share their feeling that my life is supposedly getting better, it even makes it worse because I am not just not happy, I'm unhappy. And to acknowledge that makes it feel so much more destructive.
I get mixed signals, too. I am often told that I am basically fighting for survival. They tell me that I have to see how I can earn a living that's enough to just stay alive, they say I need to look for an apartment, but that it's hard because I don't earn enough to even earn someone's trust to rent the apartment to me. I have a limited contract, so I might even not keep doing what I do. They tell me so many bad things and make me worry.... but it's the happiest time of my life. How does that work?
They make crazy plans and focus on details so tiny that I don't even waste a thought on them. Yet, these details are what other people focus on. Other people who do feel happy. I don't have the energy or optimism to consider these things. It's already amazing how some people seem to live in their own world like that. It makes me feel like someone suffering from serious depression on a sunny day when everyone is enjoying the sun, the flowers, and playing together. They see what I see, but the feelings are so different. I'm so distant from all this.
The stress and exhaustion from the last couple of months have sucked all the life out of me. When I thought I had enough, I still kept pushing myself further.... keep answering questions... keep playing the good person.... keep appeasing, keep saying it's alright, keep saying you're sorry. Then, at some point, I just want to be alone.
I'm starting to regret what I've done. I think I entered a one-way road that might go anywhere. Unhappiness, worries, fear. What I lose is the freedom to let it be my problem, and my problem alone.
It would be good to be able to cry. But crying implies some sort of relief. To be so finished that even crying is already a good thing. But I'm not at this point. I can feel sadness like a faint toothache, but it doesn't break through as tears because I'm too numb, too emotionally dead.
I can't even make them understand what my problem is. Just like back then when I was suffering from depressions. You can't share the feelings that other people have, but you can't make them understand why. Why it's not fun to look at a flower. Why it's not fun to play. They don't know why it doesn't feel good.
Even the supposedly best thing that happens in life is something I can't look forward to any more. Sometimes I wish I could escape. Run away and never come back.
The only thing that keeps me sane is my work, as limited as the contract may be. It's like a video game, I step into the shoes of someone else. I am not me as a private person, I am me as the service person, the data entry person, the teacher, the colleague, the guy who can say funny things because it's only work. I don't have to carry my problems around at work. All I think about at work is why this and that letter was sent to this and that person, or whether I can call this or that person because the appointment that's free would be tomorrow already and I can't send an invitation for something so soon. The problems at work are simple. A door doesn't close, that's annoying, but it doesn't make me worry for the rest of my life. Some beeping sound annoys me, but it's a small concern. The printer is so loud. Who cares. I like my work, and I never thought I would enjoy my work more than my private life. Now I know why workaholics exist. Even I find myself working more than usual.
When I was suffering from depression 10 years ago, I sometimes thought I would rather disappear from this world. There was only one thing I hated about it: Even if I felt very alone in this world, someone would always have to cry because of me leaving. I wished back then that at least nobody would care so I could die in peace and not with a guilty feeling. It's strange, but today I had this feeling again:"I wish nobody would notice that I exist, just so I can free myself of all burdens".
Now I'm wondering what would happen if I decided on different things: To pull through with everything despite the pain. Or throw away all plans just to be left alone for a while. To not give a damn at all and change my life completely. To start over in any thinkable way. To give myself up and not do anything any more except for going to work. Many possibilities. But whatever I do, I can only go one way and I only find out later what it was good for. And every time I go somewhere, I regret something.
It's a very lonely feeling being the only one who can't look forward any more while everyone else is, and at the same time being in the center of attention. It's a bizarre situation, like being the dead person in a funeral, just with opposite feelings. Everyone feels something strong, only you don't feel that way.
I will go to bed early tonight. And to express my state of going nowhere, I will not do anything to fall asleep earlier. I will just lie in bed motionless and not act until my sleep comes. If it doesn't come, I will stay up all night, but what I will not do is try to force myself to sleep by any means. I'm too tired to do anything any more.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
How religions try to sound politically correct
Today I was about to watch a DVD when I saw something on tv about gay marriage. There was a pastor who spoke about it, and he said that he supports gay marriage because "God gave these people their sexual orientation as a gift".
Well... I'm sorry, but NO! This is a very cheap excuse. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that gay marriage and gay sex is okay on the one hand, and on the other hand, the bible is still true in every way, written by the one and only god and free of errors.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against gay people. They can be gay, it's none of my business, as much as it's none of my business what other people believe in, think, their political views, or what country they are from. But one thing that's clear is that you can't politically correctisize (yes, I'm making up that word) everything in this world.
You know, many things are okay. You can see things from a human rights point of view, from a idealist point of view, from a freedom point of view. Everything works. You want every person to be happy and do what makes them happy. That's okay. And I can come up with the statement that gay people are doing nothing wrong from a democratic point of view, but if I was a Christian, which I am not, I would have to insist that gay people are going to hell because the bible says it's a severe sin.
You wish the bible was democratic, open-minded, and you wish that everything that unfolds in this world would be in accordance with what the bible says, but it's not. The people who wrote the bible never thought of the idea that a democratic world would come up where being gay is fine with most people. That's why it's now difficult to make Christianity look acceptable in society. It forbids things that our democratic standard wants to perceive as normal.
As much as I hate to admit it, other religions are less prone to this practice of interpreting everything the most convenient, least rejectable way. Islam for example, maybe the religion I usually critisize the most, goes so much against homosexuality and other things considered to be sexually wrong that it upsets the western world so much, and it does seem wrong, but at least they are always in line with what they claim to be - a religion with clear rules.
Christianity is becoming a joke, even for people who are no longer in that religion. You know, if you're Christian and you're gay, or you're Christian and you think that homosexuality and going to heaven go together, then you really have to argue with things written in the bible, taking into consideration what was said in the bible against homosexuality. It's not enough to just say "God gave it as a gift". Because if that's the lazy excuse, then what about me? I was given the lovely gift of scepticism, of rebellion against religion, of doubting and rejecting religion. Am I going to heaven because I was born as an intelligent being, rather than someone who is dull and ignorant and only embraces what the parents taught? Why does the excuse not apply to me? Or does it? Does everyone go to heaven now? Well, obviously not, judging the passages of the raging god some of us may remember reading.
The bible clearly says that a guy should not put his love soldier into another guy's... okay, let's not go there.
To sum it up, being gay is okay, but only when you think as a modern person of the 21st century. When you think as a Christian, it's not okay. I don't mean to offend gay Christians, but I'm really sorry, you guys (and girls) need to do a lot of work to prove that what Jesus says about loving your neighbour overshadows the old testament's "don't fuck with guys if you're a guy and don't fuck with girls if you're a girl". I think this "love your [whatever]" is often mistaken for "making love" anyway.
Well... I'm sorry, but NO! This is a very cheap excuse. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that gay marriage and gay sex is okay on the one hand, and on the other hand, the bible is still true in every way, written by the one and only god and free of errors.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against gay people. They can be gay, it's none of my business, as much as it's none of my business what other people believe in, think, their political views, or what country they are from. But one thing that's clear is that you can't politically correctisize (yes, I'm making up that word) everything in this world.
You know, many things are okay. You can see things from a human rights point of view, from a idealist point of view, from a freedom point of view. Everything works. You want every person to be happy and do what makes them happy. That's okay. And I can come up with the statement that gay people are doing nothing wrong from a democratic point of view, but if I was a Christian, which I am not, I would have to insist that gay people are going to hell because the bible says it's a severe sin.
You wish the bible was democratic, open-minded, and you wish that everything that unfolds in this world would be in accordance with what the bible says, but it's not. The people who wrote the bible never thought of the idea that a democratic world would come up where being gay is fine with most people. That's why it's now difficult to make Christianity look acceptable in society. It forbids things that our democratic standard wants to perceive as normal.
As much as I hate to admit it, other religions are less prone to this practice of interpreting everything the most convenient, least rejectable way. Islam for example, maybe the religion I usually critisize the most, goes so much against homosexuality and other things considered to be sexually wrong that it upsets the western world so much, and it does seem wrong, but at least they are always in line with what they claim to be - a religion with clear rules.
Christianity is becoming a joke, even for people who are no longer in that religion. You know, if you're Christian and you're gay, or you're Christian and you think that homosexuality and going to heaven go together, then you really have to argue with things written in the bible, taking into consideration what was said in the bible against homosexuality. It's not enough to just say "God gave it as a gift". Because if that's the lazy excuse, then what about me? I was given the lovely gift of scepticism, of rebellion against religion, of doubting and rejecting religion. Am I going to heaven because I was born as an intelligent being, rather than someone who is dull and ignorant and only embraces what the parents taught? Why does the excuse not apply to me? Or does it? Does everyone go to heaven now? Well, obviously not, judging the passages of the raging god some of us may remember reading.
The bible clearly says that a guy should not put his love soldier into another guy's... okay, let's not go there.
To sum it up, being gay is okay, but only when you think as a modern person of the 21st century. When you think as a Christian, it's not okay. I don't mean to offend gay Christians, but I'm really sorry, you guys (and girls) need to do a lot of work to prove that what Jesus says about loving your neighbour overshadows the old testament's "don't fuck with guys if you're a guy and don't fuck with girls if you're a girl". I think this "love your [whatever]" is often mistaken for "making love" anyway.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
The perfect man
Warning! This post is satirical. It's not supposed to upset anyone.
Age: 1-10 years your senior.
Height: At least 180 cm, but growing whenever a taller guy is in the room.
Weight: whatever comes out of adding enough muscle mass and substracting body fat to the point where it's zero per cent.
Skin tan: Always darker than the average man in that area. Even if you live in Nigeria. Only exception: He is a latino. That beats everything.
Eye colour: Whatever you perceive best to reflect yourself in.
Instrument: Guitar. Always.
Hobbies: Doing everything the woman does, just in a more exciting, un-gay way! plus jogging and one specific sport that trains his ass muscles and one that trains his abs (different from man to man).
Status in society: He has many friends, which makes his girlfriend the center of attention: how did she get him? what kind of super girl must she be? she is so lucky, i envy her.
At the same time, he does not have enough female friends to make you jealous. Of course not.
His fears: You can't call them fears, that would be unsexy and make you imagine his hair falling off. He is much too laid-back and relaxed to worry, but he is aware of what is important: to keep his body in shape all the time and to surprise his girl again and again.
His wishes / dreams: He dreams about getting his girlfriend to the next orgasm - and it's not only about sex. She is supposed to orgasm in awareness of the big house that they are moving into, the swimming pool, the money, the car. And the car serves the purpose in a sexual way, too, as it drives into the sunset, its engine vibrating heavily.
His dream girl: You! It doesn't matter which flaws you have! He loves your weaknesses, as well as the parts of your body that are not perfect. He thinks that's what makes you so unique! And since he already has the perfect body, that's enough for the two of you! He knows it's not easy for you as a woman, he knows it's a lot easier for him as a guy, and that's why he will always spoil you and never grow tired of it. You are his everything. Yes! Even when you're both old. Yes! Trust it! Yes! Yes!
His charakter: He is a renegade, a badass, a daredevil, a macho. He knows how to grab his girl's ass in a ballsy way, how to pull her around violently, throw her on the bed wildly, and takes her whenever he wants. Oh yeah, baby, what a man.
He is a wild lion in bed, a stallion, a stall-lion. He is so manly that he is an animal already. He is so at the end of the scale of being a man, if he was any manlier, he would go full circle, break the scale and be a woman. When you're with him, you forget all other men.
He is so totally independent, so much that he would not even need a woman. But of course he wants one, just one and not more, because he is loyal but he just has too much happiness and testosterone to keep it all to himself.
Of course he is very versatile. He is an excellent cook, a sophisticated being, one that likes to read books while he is weightlifting. He likes to read books about body building by Schwarzenegger and philosphy books by Heidegger. He can recite Nietzsche and Fromm by heart. Most of all, he likes books by women, such as the twilight series. Not because he is gay (if he was, the human race would cease to exist because all men would be after him), no, he is just very, very empathetic.
He has a heart for children, and can baby-sit several infants at the same time. Of course he knows how to change diapers. How does he know that? From his affair, um.. I mean... 2nd girlfriend *cough* no I mean.... his sister! Oh yes... that was the word for that kind of woman.
He would like to have children, but only if you want children. He likes to clean up, iron socks, or accompany his children to activities like ballet.
He is very creative, knows how to surprise his wife with roses on their bed. The next morning, he will take the gardener gloves and the scissors and clean the bed up. Then he will go outside and plant new roses, while his manly body will shine and shimmer in the sunlight and sweat, his chest breathing strongly and his narrow pants giving you ideas of what to do with him next.
He will do everything for you, because you mean everything to him (and that's because his whole daily routine is based on you - the sports, the household, the childcare, he doesn't do it because he likes these things, no, that would be egostic, although he enjoys them, but he does them primarily to please you).
He is a responsible rebel, a fairytale family father, a sexy sandwhich maker. And the best thing is: He will approach you. And you? You only have to wait for him. Because nature wants it that way. Nature wants the man to woo for a woman.
He is also the perfect son in law. This also shows in the way he dresses. Behold, on top of the rebel sweatshirt and the rebel jeans, he wears a second layer of clothes in the form of a tuxedo. He is so incredibly handsome and beautiful (not just sexy) that even your own mother wants to go to bed with him. He will also spend lots of time with her when you don't have time for her *ambiguous wink*
And now the most important thing: Of course he has money. A man who adapts his life to the woman's wishes and even gives room for her career in order to take care of the children, of COURSE does he have money. And you don't even have to work any more in your life. But you may! Because you are a woman, and if you want to prove that women can do anything, then of course you may have a career. He will even give up his position in a company and have it offered to you, but at the same time, he will also earn money. Because someone who looks as good as him will always have money.
He is a real gentleman, one who will always hold the car door open for you. When you have female friends coming with you, he will also hold the door open for them, however not without always screaming "I AM TAKEN, I AM TAKEN, I AM TAKEN!!!" in order to make sure you don't mistake it as a flirt. It matters that he displays his loyalty as strongly as possible while maintaining his reputation as a gentleman. Thus, he can be both without giving you the slightest feeling of jealousy.
How many perfect boyfriends are there: Seemingly not many, since it's always hard to be found by one, as many women will agree.
But one thing is for certain: Even if millions of women will warn you for having these dreams: You shall find him! Because even destiny thinks he is sexy enough that you belong together!!!
The Perfect Man
Age: 1-10 years your senior.
Height: At least 180 cm, but growing whenever a taller guy is in the room.
Weight: whatever comes out of adding enough muscle mass and substracting body fat to the point where it's zero per cent.
Skin tan: Always darker than the average man in that area. Even if you live in Nigeria. Only exception: He is a latino. That beats everything.
Eye colour: Whatever you perceive best to reflect yourself in.
Instrument: Guitar. Always.
Hobbies: Doing everything the woman does, just in a more exciting, un-gay way! plus jogging and one specific sport that trains his ass muscles and one that trains his abs (different from man to man).
Status in society: He has many friends, which makes his girlfriend the center of attention: how did she get him? what kind of super girl must she be? she is so lucky, i envy her.
At the same time, he does not have enough female friends to make you jealous. Of course not.
His fears: You can't call them fears, that would be unsexy and make you imagine his hair falling off. He is much too laid-back and relaxed to worry, but he is aware of what is important: to keep his body in shape all the time and to surprise his girl again and again.
His wishes / dreams: He dreams about getting his girlfriend to the next orgasm - and it's not only about sex. She is supposed to orgasm in awareness of the big house that they are moving into, the swimming pool, the money, the car. And the car serves the purpose in a sexual way, too, as it drives into the sunset, its engine vibrating heavily.
His dream girl: You! It doesn't matter which flaws you have! He loves your weaknesses, as well as the parts of your body that are not perfect. He thinks that's what makes you so unique! And since he already has the perfect body, that's enough for the two of you! He knows it's not easy for you as a woman, he knows it's a lot easier for him as a guy, and that's why he will always spoil you and never grow tired of it. You are his everything. Yes! Even when you're both old. Yes! Trust it! Yes! Yes!
His charakter: He is a renegade, a badass, a daredevil, a macho. He knows how to grab his girl's ass in a ballsy way, how to pull her around violently, throw her on the bed wildly, and takes her whenever he wants. Oh yeah, baby, what a man.
He is a wild lion in bed, a stallion, a stall-lion. He is so manly that he is an animal already. He is so at the end of the scale of being a man, if he was any manlier, he would go full circle, break the scale and be a woman. When you're with him, you forget all other men.
He is so totally independent, so much that he would not even need a woman. But of course he wants one, just one and not more, because he is loyal but he just has too much happiness and testosterone to keep it all to himself.
Of course he is very versatile. He is an excellent cook, a sophisticated being, one that likes to read books while he is weightlifting. He likes to read books about body building by Schwarzenegger and philosphy books by Heidegger. He can recite Nietzsche and Fromm by heart. Most of all, he likes books by women, such as the twilight series. Not because he is gay (if he was, the human race would cease to exist because all men would be after him), no, he is just very, very empathetic.
He has a heart for children, and can baby-sit several infants at the same time. Of course he knows how to change diapers. How does he know that? From his affair, um.. I mean... 2nd girlfriend *cough* no I mean.... his sister! Oh yes... that was the word for that kind of woman.
He would like to have children, but only if you want children. He likes to clean up, iron socks, or accompany his children to activities like ballet.
He is very creative, knows how to surprise his wife with roses on their bed. The next morning, he will take the gardener gloves and the scissors and clean the bed up. Then he will go outside and plant new roses, while his manly body will shine and shimmer in the sunlight and sweat, his chest breathing strongly and his narrow pants giving you ideas of what to do with him next.
He will do everything for you, because you mean everything to him (and that's because his whole daily routine is based on you - the sports, the household, the childcare, he doesn't do it because he likes these things, no, that would be egostic, although he enjoys them, but he does them primarily to please you).
He is a responsible rebel, a fairytale family father, a sexy sandwhich maker. And the best thing is: He will approach you. And you? You only have to wait for him. Because nature wants it that way. Nature wants the man to woo for a woman.
He is also the perfect son in law. This also shows in the way he dresses. Behold, on top of the rebel sweatshirt and the rebel jeans, he wears a second layer of clothes in the form of a tuxedo. He is so incredibly handsome and beautiful (not just sexy) that even your own mother wants to go to bed with him. He will also spend lots of time with her when you don't have time for her *ambiguous wink*
And now the most important thing: Of course he has money. A man who adapts his life to the woman's wishes and even gives room for her career in order to take care of the children, of COURSE does he have money. And you don't even have to work any more in your life. But you may! Because you are a woman, and if you want to prove that women can do anything, then of course you may have a career. He will even give up his position in a company and have it offered to you, but at the same time, he will also earn money. Because someone who looks as good as him will always have money.
He is a real gentleman, one who will always hold the car door open for you. When you have female friends coming with you, he will also hold the door open for them, however not without always screaming "I AM TAKEN, I AM TAKEN, I AM TAKEN!!!" in order to make sure you don't mistake it as a flirt. It matters that he displays his loyalty as strongly as possible while maintaining his reputation as a gentleman. Thus, he can be both without giving you the slightest feeling of jealousy.
How many perfect boyfriends are there: Seemingly not many, since it's always hard to be found by one, as many women will agree.
But one thing is for certain: Even if millions of women will warn you for having these dreams: You shall find him! Because even destiny thinks he is sexy enough that you belong together!!!
Saturday, September 05, 2009
Sweet lullaby ignorance
You know what I really can't stand? Among all the other things, I mean? People blogging about how happy they are about their religion.
There are times during the year when it's best not to read blogs. Ramadan, Christmas, Easter, it's better to keep away from blogs because they always contain not only sentimental, but also religious rubbish.
It often goes like this: First someone brings up that it's a time for joy, then that it's also a time to remember something, and then there is this useless praise of how God did so many great things and we should be thankful for them.
But the point is, it always refers to God in a very limited context. God IF you refer to the Quran. God IF you refer to the Bible. God IF you believe in Jesus Christ. And ALWAYS: God IF you are in the right religion.
What is it good for when people blog about things like these:
-Knowledge of God's true words
-Certainty of His true message
-Disengagement from all doubts
And of course: Doubt equals non-believer.
People who are so sure of God's message are ignorant, and I can practically not think of any exception. Even if they have a very lose faith that does not want to hold on to any holy book, it's still ignorant because in any case they reject the possibility that their faith is either wrong, might be wrong, might be naive, or might just not be good enough to please God.
For example, how does a woman who wears a scarf but does not cover everything except her eyes know that just wearing a scarf is enough? Or how does a Christian know that believing in Jesus is not violating the commandment that there should be no gods except one God?
The answer will always be: Because my holy book says so.
And why do we know that's the truth? Because my God wrote it.
But how do you trust that? Because my holy book says so.
It's impossible to know everything. Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people believing what they want to believe. But telling the world you JUST have to read a quote from the Quran and that clarifies everything, for every man, every woman, every race, every culture... that's bullshit.
There are times during the year when it's best not to read blogs. Ramadan, Christmas, Easter, it's better to keep away from blogs because they always contain not only sentimental, but also religious rubbish.
It often goes like this: First someone brings up that it's a time for joy, then that it's also a time to remember something, and then there is this useless praise of how God did so many great things and we should be thankful for them.
But the point is, it always refers to God in a very limited context. God IF you refer to the Quran. God IF you refer to the Bible. God IF you believe in Jesus Christ. And ALWAYS: God IF you are in the right religion.
What is it good for when people blog about things like these:
-Knowledge of God's true words
-Certainty of His true message
-Disengagement from all doubts
And of course: Doubt equals non-believer.
People who are so sure of God's message are ignorant, and I can practically not think of any exception. Even if they have a very lose faith that does not want to hold on to any holy book, it's still ignorant because in any case they reject the possibility that their faith is either wrong, might be wrong, might be naive, or might just not be good enough to please God.
For example, how does a woman who wears a scarf but does not cover everything except her eyes know that just wearing a scarf is enough? Or how does a Christian know that believing in Jesus is not violating the commandment that there should be no gods except one God?
The answer will always be: Because my holy book says so.
And why do we know that's the truth? Because my God wrote it.
But how do you trust that? Because my holy book says so.
It's impossible to know everything. Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people believing what they want to believe. But telling the world you JUST have to read a quote from the Quran and that clarifies everything, for every man, every woman, every race, every culture... that's bullshit.
Sunday, August 09, 2009
How to abuse terrorism for entertainment
Note: I have nothing against Singapore. If this had happened in any other country, I would have written the same stuff.
Today was the national day in Singapore. Congratulations by the way. They have a parade every year, and this year, it was even broadcast on the internet, so I could watch it from far away, too.
It was basically the same as always: Lots of indoctrination, a lot of "don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" kind of stuff. The best part was when a guy said about being a Singaporean:"...to give and not to expect getting anything in return". Yeah... that sums up what it's like pretty well, haha.
The part that made me raise eyebrows was this: All of a sudden, in the middle of a dance scene, there was this news stations update that suggested there had been a terrorist attack, with smoke being visible and everything. It sounded very threatening and serious. Suddenly there was even a bomb squad in the stadium where the celebration was held, there were cars from the firefighters, and police boats in the bay. But it all turned out to be a trick to scare (= entertain?) people. But I can tell you one thing: Judging the tv images, the people in the stadium didn't find it funny at all. The way they looked rather reminded me of September 11th than any celebration day. It didn't work out at all.
In the video you can see how it started. I wish I could show you screenshots of people looking scared to death, but sadly, I didn't find any yet. I also think that the tv station might edit them out for the time when they release it to the public.
The strangest thing is that this happened in Singapore. Singapore is so uptight, they even have problems with homosexuality. But faking a terrorist threat just to excite people? Wow, they are really going the extra mile to do something amazing. And even more pathetic is that this was their excuse for presenting all their military personell and how well they COULD fight off terrorism if it came. Isn't there a mild way of showing off the military? Like just letting them march around the stadium? Duh.... they do that every year so why was it even necessary to do this.
If this happened in Germany on a parade, it would be like this: They would use "the history of Germany" as a theme, and lots of emperors and knights from ancient times would walk into the stadium first. Then people from the Weimar Republic, and then, hurray, people in nazi uniforms, and people representing jews in filthy clothes who are forced to walk into gas chambers. And all the nazi guys are doing the hitler greeting moves with their hands... yay... imagine that. It would be a worldwide scandal.
If only there wasn't so much censorship in Singapore, I bet the media there would bash everyone responsible for this outburst of craziness. I mean, the rest of the parade was okay, but you just don't play with terrorism like that.
Today was the national day in Singapore. Congratulations by the way. They have a parade every year, and this year, it was even broadcast on the internet, so I could watch it from far away, too.
It was basically the same as always: Lots of indoctrination, a lot of "don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" kind of stuff. The best part was when a guy said about being a Singaporean:"...to give and not to expect getting anything in return". Yeah... that sums up what it's like pretty well, haha.
The part that made me raise eyebrows was this: All of a sudden, in the middle of a dance scene, there was this news stations update that suggested there had been a terrorist attack, with smoke being visible and everything. It sounded very threatening and serious. Suddenly there was even a bomb squad in the stadium where the celebration was held, there were cars from the firefighters, and police boats in the bay. But it all turned out to be a trick to scare (= entertain?) people. But I can tell you one thing: Judging the tv images, the people in the stadium didn't find it funny at all. The way they looked rather reminded me of September 11th than any celebration day. It didn't work out at all.
In the video you can see how it started. I wish I could show you screenshots of people looking scared to death, but sadly, I didn't find any yet. I also think that the tv station might edit them out for the time when they release it to the public.
The strangest thing is that this happened in Singapore. Singapore is so uptight, they even have problems with homosexuality. But faking a terrorist threat just to excite people? Wow, they are really going the extra mile to do something amazing. And even more pathetic is that this was their excuse for presenting all their military personell and how well they COULD fight off terrorism if it came. Isn't there a mild way of showing off the military? Like just letting them march around the stadium? Duh.... they do that every year so why was it even necessary to do this.
If this happened in Germany on a parade, it would be like this: They would use "the history of Germany" as a theme, and lots of emperors and knights from ancient times would walk into the stadium first. Then people from the Weimar Republic, and then, hurray, people in nazi uniforms, and people representing jews in filthy clothes who are forced to walk into gas chambers. And all the nazi guys are doing the hitler greeting moves with their hands... yay... imagine that. It would be a worldwide scandal.
If only there wasn't so much censorship in Singapore, I bet the media there would bash everyone responsible for this outburst of craziness. I mean, the rest of the parade was okay, but you just don't play with terrorism like that.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Marit Larsen starts off at #15
Today is the day. I've anticipated for a long time, and whenever I talked to other Germans about Marit Larsen, it was always in this "you better remember that name" kind of way. And today it happened. Marit had her debut with the single "If a song could get me you" and she started off at #15 of the single charts. It's the very first week and she already has this position.
It's funny. Somehow I am losing this special feeling that I had until this point, which was the feeling that Marit would be my little secret in this country. Everyone was so ignorant of her here, and all the other fans in the world were far away. On the other hand, I can now finally refer to someone -famous- when I say that I met a celebrity, and not just say there is this singer/songwriter who is famous in many other countries but totally unknown here. At least I can say that I met someone who's in the top 20.
I also know I was once the biggest German Marit Larsen fan. Why am I so sure? Because I was the only one who posted on her message board, and I was crazy enough to meet up with her, and there was no other German fan around. Anyone who claimed to be as possessed would have had to at least participate to some point. I no longer claim to be the biggest fan here, I think other people might be more interested now, but at least I had my good times and I'm interested in what else is going to happen.
It's also important to know that this whole Marit Larsen thing happened 10 years ago. It was also the last time that Marit was on the German charts, and that was just in the top 100, somewhere around position 85, if I remember correctly. It was still with M2M, and you all know the song. Yeah, that was the song of our lives.
Marit is not the first M2M member to be in a high position in the German charts. Marion reached #9 last year with the help of Meat Loaf. It was already interesting back then to recognize her voice on the radio. But still, there was nobody who would have cared about the story behind it.
It's really cool and hard to believe. I guess only hardcore fans can imagine what it's like. Most people will ask why it's such a big deal, but to me, it's special because of the long history I have with Marit. Without Marit, I would be in a different job now, have a different girlfriend, would have visited different countries while not having visited the countries I have been to, I would be a completely different person. And I know it's hard to believe and many of you may mistake this for an illusion, but from the start, in 1999, I already had this feeling there was something about this Marit Larsen that would have an impact on me. Ever since I knew about her, I often imagined what it would be like to meet her, and whatever could happen. I know that marketing strategies give people an image of a person, but in her case, what's the strategy? She was virtually unknown, all there was were the music videos, there was no image. Somehow I noticed that she was a very interesting person.
I'm curious what will happen. She will be on tv here soon. Then there are concerts in November but I don't know if that's going to work for me. It doesn't have to, but we will see anyway. Maybe it would be enough to meet up with some old friends who have also been around on the internet. There is still a lot of stuff to get out of this whole Marit Larsen world.
It's funny. Somehow I am losing this special feeling that I had until this point, which was the feeling that Marit would be my little secret in this country. Everyone was so ignorant of her here, and all the other fans in the world were far away. On the other hand, I can now finally refer to someone -famous- when I say that I met a celebrity, and not just say there is this singer/songwriter who is famous in many other countries but totally unknown here. At least I can say that I met someone who's in the top 20.
I also know I was once the biggest German Marit Larsen fan. Why am I so sure? Because I was the only one who posted on her message board, and I was crazy enough to meet up with her, and there was no other German fan around. Anyone who claimed to be as possessed would have had to at least participate to some point. I no longer claim to be the biggest fan here, I think other people might be more interested now, but at least I had my good times and I'm interested in what else is going to happen.
It's also important to know that this whole Marit Larsen thing happened 10 years ago. It was also the last time that Marit was on the German charts, and that was just in the top 100, somewhere around position 85, if I remember correctly. It was still with M2M, and you all know the song. Yeah, that was the song of our lives.
Marit is not the first M2M member to be in a high position in the German charts. Marion reached #9 last year with the help of Meat Loaf. It was already interesting back then to recognize her voice on the radio. But still, there was nobody who would have cared about the story behind it.
It's really cool and hard to believe. I guess only hardcore fans can imagine what it's like. Most people will ask why it's such a big deal, but to me, it's special because of the long history I have with Marit. Without Marit, I would be in a different job now, have a different girlfriend, would have visited different countries while not having visited the countries I have been to, I would be a completely different person. And I know it's hard to believe and many of you may mistake this for an illusion, but from the start, in 1999, I already had this feeling there was something about this Marit Larsen that would have an impact on me. Ever since I knew about her, I often imagined what it would be like to meet her, and whatever could happen. I know that marketing strategies give people an image of a person, but in her case, what's the strategy? She was virtually unknown, all there was were the music videos, there was no image. Somehow I noticed that she was a very interesting person.
I'm curious what will happen. She will be on tv here soon. Then there are concerts in November but I don't know if that's going to work for me. It doesn't have to, but we will see anyway. Maybe it would be enough to meet up with some old friends who have also been around on the internet. There is still a lot of stuff to get out of this whole Marit Larsen world.
Monday, August 03, 2009
Another Ralf Schumacher comeback silliness
T-online.de have done the same story twice. As you might know, Michael Schumacher is returning to Formula 1 for at least one race, replacing the injured Massa.
Now T-online.de are saying the same things they did many months ago. They basically ask: Is Ralf coming back, too? But all they do to support this speculation is to bring up things Ralf has already said so many times: That he did not actively approach any of the teams, but if he was asked, he would return.
Let me just say the same thing I said last time: Who wouldn't? Of all the ex-drivers, who of them would not return if they got an offer, unless the reason why they are not in F1 any more is because they actively retired? Who wouldn't?
I am not sure whether they re-used his old words or just asked him the same stupid stuff again. There were only few things that could somehow spice up the article. Ralf said he might go to Valencia to support his brother as a spectator. The rest of the article is just a roundup of the previous events: How Massa got injured, how Schumacher takes his place, and statements from Ralf declaring that Michael will be so great he will beat them all. Yeah... just what the German reader wants to read.
Final verdict: Ralf is STILL not returning to Formula 1. See you next time when there is another far-fetched excuse for more Ralf Schumacher speculation.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Iceberg ahead
In the last couple of weeks, I have been noticing changes about me. I get nightmares about my workplace, and that is strange because it's the job I like more than any other job I had before. My nightmares surround all kinds of failure. I get into stupid situations, embarrass myself, get a nervous breakdown, lose respect of customers and colleagues, look inferior to colleagues who have their very first day.
Then there are other things I notice. For example the way I become more cynical and cruel about certain things. I used to be an idealist and still think of myself as a friend of people. Someone who hopes for the best of everyone, doesn't want to have prejudices, respects all people. But I notice that prejudices grow, and along with them, hate and rejection, even damnation.
I get involved in political and religious debates of some sort, either on the internet or just in my head. And the way I react is not the way it would have been before. For example, I posted a comment on a youtube video. In the video, the people asked if our army was supposed to retreat from Afghanistan. I wrote there that, while I feel it would be "right" for us to stay there, there is a negative side of me that says we should abandon them and leave them with their self-made, religious society, because we get threatened all the time and it's not us who fucked up. We, as the western world, came up with human right movements and hospitals, and what did their culture achieve? That was what I wrote. And of course I got a negative comment back that said that it's disgusting how I judge over these people.
(By the way, I'm aware of the fact that most people there are "innocent")
It's frustration in me speaking. I don't know if it's a small process or a sudden change. I remember I used to believe it's wrong to judge over people in the strongest way, but I also remember that on September 11th, this side of me was taken over by a side that agrees that sometimes, people have to pay back for what they did, and I would kill if it was my turn to judge over those responsible. Okay, that's a drastic way of saying it.
It's not only that, of course. Many things happened. Maybe the reason why my thinking has become so angry is because I understood that it's not always about right or wrong. Sometimes society does wrong things to respect what should not be respected. The magic term would be political correctness. I mentioned it many times.
Then there is the question about God. I saw many videos on youtube, and the more I get involved in these things, the more it upsets me. It's like I'm trying to do something good by looking for answers, but the more I look, the more life becomes meaningless. I try to find answers to why religions are so bad sometimes and cause so much suffering, and at the same time I try to prove them wrong by making up my mind about them. But then it already leads to more, it leads to questioning that there is even anything or anyone in this universe who gives a shit. In the end it all seems like unreachable standards. And if I was not born to a religious family that indoctrinated me against my will, I would even be free of the burden of believing in a god. It's funny, the reason why I still have a small thread of faith to hold on to is because of something I wish would never have been done to me.
There are times when I feel all fighting for a good life is worthless, and life itself is meaningless. I watch many different kinds of videos on youtube, and I know how to agree or disagree, but in the end I still come into conflicts and it seems like the good side of getting informed soon goes away and I end up watching videos for the purpose of making myself angry. As if I only wanted to prove how wrong it all is.
I've done what I swore an oath to God twenty-eight years ago to never do again. I've created something that kills people. And in that purpose, I was a success. I can tell you, with no ego, this is my finest sword. If, on your journey, you should encounter God, God will be cut.
Then there are other things I notice. For example the way I become more cynical and cruel about certain things. I used to be an idealist and still think of myself as a friend of people. Someone who hopes for the best of everyone, doesn't want to have prejudices, respects all people. But I notice that prejudices grow, and along with them, hate and rejection, even damnation.
I get involved in political and religious debates of some sort, either on the internet or just in my head. And the way I react is not the way it would have been before. For example, I posted a comment on a youtube video. In the video, the people asked if our army was supposed to retreat from Afghanistan. I wrote there that, while I feel it would be "right" for us to stay there, there is a negative side of me that says we should abandon them and leave them with their self-made, religious society, because we get threatened all the time and it's not us who fucked up. We, as the western world, came up with human right movements and hospitals, and what did their culture achieve? That was what I wrote. And of course I got a negative comment back that said that it's disgusting how I judge over these people.
(By the way, I'm aware of the fact that most people there are "innocent")
It's frustration in me speaking. I don't know if it's a small process or a sudden change. I remember I used to believe it's wrong to judge over people in the strongest way, but I also remember that on September 11th, this side of me was taken over by a side that agrees that sometimes, people have to pay back for what they did, and I would kill if it was my turn to judge over those responsible. Okay, that's a drastic way of saying it.
It's not only that, of course. Many things happened. Maybe the reason why my thinking has become so angry is because I understood that it's not always about right or wrong. Sometimes society does wrong things to respect what should not be respected. The magic term would be political correctness. I mentioned it many times.
Then there is the question about God. I saw many videos on youtube, and the more I get involved in these things, the more it upsets me. It's like I'm trying to do something good by looking for answers, but the more I look, the more life becomes meaningless. I try to find answers to why religions are so bad sometimes and cause so much suffering, and at the same time I try to prove them wrong by making up my mind about them. But then it already leads to more, it leads to questioning that there is even anything or anyone in this universe who gives a shit. In the end it all seems like unreachable standards. And if I was not born to a religious family that indoctrinated me against my will, I would even be free of the burden of believing in a god. It's funny, the reason why I still have a small thread of faith to hold on to is because of something I wish would never have been done to me.
There are times when I feel all fighting for a good life is worthless, and life itself is meaningless. I watch many different kinds of videos on youtube, and I know how to agree or disagree, but in the end I still come into conflicts and it seems like the good side of getting informed soon goes away and I end up watching videos for the purpose of making myself angry. As if I only wanted to prove how wrong it all is.
I've done what I swore an oath to God twenty-eight years ago to never do again. I've created something that kills people. And in that purpose, I was a success. I can tell you, with no ego, this is my finest sword. If, on your journey, you should encounter God, God will be cut.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
What is fair?
Today I saw on the news that many people in the world demonstrated because of an Egyptian woman who got killed in Germany. There were many different responses, some were just sad, others vowed to help make the world more peaceful, and some were just "death to Germany". This made me watch some videos about religions, atheism and world peace again.
One thing I realised is that it's all about the question "what is fair?". And that's what seems to make peace on earth impossible.
Growing up in "the West", I used to believe that there could be peace as long as people focus on what is common sense. There is this idea of the so called golden rule, an idea that is somehow present in most religions, philosophies and ways of life. It's the idea that, whatever you don't want to be done to you, you should not do to others either. Or to treat others the way you want to be treated.
The problem I noticed is that it doesn't work in reality because the definition of justice and fairness is different. Believing that all people could make an agreement and follow some basic rules is only wishful thinking because not all people would submit to such ideas.
I notice two systems that are in conflict with each other:
The secular world: This is mainly the western world, the civilised world, the highly advanced world, the countries that practice democracy, freedom of speech and human rights. Their idea is that everyone has a different opinion, and therefore, it makes sense to just respect each other. Due to its nature, the secular world also consists of people of all kinds of different backgrounds. They have different beliefs, and it's commonly accepted that "you can't know the truth". You can believe in what you think is true, but you have to accept that other people may as well be right about what they believe in. In this world, "fair" is to let other people believe what is right for them, because you want to be treated fair and also have a chance to practice your faith. Nobody knows what is right, so it's "fair" to allow gay marriage, changing or giving up one's religion, and even arguing about religion.
The theocratic world: This applies to countries that have a state religion and where usually more than 90 per cent of the population believe in the same religion. There may be similar characteristics as above (human rights etc.), but they may also not be present, it depends. In this society, there is only one truth that is accepted, and it is undoubtedly perceived as real and undeniable. The system has very clear rules and laws and there is not as much confusion, discussion or arguing about how to deal with certain situations because the rules state clearly what to do and what to not do, what to believe and not believe. Justice and fairness does not come from individuality, because God knows everything and decides what is right and wrong. There is no need to allow opinions that differ, it can actually be a sin to allow other people to do what appears to be wrong. Fair equals just. If a person does what is religiously wrong, it is just to punish the person accordingly. In other words, fair is what God says is okay. Everyone follows that and everything is fine.
In the secular world, the definition of fairness depends on everyone's attempt to go their own way of life that appears to be right to them. In the theocratic world, justice comes from above, whatever a person does, it is only good if the respective holy book says so.
So what are the reasons that there will always be conflicts and no world peace? Well, there are many different scenarios that can show us what's wrong, and I will just name some:
1. Freedom of speech
In the secular world, almost everything can be said. But what is not allowed to be said, is not forbidden to be said in the theocratic world. And vice versa. One example:
Secular world:
allowed: caricatures, parodies and satires on religion, discussions regarding the possible non-existence of god.
forbidden: hate speeches against religions or people, threats of death against countries and people.
theocratic world:
allowed: hate speeches against religions or people, threats of death against countries and people (unless it's about the state religion).
forbidden: anything that goes against the state religion, discussions regarding the possible non-existence of god.
This sounds a little one-sided, I am aware of that. What I wanted to show here is that just because policital correctness exists where we live, it doesn't mean that the other side of the world will not fire back with what seems totally inappropriate to us. In other words, we act in a perfectly legitimate way (from out point of view), while the other ones will perceive our actions as intrusive and disrespectful. They will answer with something that is righteous in their society (expressing the wrath of God), but when it arrives here, it provokes a lot of counter-hate.
2. Freedom of religion
In the secular world, most religions can be practised. Some religions have limited actions available if the country thinks of them as consitutionally dangerous. In the theocratic society, it may be allowed to have a religion other than the state religion, but it can cause to disadvantages, or you are automatically considered relgion x and have to announce that you are, however, part of religion y. But it's also possible that there is no freedom of religion because changing or losing one's religion is a sin. As we saw earlier, right and wrong is not up to humans to decide in this society.
The freedom of religion or "Unfreedom" of religion can also interfere with people getting married, people being gay, and all kinds of other "small" things that world peace does not have to depend on, but local peace can.
3. Entitlement to territory
This is often a problem that two theocratic or religious countries have with each other. The religion of each country tells them that they have a holy right to claim the territory of the other or deserve more territory than they have at the moment. There is no way to discuss this in an earthly manner because the instructions (what is right and wrong) come from above, again. The eagerness to claim territory is not based on anything that you could bargain for. Money, resources, political power, they all don't matter because it's about something religious. And as long as at least one side screams for death, it's where talking becomes useless.
Imagine this as a line that I draw to demonstrate that this list is over
The only way I can see to achieve anything like world peace would be if people actually DID agree on a codex that comes first. And I have to be honest, it would have to be something that comes before religion. Before all the verses regarding "kill those who...." take effect, this would have to be considered first. But how could it be possible anyway? Why would a religious father accept that his son is gay when it's a deadly sin in his opinion? And that's just a very individual matter, there are probably other things like this whole Israel question that have a bigger effect on the whole debate.
I had to become 26 years old to finally understand what the big deal with world peace is. The problem is not the useless fighting, the wars, or the greed. It's the impossibility of establishing one common law for everyone. And that's because there are different answers to "what is fair?"
One thing I realised is that it's all about the question "what is fair?". And that's what seems to make peace on earth impossible.
Growing up in "the West", I used to believe that there could be peace as long as people focus on what is common sense. There is this idea of the so called golden rule, an idea that is somehow present in most religions, philosophies and ways of life. It's the idea that, whatever you don't want to be done to you, you should not do to others either. Or to treat others the way you want to be treated.
The problem I noticed is that it doesn't work in reality because the definition of justice and fairness is different. Believing that all people could make an agreement and follow some basic rules is only wishful thinking because not all people would submit to such ideas.
I notice two systems that are in conflict with each other:
The secular world: This is mainly the western world, the civilised world, the highly advanced world, the countries that practice democracy, freedom of speech and human rights. Their idea is that everyone has a different opinion, and therefore, it makes sense to just respect each other. Due to its nature, the secular world also consists of people of all kinds of different backgrounds. They have different beliefs, and it's commonly accepted that "you can't know the truth". You can believe in what you think is true, but you have to accept that other people may as well be right about what they believe in. In this world, "fair" is to let other people believe what is right for them, because you want to be treated fair and also have a chance to practice your faith. Nobody knows what is right, so it's "fair" to allow gay marriage, changing or giving up one's religion, and even arguing about religion.
The theocratic world: This applies to countries that have a state religion and where usually more than 90 per cent of the population believe in the same religion. There may be similar characteristics as above (human rights etc.), but they may also not be present, it depends. In this society, there is only one truth that is accepted, and it is undoubtedly perceived as real and undeniable. The system has very clear rules and laws and there is not as much confusion, discussion or arguing about how to deal with certain situations because the rules state clearly what to do and what to not do, what to believe and not believe. Justice and fairness does not come from individuality, because God knows everything and decides what is right and wrong. There is no need to allow opinions that differ, it can actually be a sin to allow other people to do what appears to be wrong. Fair equals just. If a person does what is religiously wrong, it is just to punish the person accordingly. In other words, fair is what God says is okay. Everyone follows that and everything is fine.
In the secular world, the definition of fairness depends on everyone's attempt to go their own way of life that appears to be right to them. In the theocratic world, justice comes from above, whatever a person does, it is only good if the respective holy book says so.
So what are the reasons that there will always be conflicts and no world peace? Well, there are many different scenarios that can show us what's wrong, and I will just name some:
1. Freedom of speech
In the secular world, almost everything can be said. But what is not allowed to be said, is not forbidden to be said in the theocratic world. And vice versa. One example:
Secular world:
allowed: caricatures, parodies and satires on religion, discussions regarding the possible non-existence of god.
forbidden: hate speeches against religions or people, threats of death against countries and people.
theocratic world:
allowed: hate speeches against religions or people, threats of death against countries and people (unless it's about the state religion).
forbidden: anything that goes against the state religion, discussions regarding the possible non-existence of god.
This sounds a little one-sided, I am aware of that. What I wanted to show here is that just because policital correctness exists where we live, it doesn't mean that the other side of the world will not fire back with what seems totally inappropriate to us. In other words, we act in a perfectly legitimate way (from out point of view), while the other ones will perceive our actions as intrusive and disrespectful. They will answer with something that is righteous in their society (expressing the wrath of God), but when it arrives here, it provokes a lot of counter-hate.
2. Freedom of religion
In the secular world, most religions can be practised. Some religions have limited actions available if the country thinks of them as consitutionally dangerous. In the theocratic society, it may be allowed to have a religion other than the state religion, but it can cause to disadvantages, or you are automatically considered relgion x and have to announce that you are, however, part of religion y. But it's also possible that there is no freedom of religion because changing or losing one's religion is a sin. As we saw earlier, right and wrong is not up to humans to decide in this society.
The freedom of religion or "Unfreedom" of religion can also interfere with people getting married, people being gay, and all kinds of other "small" things that world peace does not have to depend on, but local peace can.
3. Entitlement to territory
This is often a problem that two theocratic or religious countries have with each other. The religion of each country tells them that they have a holy right to claim the territory of the other or deserve more territory than they have at the moment. There is no way to discuss this in an earthly manner because the instructions (what is right and wrong) come from above, again. The eagerness to claim territory is not based on anything that you could bargain for. Money, resources, political power, they all don't matter because it's about something religious. And as long as at least one side screams for death, it's where talking becomes useless.
Imagine this as a line that I draw to demonstrate that this list is over
The only way I can see to achieve anything like world peace would be if people actually DID agree on a codex that comes first. And I have to be honest, it would have to be something that comes before religion. Before all the verses regarding "kill those who...." take effect, this would have to be considered first. But how could it be possible anyway? Why would a religious father accept that his son is gay when it's a deadly sin in his opinion? And that's just a very individual matter, there are probably other things like this whole Israel question that have a bigger effect on the whole debate.
I had to become 26 years old to finally understand what the big deal with world peace is. The problem is not the useless fighting, the wars, or the greed. It's the impossibility of establishing one common law for everyone. And that's because there are different answers to "what is fair?"
Friday, July 10, 2009
How to learn for a profession
I want to explain the German working environment to you. If you want to have a career, you have to base it on something. You cannot work from your 20s until your 60s without a foundation, unless you are very lucky. Here are the things I knew so far:
Option one: Job training
A job training is a process that usually takes between 1 and 4 years, but most of the time 3 years. There are job trainings that are only academic (taking place in schools) and, the more common part, mixed job trainings (75% of the job training takes place in a company, the rest in school). During this job training, you basically learn how to carry out a profession. It is paid (except for the only academic version), but usually much less than the profession itself when you have learned it. Usually less then 50% of the usual income, often about a third only.
Option two: Studying
When you study, you go to a university or any other kind of place where people study. It takes longer than a job training, sometimes about 4 or 5 years. It is only academic, consists of lots of theory, and you basically only spend time sitting on your ass, learning stuff from books. There is no real life action involved. It also costs money most of the time, and since you are busy studying, it is difficult to earn a living on the side since you cannot do a full time job, but only get minor income on the side (and since you are not qualified for anything else, you can only do small jobs because this is what the whole thing is about - learn first, then have a proper profession). You also have a problem afterwards since, due to your lack of experience, employers will not find you attractive.
The point is: Studying qualifies you better most of the time and you achieve a higher position in a company compared to a job training, but the job training already allows you to live on the income you get and gives you a smoother transition into the profession. So this is all that I knew up to now.... until today
Option three: Dual studies
I heard about it and had a rough idea what it is, but never took it seriously because it still involved studying, a process I thought always costs more money than it can ever give to you. What I learned today is that, at least in the one I found, you earn up to three times as much as compared to a job training. It not only doesn't cost you anything, you get paid for sitting on your ass learning stuff, and all that in the sheer HOPE of your employer that you will one day be useful to him. Apart from that, you do get to apply what you learned in internships, but they are rather short, so I don't understand why you would get paid so well anyway.
It also doesn't take as long, only 3 years, which is just as long as the average job training. The downside is that you have to study really hard because a lot of stuff is pushed together. It's one of the hardest ways to learn a profession.
Okay, so much about definition. Now I want to tell you what I really don't like about it:
-In school, I was never told this
-In school, they said that someone who studies may earn less in his whole life than someone who didn't study because the one who studies spends about 4-5 years NOT working while the other one already earns money, even though the one who studies has a better-paid job later
-In school, they said he who studies may collect high debts due to studying fees
-In school, they always said it's either studying OR doing a job training
-Studying alone also means that you don't pay any contributions into the old age insurance. That means that your pension as an old person is less for all the years you work less. Therefore, I thought it would be bad for someone like me, who is already in his mid-twenties, to waste more years NOT making contributions
-I always disliked studying due to the fact that it takes 4-5 years (which is not necessarily true, as I NOW know)
-Neither my job advisers, my school, nor my family EVER explained all of this to me
-My brother knew about it
-My mum knew about it
-The whole country knew about it
If I had known that a job training takes as long as a dual studying thing, I might have chosen the latter anyway. It is paid well and you get a good profession afterwards that's well paid. You also make contributions into this whole insurance stuff. I don't know what to say now... I mean, I knew there is such a thing, but I always thought that the salary for working during this dual studies could never outweigh the costs! It didn't even cross my mind. And let me add that the JOB TRAINING I considered in Singapore also cost more than it would have given me!
I mean, why would a company or institution pay so much for you when all you do for them is do an internship here, and internship there, and most of the time, YOU are the one who costs them money because you are new and understand NOTHING of what they are doing. And then? You may fail, or maybe you go to a different company after succeeding. Wow.
I was always someone who didn't know what to do as a job. And I had job advisers who I thought would help me. But they never told me any of this. Why? I mean, I always brought up the reasons for not wanting to study, so why did they not say "hey, wait, you are missing something there." Hmm... anyway, it doesn't matter any more. I think now it's too late anyway.
"I don't want to study because I don't want to realise half way through that it's the wrong thing for me"
"I don't want to study because it costs so much money and I don't get that money from the state"
"I don't want to study because I have not worked much already and if I don't work for the next years, my pension will be low and I will be poor as an old man"
->whoooooosh.... all gone.
My brother will benefit from my mistakes. As always.
Option one: Job training
A job training is a process that usually takes between 1 and 4 years, but most of the time 3 years. There are job trainings that are only academic (taking place in schools) and, the more common part, mixed job trainings (75% of the job training takes place in a company, the rest in school). During this job training, you basically learn how to carry out a profession. It is paid (except for the only academic version), but usually much less than the profession itself when you have learned it. Usually less then 50% of the usual income, often about a third only.
Option two: Studying
When you study, you go to a university or any other kind of place where people study. It takes longer than a job training, sometimes about 4 or 5 years. It is only academic, consists of lots of theory, and you basically only spend time sitting on your ass, learning stuff from books. There is no real life action involved. It also costs money most of the time, and since you are busy studying, it is difficult to earn a living on the side since you cannot do a full time job, but only get minor income on the side (and since you are not qualified for anything else, you can only do small jobs because this is what the whole thing is about - learn first, then have a proper profession). You also have a problem afterwards since, due to your lack of experience, employers will not find you attractive.
The point is: Studying qualifies you better most of the time and you achieve a higher position in a company compared to a job training, but the job training already allows you to live on the income you get and gives you a smoother transition into the profession. So this is all that I knew up to now.... until today
Option three: Dual studies
I heard about it and had a rough idea what it is, but never took it seriously because it still involved studying, a process I thought always costs more money than it can ever give to you. What I learned today is that, at least in the one I found, you earn up to three times as much as compared to a job training. It not only doesn't cost you anything, you get paid for sitting on your ass learning stuff, and all that in the sheer HOPE of your employer that you will one day be useful to him. Apart from that, you do get to apply what you learned in internships, but they are rather short, so I don't understand why you would get paid so well anyway.
It also doesn't take as long, only 3 years, which is just as long as the average job training. The downside is that you have to study really hard because a lot of stuff is pushed together. It's one of the hardest ways to learn a profession.
Okay, so much about definition. Now I want to tell you what I really don't like about it:
-In school, I was never told this
-In school, they said that someone who studies may earn less in his whole life than someone who didn't study because the one who studies spends about 4-5 years NOT working while the other one already earns money, even though the one who studies has a better-paid job later
-In school, they said he who studies may collect high debts due to studying fees
-In school, they always said it's either studying OR doing a job training
-Studying alone also means that you don't pay any contributions into the old age insurance. That means that your pension as an old person is less for all the years you work less. Therefore, I thought it would be bad for someone like me, who is already in his mid-twenties, to waste more years NOT making contributions
-I always disliked studying due to the fact that it takes 4-5 years (which is not necessarily true, as I NOW know)
-Neither my job advisers, my school, nor my family EVER explained all of this to me
-My brother knew about it
-My mum knew about it
-The whole country knew about it
If I had known that a job training takes as long as a dual studying thing, I might have chosen the latter anyway. It is paid well and you get a good profession afterwards that's well paid. You also make contributions into this whole insurance stuff. I don't know what to say now... I mean, I knew there is such a thing, but I always thought that the salary for working during this dual studies could never outweigh the costs! It didn't even cross my mind. And let me add that the JOB TRAINING I considered in Singapore also cost more than it would have given me!
I mean, why would a company or institution pay so much for you when all you do for them is do an internship here, and internship there, and most of the time, YOU are the one who costs them money because you are new and understand NOTHING of what they are doing. And then? You may fail, or maybe you go to a different company after succeeding. Wow.
I was always someone who didn't know what to do as a job. And I had job advisers who I thought would help me. But they never told me any of this. Why? I mean, I always brought up the reasons for not wanting to study, so why did they not say "hey, wait, you are missing something there." Hmm... anyway, it doesn't matter any more. I think now it's too late anyway.
"I don't want to study because I don't want to realise half way through that it's the wrong thing for me"
"I don't want to study because it costs so much money and I don't get that money from the state"
"I don't want to study because I have not worked much already and if I don't work for the next years, my pension will be low and I will be poor as an old man"
->whoooooosh.... all gone.
My brother will benefit from my mistakes. As always.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Fireflies - nature's most underrated miracle
There are many interesting facts about fireflies (they have different names, technically, they are bugs where I live). For example, they can only be seen for few weeks during the summer. And they have a higher energy conversion efficiency than any artificial source of light (up to 95%). That means that only very little energy is lost for warmth radiation, most of the energy is just for producing light.
The best thing apart from the facts is to see them at night. Tonight I arrived maybe around 9:45 pm and was already wondering if I might be too late around this time of the year. But at almost exactly 10 pm, I saw the first ones, and then they became more and more. There are moments when you can turn around slowly and count 15 of them within seconds, just by turning your head and noticing every light you see. Imagine that there are so many insects around you at the same moment. During daytime it's impossible to be aware of.
Walking around on a warm midsummer night with the lights around gives you a peaceful feeling. It's like some magical forest from "Lord of the rings" coming to life. I think that so few people truly appreciate this phenomenon.
I also seized the quietness of the woods to think about my life. A paranoid side of me forbids me to enjoy any hopes of what life could be like, but in moments like these, when everything else is beautiful, I can't help but look forward to what will hopefully work out for me one day. I try to be aware of challenges so that disappointment doesn't even have a chance. If only I already "knew" that it was going to work eventually. But I can only hope. Anyway, I can appreciate life and that's what matters. And walking through the woods also made me wish I was with my special someone.
Now I just want to sleep soon... I hope I get some peace over the weekend and don't have to reach my limits.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
The problem with names! (part 2)
Do you notice anything? Yes? Two articles regarding Ronaldo. Cool. What has he done? I haven't heard a lot about Ronaldo LuÃs Nazário de Lima in a long time. He was world champion with Brazil a while ago, but he doesn't play for Real Madrid or Inter Milan any more. He moved back to Brazil... so what makes him go into the news twice? Hm... let's see... "Brazil: Ronaldo gets his first title"... okay... not very clear but I get the idea, he won some title with his club... oh... and what's this? He attacked a paparazzo. Oh wait, that's not him, that's Portuguese Cristiano Ronaldo dos Santos Aveiro, the superstar who is 6 years younger. *sighs*
Dammit! How ridiculous does it have to get? How many news articles have to come together before they notice how akward and ridiculous it gets! This is irritating to the reader's eyes.
They are not going to change anything, are they? What happens if one of them dies, I wonder? That would be complete confusion. I'm glad there is not two Michael Jacksons'es who are famous people. That would have been soooo tiring.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
The PC - unknown being made by the devil's company (I am, of course, referring to Microsoft)
On my list of things to never do with your PC, I can add another one today: Compressing emails. My outlook express comes up to me every once in a while and asks me if it can compress files. I usually say "yes" then because I don't see a problem with it. It's supposed to keep things compact, it's there to stop the ongoing "slowing down" process of the computer (this is like global warming, you can't seem to stop it, only postpone it), so why would you not allow it to just go on with what it advises you to do?
I just checked my emails again and I was surprised. First I thought there was a new message, because it seemed so unfamiliar to me. Strangely, it didn't open, I got this screen that I get when I have an internet explorer open but the page doesn't load. So the message was not available?! "Hmmm", I thought, and looked at the date. It was 2008. What? The last message on my outlook is from 2008? Why? Is the order mixed up? No... I can click on different things but all the emails I have here are from 2008. In the other menu I can see all the messages I sent, and they are up to date, but the emails I received after some point in 2008 are now all gone. Why?
This must have to do with the compression process, because it's the last thing I did last night before I left my email account. What's going on? I also checked the trashcan on my desktop. It had some email-related files. Not knowing what was going on, I said "restore" and it asked me if it was supposed to replace existing ones with the same name. First I said "no" to that, but when nothing happened that changed anything to the better, I said "replace all", but there is still no change.
I never asked my email account to delete all my emails from 2009 up to now. But thanks anyway, you stupid piece of shit! I will never compress emails again.
I just checked my emails again and I was surprised. First I thought there was a new message, because it seemed so unfamiliar to me. Strangely, it didn't open, I got this screen that I get when I have an internet explorer open but the page doesn't load. So the message was not available?! "Hmmm", I thought, and looked at the date. It was 2008. What? The last message on my outlook is from 2008? Why? Is the order mixed up? No... I can click on different things but all the emails I have here are from 2008. In the other menu I can see all the messages I sent, and they are up to date, but the emails I received after some point in 2008 are now all gone. Why?
This must have to do with the compression process, because it's the last thing I did last night before I left my email account. What's going on? I also checked the trashcan on my desktop. It had some email-related files. Not knowing what was going on, I said "restore" and it asked me if it was supposed to replace existing ones with the same name. First I said "no" to that, but when nothing happened that changed anything to the better, I said "replace all", but there is still no change.
I never asked my email account to delete all my emails from 2009 up to now. But thanks anyway, you stupid piece of shit! I will never compress emails again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)