Woo hoo!
Today, I am officially going to London and starting God-knows what life.
I will probably be poor and frustrated for a while, so be prepared that these blogs will be increasingly morose and bitter.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Monday, August 14, 2006
Fucking media
Just a quote to complain about today's news. Ok, so I turn on my TV and expect to be greeted by some details of some interesting developments in the Middle East leading to at least some definition of peace, as the war is just fucking stupid by now. No, instead, I hear that the Israelis and Hezbollah are both claiming victory and that the future's looking bleak. Great. Now the next offensive will be over because it will be found that Hezbollah has found some more classrooms to occupy and plot their little schemes, which all shall be called a 'headquarters'/ because the Israelis are not taking the demands of the militants seriously enough and are not paying them due respect. End in sight, my hairy ass.
As well as learning these highly interesting facts about how stupidly intransigent people can be, I also got pissed off with the news for another reason.
Ok, I know it defies any economic indicators of interest and what sells news, as well as the reasoning of any media executive (I'm not complaining), but two news items that were incredibly interesting were at the end of the news programme (along with reports about squirrels who paint): the world Aids conference and the world astronomical conference. Ok I know not exactly noteworthy, but as for the latter, it is said that the fate of Pluto shall be decided. I remember mnemonics of the Solar System including Pluto, and now I hear it is supposed to be demoted to the status of an asteroid. My world will never be the same again.
Ok, maybe that's too personal, but the other conference, though, is incredibly important, or at least I think should be, given the scale of the problem. I'm not going to expound why, because it's been talked about to the death, but it just really annoys me. Somehow we all accept that the problem will be solved by a panel of scientists and activists, whereas we all have such strong views about who is more right in the Israeli-Palestinian (US-Arab) conflict and get so passionate about that one.
I don't want it to sound like I'm not offering a serious criticism of the media, and what it should offer as news, but it just pisses me off that the priorities of the world are so skewed. It brings to mind an interview with a famous Czech director who just lamented the fact that we all get so het-up about what is, isn't, could be, etc. in our food, water, building materials, etc. and entire societies bring about such grandiose upheaval waiving banners which all the caring mothers sign with the zeal of 19th Century revolutionaries. All this time we could not care what kind of garbage we are subjected to on our screens as evening entertainment. At the time, I thought that it was another example of the embedded communist mindset of the Czech intelligentsia, but I'm wondering whether I won't just join his way of thinking.
Or otherwise, there is that ambition to try and do something about it.
Hmm. Or perhaps I'll just remain as impotently apathetic as usual and just write a note in a blog about it.
As well as learning these highly interesting facts about how stupidly intransigent people can be, I also got pissed off with the news for another reason.
Ok, I know it defies any economic indicators of interest and what sells news, as well as the reasoning of any media executive (I'm not complaining), but two news items that were incredibly interesting were at the end of the news programme (along with reports about squirrels who paint): the world Aids conference and the world astronomical conference. Ok I know not exactly noteworthy, but as for the latter, it is said that the fate of Pluto shall be decided. I remember mnemonics of the Solar System including Pluto, and now I hear it is supposed to be demoted to the status of an asteroid. My world will never be the same again.
Ok, maybe that's too personal, but the other conference, though, is incredibly important, or at least I think should be, given the scale of the problem. I'm not going to expound why, because it's been talked about to the death, but it just really annoys me. Somehow we all accept that the problem will be solved by a panel of scientists and activists, whereas we all have such strong views about who is more right in the Israeli-Palestinian (US-Arab) conflict and get so passionate about that one.
I don't want it to sound like I'm not offering a serious criticism of the media, and what it should offer as news, but it just pisses me off that the priorities of the world are so skewed. It brings to mind an interview with a famous Czech director who just lamented the fact that we all get so het-up about what is, isn't, could be, etc. in our food, water, building materials, etc. and entire societies bring about such grandiose upheaval waiving banners which all the caring mothers sign with the zeal of 19th Century revolutionaries. All this time we could not care what kind of garbage we are subjected to on our screens as evening entertainment. At the time, I thought that it was another example of the embedded communist mindset of the Czech intelligentsia, but I'm wondering whether I won't just join his way of thinking.
Or otherwise, there is that ambition to try and do something about it.
Hmm. Or perhaps I'll just remain as impotently apathetic as usual and just write a note in a blog about it.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Civilisation's sex change
I had promised a note on patriarchies changing to patriarchies, and lo! I deliver. Well, I will admit that it isn't exceptionally well-thought through, but enough for me to hold it as a valid view for a while. If you have doubts, I don't mind arguing for it, so leave me your comments if you think i've not thought it through properly. I'll have to shorthand it as well (not trying to cover my tracks here...), because I know how boring it is to scroll down a page that seems perfectly well-contained on that one page.
So: the basic characteristic of a patriarchy is to rule over its litter and cajole it into obedience through strict means in order to fulfil obligations as providers for a secure future. This coercion into a strict obedience of a moral code is furthered by the sons, who, in turn, try their hardest to do right by their fathers (linked to this is the civilisational belief in the regression into base forms from illustrious beginnings). I am referring here to organised societies with a codex of norms written and agreed upon to instill bounds on personal freedoms in order for functionality and identity of the society. At first these are naturally loose, but when necessity for loyalty strikes (eg. in famine, war, particularly bitter break-ups with girlfriends, etc.), I'd log this as the beginning of the society (though it my itself recall other histories of its own identity). I won't include for why these loyalties begin, because that's too broad a topic, but they just do, but mainly cos Phil's well a dick and Mandy deserves beta.
Patriarchies not only create strong moral obligations in the men, but also in women, making them servile and compassionate above all. The more harshly enforced these are, the more masculine the men and the more feminine the women. As an aside, what strikes me as important here is that despite this enforcement of the norms, the most successful leaders are never quite 'all man' as intended. It leads me on to the point that the seeds of destruction, in this system, are not laid by the inept nature in men, but through the increasing skills of the women.
By the process of breeding and rearing/ providing and securing, the men and women become a little less active and a lot more bored. This leads to the development interesting sex lives for both partners, gardening, the discovery of self-help books and general literature for houseviwes. Prior to these leaps, however, the men learn compassion from women, the women resent them for it (owing to the perceived regression and the refusal of its bestowal upon their foetal matter) and become convinced of the notion that they have to take on the responsibilities in men (which the men, owing to their pride of place mostly). First, by masculine methods, but seeing them fail, by feminine methods. Feminine methods are much more deterministic than men - men fear what might happen if they do not act, women try not to act and spoil it by weighing up the likely outcomes. Therefore, men tend to value discipline, ascetism and fierce innovation, while women go for effortlessness (or more the appearance of/ for want of a better word), 'postive' vulnerability (or general openness) and selflessness. I don't think I can express the latter more precisely, but I do not have that point all too formulated. Slowly, but surely, the men are emasculated and the women empowered, as they each try and become one like the other.
This all develops into a world in which the matriarch is ruler - the compassionate society. Here, all bad deeds are gradually forgiven, every mistake is a step toward self-fulfilment and the possibility of change within a human being is a given. The few are chaperoned by the keen observation of the many and all are equally as inculpable as others for any social ills. I suppose an expression for it is the supreme nanny state. This is not to say it needs to be as negative as today's connotations suggest, as this would a much more pleasurable state for most people on Earth - one side feels like the martyrs, the other like the unfortunates... I don't think I would make the point too obscure if I pointed out that on the path towards this matriarchy, masculinity finds more than enough outlets - namely coersive idealism, which defines itself as the maternal ends through paternal means.
As I promised, I would offer a utopian paradise. First, toward the complete matriarchy quoted above: instead of trying by masculine means, women will need to organise themselves into pushing for the educational acceptance of their norms. We need to therefore see their 'attributes' not as weaknesses of character in either sex and become aware that virtue is not just contained in action, but also in inaction and restraint.
Second, I don't think this system is satisfactory either. There needs to be an acceptance of why masculinity comes so easily to men and why femininity to women, and let both do as their own physical dispositions order them. Then, as their own bodies begin to decline into a more equal state of masculine and feminine, they should embrace them within themselves.
Well, that is as far as my opinions stand at this stage on the point. I'm not clairvoyant beyond that point, and I am severely tired. I imagine you are too after reading all that, so my apologies to that tired finger on the scroll button.
So: the basic characteristic of a patriarchy is to rule over its litter and cajole it into obedience through strict means in order to fulfil obligations as providers for a secure future. This coercion into a strict obedience of a moral code is furthered by the sons, who, in turn, try their hardest to do right by their fathers (linked to this is the civilisational belief in the regression into base forms from illustrious beginnings). I am referring here to organised societies with a codex of norms written and agreed upon to instill bounds on personal freedoms in order for functionality and identity of the society. At first these are naturally loose, but when necessity for loyalty strikes (eg. in famine, war, particularly bitter break-ups with girlfriends, etc.), I'd log this as the beginning of the society (though it my itself recall other histories of its own identity). I won't include for why these loyalties begin, because that's too broad a topic, but they just do, but mainly cos Phil's well a dick and Mandy deserves beta.
Patriarchies not only create strong moral obligations in the men, but also in women, making them servile and compassionate above all. The more harshly enforced these are, the more masculine the men and the more feminine the women. As an aside, what strikes me as important here is that despite this enforcement of the norms, the most successful leaders are never quite 'all man' as intended. It leads me on to the point that the seeds of destruction, in this system, are not laid by the inept nature in men, but through the increasing skills of the women.
By the process of breeding and rearing/ providing and securing, the men and women become a little less active and a lot more bored. This leads to the development interesting sex lives for both partners, gardening, the discovery of self-help books and general literature for houseviwes. Prior to these leaps, however, the men learn compassion from women, the women resent them for it (owing to the perceived regression and the refusal of its bestowal upon their foetal matter) and become convinced of the notion that they have to take on the responsibilities in men (which the men, owing to their pride of place mostly). First, by masculine methods, but seeing them fail, by feminine methods. Feminine methods are much more deterministic than men - men fear what might happen if they do not act, women try not to act and spoil it by weighing up the likely outcomes. Therefore, men tend to value discipline, ascetism and fierce innovation, while women go for effortlessness (or more the appearance of/ for want of a better word), 'postive' vulnerability (or general openness) and selflessness. I don't think I can express the latter more precisely, but I do not have that point all too formulated. Slowly, but surely, the men are emasculated and the women empowered, as they each try and become one like the other.
This all develops into a world in which the matriarch is ruler - the compassionate society. Here, all bad deeds are gradually forgiven, every mistake is a step toward self-fulfilment and the possibility of change within a human being is a given. The few are chaperoned by the keen observation of the many and all are equally as inculpable as others for any social ills. I suppose an expression for it is the supreme nanny state. This is not to say it needs to be as negative as today's connotations suggest, as this would a much more pleasurable state for most people on Earth - one side feels like the martyrs, the other like the unfortunates... I don't think I would make the point too obscure if I pointed out that on the path towards this matriarchy, masculinity finds more than enough outlets - namely coersive idealism, which defines itself as the maternal ends through paternal means.
As I promised, I would offer a utopian paradise. First, toward the complete matriarchy quoted above: instead of trying by masculine means, women will need to organise themselves into pushing for the educational acceptance of their norms. We need to therefore see their 'attributes' not as weaknesses of character in either sex and become aware that virtue is not just contained in action, but also in inaction and restraint.
Second, I don't think this system is satisfactory either. There needs to be an acceptance of why masculinity comes so easily to men and why femininity to women, and let both do as their own physical dispositions order them. Then, as their own bodies begin to decline into a more equal state of masculine and feminine, they should embrace them within themselves.
Well, that is as far as my opinions stand at this stage on the point. I'm not clairvoyant beyond that point, and I am severely tired. I imagine you are too after reading all that, so my apologies to that tired finger on the scroll button.
Friday, August 04, 2006
The trouble with perceived racism
Well, I am over here in Prague and have just returned from walking my dog, Mike, having just read my morning newspaper. Usually, I get riled by some idiotic editorial on morality, or perhaps by some open letter from a politician to his detractors, or some other views on war and how best to do away with it once and for all. Today, however, it was a simple film review that got my blood pressure spurting, as it touched a nerve.
The film is called The White Massai (or, in the original, Der Weisse Massai), and it is a German film. I saw it three weeks ago at the Karlovy Vary Film Festival, and I liked it. I don't want to go into the details of it too much, and I'm sure you can all find a suitable review of it on the net, but, in short, it is based on an autobiography (bestselling I may add) of a Swiss woman who had gone to Kenya, fell in love (with a Massai warrior, no less), found the cultural differences too great and complex, and went back home. Pretty standard stuff, I liked the story and the way it was told (I hadn't read the book). Now, I'm sure that it wouldn't be most people's cup of tea, and I can see why a lot of people wouldn't like it, especially from an artistic view of things, but I did.
However, I am not writing this as some kind of defense of the bad review. In fact, if the reviewer had given it a bad review from a film point of view, I would have probably thought it a wise and learned opinion and slowly begun to shift my own opinions thus. But no, the reviewer didn't like it because of one thing: she perceived it to be a highly insensitive film and in essence, racist.
Hence, arrive at the title of my blog here, and my objection to her reasoning, and the reason why I share my view on here, because I think views like this are endemic in our European society and fundamentally stupid.
To present her argument: the heroine falls in love not with the man, but with a romantic notion of a 'virginal Africa' and is unjustifiably angry when she is unable to reconcile her learning and 'civilised' habit with her idealism that the relationship can work out. The heroine's 'immaturity' shows itself in cases when she tries to prevent a female circumcision, or when she teaches her husband the art of parity in sexual relations. The reviewer sees this all as a fallacy and presents the reason as being that since Switzerland has never had its own colonial empire it (personified in the heroine) has never learnt sensitivity towards the undeveloped world, and is itself uncivilised in lacking the necessary compassion for it. And therefore, racist. I would like to add that I am simplifying the argument - not that it is any more complex, but definitely more verbose.
Ultimately, my problem with this kind of perspective is that it amounts to saying that are wrong in interfering in cultures other than our own, because we show an inherent disdain for it in trying to change it to suit our own morals. Not that I am an entrenched socialist and think that certain liberties are natural, but rather, I think it completely disregards the way things stand in the world. Also, it underlines another point of distinction in the world, of which I will write in a future blog - that cultures in their quest for civilisation undergo a change from patriarchal to matriarchal (woo! whet the appetite there didn't I?). I think it may however be a fairly obvious point, so I will add my own prophesy to how I see future civilisations (woo! again...) .
Back to my argument: disregarding certain realities within the world. Fundamentally, they are contained in the case of the Swiss woman - in the story, she wants her cake and eat it, and hits a civilisational wall. She'd like her strong man and unforgiving scenery, and prove that happiness is a matter of hard work and perseverance, but she'd like to retain her self-respect and feminine nature. Her wild Africa replies: 'No!'. Swiss lady, you'd like to have power over men using your feminine charm - your Africa sees that as the actions of a dishonourable hussy. You'd like to have your shops and commerce, providing for your family - well, you're only painfully emasculating your African husband before his tribe. You want to strike back at your husband when he hits you - well, he's gonna kill you for it. And so on. The problem is why the hell should she not do all these things? I mean, we honour all kinds of martyrs for precisely those reasons, so why not when we are in the position of the oppressors?
Nobody likes to see Goliath win, but the fact is that until you get anyone as smart and resolute as David, Goliath will always smash your face in (I know, how western of me, quoting the Bible!). What makes the Swiss woman a Goliath in such remarkable circumstances is that she and all that she stands for will ultimately win in Africa*, because of the nature of politics: as we all know from Machiavelli, you can keep a state where the inhabitants have grievances or crave greater advantages, as long as you have the force necessary to maintain the status quo. The developing world, does not possess the means necessary to stop the influx of influence and interest from the Western world, and since the Western world is arguably the more powerful, these 'states' will unfortunately perish under the force of the West's more powerfully enforced value systems. It is perhaps sad and regrettable, but it seems the seed of destruction will be (or perhaps, more aptly, that had been, sometime in the 19th Century) sown by the so-called sympathisers as epitomised by the Swiss woman. To put it plainly, the reason for this demise is not only down to power politics, but it comes in the form we put our laws: the paradox of our enforcing the freedom from oppression of any kind.
This is a useful link for why I don't believe racism is the point either. It is not racism that makes us self-righteous, it is the centuries' old feeling of having overcome oppression from the forces which afflict the developing world. We cannot help but somehow link our own problems to the problems of the world, and our educational system encourages this attitude within us at every turn. We base it on having educational paradigms and then transposing them onto greater scale, from which we make our decisions and their subsequent justifications. Through this, Romeo and Juliet feel the same love that we feel toward our partners, tribes of chimpanzees make war against others in the same way that we make war against each other and why we are intrinsically sure that there is life on other planets in other solar systems (though none are as noble and great as ours).
I can bet that even if I went up to that reviewer and ask what she felt about circumcision as the act itself, she'd think it something she disagrees with, probably because she's so accustomed to enjoying having a clitoris. Hence, her argument begins to sound like, 'Leave them alone, they don't know any better'. In all this, she would probably state that it is up to the people themselves to overthrow these practices when they are good and ready (probably when their own women emancipate themselves, etc.). I don't think I am too unfair, but I could be wrong, so I apologise to her if she's reading this (highly likely).
Hence, I find this view fundamentally stupid in a European context. We have our opinions, we like our opinions, and seemingly like being so damn smug. The ones who feel self-confident about their opinions do not have to answer to politeness, especially since common morality finds no fault with man answering for making his immediate world his own. That is why, perhaps on a global scale, these opinions will always seem insensitive, but in the conduct in the lives of individuals they will be justifiable to anyone with a European education.
To conclude, I should like to speculate how many people saw the film/read the book and thought 'Poor woman, the things she had to endure for her love!' and 'Well, if she did love him, why couldn't she just adapt?' The first is out of sympathy, the second out of empathy, and both belie that opinion that leaves the heroine a victim of a world in which she condescended to live in.
* - I would like to add that I say in Africa, as I think that despite claims that the West will 'win' in the Middle East with all the democratic notions and intentions, it'll be more interesting than that. We'll still need oil, and we haven't manage to really subjugate the countries enough to make them give it to us happily. Well, my kids are gonna solve that civilisational conundrum, so I don't care. Much.
The film is called The White Massai (or, in the original, Der Weisse Massai), and it is a German film. I saw it three weeks ago at the Karlovy Vary Film Festival, and I liked it. I don't want to go into the details of it too much, and I'm sure you can all find a suitable review of it on the net, but, in short, it is based on an autobiography (bestselling I may add) of a Swiss woman who had gone to Kenya, fell in love (with a Massai warrior, no less), found the cultural differences too great and complex, and went back home. Pretty standard stuff, I liked the story and the way it was told (I hadn't read the book). Now, I'm sure that it wouldn't be most people's cup of tea, and I can see why a lot of people wouldn't like it, especially from an artistic view of things, but I did.
However, I am not writing this as some kind of defense of the bad review. In fact, if the reviewer had given it a bad review from a film point of view, I would have probably thought it a wise and learned opinion and slowly begun to shift my own opinions thus. But no, the reviewer didn't like it because of one thing: she perceived it to be a highly insensitive film and in essence, racist.
Hence, arrive at the title of my blog here, and my objection to her reasoning, and the reason why I share my view on here, because I think views like this are endemic in our European society and fundamentally stupid.
To present her argument: the heroine falls in love not with the man, but with a romantic notion of a 'virginal Africa' and is unjustifiably angry when she is unable to reconcile her learning and 'civilised' habit with her idealism that the relationship can work out. The heroine's 'immaturity' shows itself in cases when she tries to prevent a female circumcision, or when she teaches her husband the art of parity in sexual relations. The reviewer sees this all as a fallacy and presents the reason as being that since Switzerland has never had its own colonial empire it (personified in the heroine) has never learnt sensitivity towards the undeveloped world, and is itself uncivilised in lacking the necessary compassion for it. And therefore, racist. I would like to add that I am simplifying the argument - not that it is any more complex, but definitely more verbose.
Ultimately, my problem with this kind of perspective is that it amounts to saying that are wrong in interfering in cultures other than our own, because we show an inherent disdain for it in trying to change it to suit our own morals. Not that I am an entrenched socialist and think that certain liberties are natural, but rather, I think it completely disregards the way things stand in the world. Also, it underlines another point of distinction in the world, of which I will write in a future blog - that cultures in their quest for civilisation undergo a change from patriarchal to matriarchal (woo! whet the appetite there didn't I?). I think it may however be a fairly obvious point, so I will add my own prophesy to how I see future civilisations (woo! again...) .
Back to my argument: disregarding certain realities within the world. Fundamentally, they are contained in the case of the Swiss woman - in the story, she wants her cake and eat it, and hits a civilisational wall. She'd like her strong man and unforgiving scenery, and prove that happiness is a matter of hard work and perseverance, but she'd like to retain her self-respect and feminine nature. Her wild Africa replies: 'No!'. Swiss lady, you'd like to have power over men using your feminine charm - your Africa sees that as the actions of a dishonourable hussy. You'd like to have your shops and commerce, providing for your family - well, you're only painfully emasculating your African husband before his tribe. You want to strike back at your husband when he hits you - well, he's gonna kill you for it. And so on. The problem is why the hell should she not do all these things? I mean, we honour all kinds of martyrs for precisely those reasons, so why not when we are in the position of the oppressors?
Nobody likes to see Goliath win, but the fact is that until you get anyone as smart and resolute as David, Goliath will always smash your face in (I know, how western of me, quoting the Bible!). What makes the Swiss woman a Goliath in such remarkable circumstances is that she and all that she stands for will ultimately win in Africa*, because of the nature of politics: as we all know from Machiavelli, you can keep a state where the inhabitants have grievances or crave greater advantages, as long as you have the force necessary to maintain the status quo. The developing world, does not possess the means necessary to stop the influx of influence and interest from the Western world, and since the Western world is arguably the more powerful, these 'states' will unfortunately perish under the force of the West's more powerfully enforced value systems. It is perhaps sad and regrettable, but it seems the seed of destruction will be (or perhaps, more aptly, that had been, sometime in the 19th Century) sown by the so-called sympathisers as epitomised by the Swiss woman. To put it plainly, the reason for this demise is not only down to power politics, but it comes in the form we put our laws: the paradox of our enforcing the freedom from oppression of any kind.
This is a useful link for why I don't believe racism is the point either. It is not racism that makes us self-righteous, it is the centuries' old feeling of having overcome oppression from the forces which afflict the developing world. We cannot help but somehow link our own problems to the problems of the world, and our educational system encourages this attitude within us at every turn. We base it on having educational paradigms and then transposing them onto greater scale, from which we make our decisions and their subsequent justifications. Through this, Romeo and Juliet feel the same love that we feel toward our partners, tribes of chimpanzees make war against others in the same way that we make war against each other and why we are intrinsically sure that there is life on other planets in other solar systems (though none are as noble and great as ours).
I can bet that even if I went up to that reviewer and ask what she felt about circumcision as the act itself, she'd think it something she disagrees with, probably because she's so accustomed to enjoying having a clitoris. Hence, her argument begins to sound like, 'Leave them alone, they don't know any better'. In all this, she would probably state that it is up to the people themselves to overthrow these practices when they are good and ready (probably when their own women emancipate themselves, etc.). I don't think I am too unfair, but I could be wrong, so I apologise to her if she's reading this (highly likely).
Hence, I find this view fundamentally stupid in a European context. We have our opinions, we like our opinions, and seemingly like being so damn smug. The ones who feel self-confident about their opinions do not have to answer to politeness, especially since common morality finds no fault with man answering for making his immediate world his own. That is why, perhaps on a global scale, these opinions will always seem insensitive, but in the conduct in the lives of individuals they will be justifiable to anyone with a European education.
To conclude, I should like to speculate how many people saw the film/read the book and thought 'Poor woman, the things she had to endure for her love!' and 'Well, if she did love him, why couldn't she just adapt?' The first is out of sympathy, the second out of empathy, and both belie that opinion that leaves the heroine a victim of a world in which she condescended to live in.
* - I would like to add that I say in Africa, as I think that despite claims that the West will 'win' in the Middle East with all the democratic notions and intentions, it'll be more interesting than that. We'll still need oil, and we haven't manage to really subjugate the countries enough to make them give it to us happily. Well, my kids are gonna solve that civilisational conundrum, so I don't care. Much.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
First post
Dear all, friends, foes, countrymen and emigres,
As a beginning I would like to open with my mission statement: I am writing this because I currently have a lot of time on my hands and all of my friends are far away. So, instead of holding these conversations in my own head, I have decided to share them in cyberspace, or whatever this virtual thing is called nowadays (perhaps a title for my second post - is 'cyberspace' an obsolete term?).
These will consist of my personal musings on the world and opinions about a number of things, which may all be very useful and pertinent to everyone's life. In fact, one day, people will come here to read my views instead of going to school, and my views will change the world.
As the title suggests, I have no qualifications for these needless pontifications, and am pretty proud of it. In short, I have nothing to declare, but my unfounded brazen arrogance.
Yours,
Richard Valtr
Governing Chairman of the Eastern/Central European Dilettante Committee
As a beginning I would like to open with my mission statement: I am writing this because I currently have a lot of time on my hands and all of my friends are far away. So, instead of holding these conversations in my own head, I have decided to share them in cyberspace, or whatever this virtual thing is called nowadays (perhaps a title for my second post - is 'cyberspace' an obsolete term?).
These will consist of my personal musings on the world and opinions about a number of things, which may all be very useful and pertinent to everyone's life. In fact, one day, people will come here to read my views instead of going to school, and my views will change the world.
As the title suggests, I have no qualifications for these needless pontifications, and am pretty proud of it. In short, I have nothing to declare, but my unfounded brazen arrogance.
Yours,
Richard Valtr
Governing Chairman of the Eastern/Central European Dilettante Committee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)