Hi all!
Yep, I'm alive and well. This is just to update that as I've gotten married, it seems my thoughts have shifted from those of the perplexed single (gone, but not forgotten), to that of human-rationality arbiter. If you're interested, I've picked this up on my new(ish) blog:
http://factpinions.wordpress.com
Same guy, different focus. Hope you enjoy both!
RT
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Why I Support the Anti-Smoking Law with Every Fiber of My Being
The new, tougher smoking law that has gone into effect recently is completely justified. Not everyone seems to agree on this, though*.
The naysayers generally fall into two groups:
a) wishful thinkers, i.e. those that see the problem with exposing non-smokers to smoke in public, but oppose the law on the grounds of harm to personal property rights, and
b) idiots, i.e. those that see no problem with the situation as it's been.
Let me start with the second group. These inconsiderate bozos will conveniently play blind to the reality of Israeli nightlife over the past 24 years (since the first anti-smoking laws were enacted in 1983), in which many if not most smokers didn't give a rat's ass about breaking the law, inconveniencing others to satisfy their own habit, and arguing back or giving a nasty look whenever politely asked to put out their cigarette. They describe a self-serving, imaginary "status quo" like it ever had any significant support from the three quarters of overage Israelis who don't smoke**. Their royal highnesses will sometimes be so kind as to claim that if it's so bothersome to non-smokers, they can "just ask" - like a non-smoker should ever have to.
To them, I say this:
I feel the need to point this out because these people often talk like the whole point of a nightspot is to smoke in it. It isn't. Smokers enjoy smoking in those places, but everyone else doesn't. I'm sure some people would enjoy starting a sing-along, masturbating or loudly proselytizing the Word Of The Lord in there, but everyone else wouldn't. The only reason nightspots have become so synonymous with smoking is because it's been grudgingly put up with. And spare me the relativist BS: the "lots of people do it so it's ok" argument has been used to defend everything from the Israeli's chronic overdraft to cannibalism and slavery. It's not.
They will usually try to nitpick with that old red herring: "how is smoking different from drinking, or driving a car? They can also harm your health! And what about overeating? Why don't you just outlaw food?"
Well done.(clap, clap.) Good for you. (clap clap.)
Before I answer why cigarettes are different, can I just point out that I can't stand these lines of argument? I mean, is that question supposed to conversely insinuate that by justifying the legality of food they've somehow proved it's OK to smoke in someone's face?? it makes me want to answer back with convenient, ridiculously over-simplistic analogies of my own: "Adolf Hitler was bad for a lot of people's health - I suppose you would've supported him!"
No, but seriously, their retort is that substances and acts such as drinking, driving, any kind of noise etc. can be harmful to others, yet are still allowed. What makes smoking different to the other oft-mentioned "legal drugs", is that smoking is simultaneously harmful to one's own health, physically addictive and an inconvenience to others even when used in moderation (the three strikes.) A single cigarette will bother most non-smokers, and quite likely harm their health - though I'll submit that the research findings have been contested.
So let me clarify: I am by no means a supporter of government intervention, especially if it can be circumvented by other means. The decision to curtail an individual freedom is a serious, potentially catastrophic one, not to be taken lightly. I oppose limiting a person's right to something that may harm himself or others if abused - e.g. drinking, driving, owning a knife etc. - because that would hurt the rights of responsible users. However, when something has all the detractions I've listed above, that's when I consider legally curtailing its use in public, if social norm doesn't take care of it first. It hasn't.
The bottom line is, this twisted situation has remained: a three-quarter (and growing) non-smoking majority, with virtually no options for attending a nightspot without being exposed to cigarette smoke. It's what's known in economics as a market failure - when the combined interests, preferences and tastes of people operating with free reign do not manage to bring about their desired result. The reasons for the failure in this case would be too long to write out here, but it does go to show the tremendous power of the norm, of habit, of what is.
The "classic" solution to market failures is government intervention. While this has been hotly contested by the more conservative end of the economic spectrum - also worthy of its own post - I feel this is largely as a reaction to a long tradition of uncalled-for or overused government intervention, rather than an actual preference of market failures over alternatives in every case. As I've written earlier, I'm no fan of interventionism per se, but the facts on the ground remain: given effective property rights, the non-smoker does not face a realistic non-smoking option. I think the pros outweigh the cons in this case.
There's a lot of semantics involved. If one paints this as a major Property Rights Issue, then it sounds like something that should be defended to the grave; but we're not talking about curtailing anyone's freedom of expression, freedom of employment (which has been curtailed under the present system) or any other basic freedom. We're not forbidding smoking - that would be a far more fundamental issue. We're only restricting smoking in areas where lots of non-smokers normally gather. Smokers can smoke at home or outside all they want.*** I don't see how the alternatives, in which non-smokers had no viable options, or even the "segregated nightspots" theory (which would hurt freedom of employment as well as drive a social wedge in Israeli nightlife), are so much better.
One day - when smokers become an even smaller segment of society, when the common social norm is that they never light up unless they know they won't be bothering anyone, and when plenty of non-smoking venues exist - this law won't be necessary. Right now, I think it absolutely is.
* for the sake of this post, I'm referring specifically to nightspots.
** not that it's a popularity contest. Even if there were a majority of smokers, it still wouldn't entitle them to inconvenience and possibly harm the health of others with no good purpose.
*** I've been asked what the distinction is between the home and a nightspot - since they're both private property, and people can choose whether to come to them. While they are both technically private, for this particular issue the answer is in the latter part of the question - people couldn't (until now) really choose not to come because they had no realistic non-smoking nightspot options.
a) wishful thinkers, i.e. those that see the problem with exposing non-smokers to smoke in public, but oppose the law on the grounds of harm to personal property rights, and
b) idiots, i.e. those that see no problem with the situation as it's been.
Let me start with the second group. These inconsiderate bozos will conveniently play blind to the reality of Israeli nightlife over the past 24 years (since the first anti-smoking laws were enacted in 1983), in which many if not most smokers didn't give a rat's ass about breaking the law, inconveniencing others to satisfy their own habit, and arguing back or giving a nasty look whenever politely asked to put out their cigarette. They describe a self-serving, imaginary "status quo" like it ever had any significant support from the three quarters of overage Israelis who don't smoke**. Their royal highnesses will sometimes be so kind as to claim that if it's so bothersome to non-smokers, they can "just ask" - like a non-smoker should ever have to.
To them, I say this:
When god created humans, and with them the innate desire to socialize in a dimly-lit space after a hard day's work, he/she didn't create said space full of cigarette smoke.
I feel the need to point this out because these people often talk like the whole point of a nightspot is to smoke in it. It isn't. Smokers enjoy smoking in those places, but everyone else doesn't. I'm sure some people would enjoy starting a sing-along, masturbating or loudly proselytizing the Word Of The Lord in there, but everyone else wouldn't. The only reason nightspots have become so synonymous with smoking is because it's been grudgingly put up with. And spare me the relativist BS: the "lots of people do it so it's ok" argument has been used to defend everything from the Israeli's chronic overdraft to cannibalism and slavery. It's not.
They will usually try to nitpick with that old red herring: "how is smoking different from drinking, or driving a car? They can also harm your health! And what about overeating? Why don't you just outlaw food?"
Well done.
Before I answer why cigarettes are different, can I just point out that I can't stand these lines of argument?
No, but seriously, their retort is that substances and acts such as drinking, driving, any kind of noise etc. can be harmful to others, yet are still allowed. What makes smoking different to the other oft-mentioned "legal drugs", is that smoking is simultaneously harmful to one's own health, physically addictive and an inconvenience to others even when used in moderation (the three strikes.) A single cigarette will bother most non-smokers, and quite likely harm their health - though I'll submit that the research findings have been contested.
So let me clarify: I am by no means a supporter of government intervention, especially if it can be circumvented by other means. The decision to curtail an individual freedom is a serious, potentially catastrophic one, not to be taken lightly. I oppose limiting a person's right to something that may harm himself or others if abused - e.g. drinking, driving, owning a knife etc. - because that would hurt the rights of responsible users. However, when something has all the detractions I've listed above, that's when I consider legally curtailing its use in public, if social norm doesn't take care of it first. It hasn't.
Which brings me to the first group. They seem to have garnered a fair bit of support. On the face of it, there's a certain neat logic to it: allow nightspot owners to choose for themselves what sort of business they'll have. Non-smokers will be able to choose to go to non-smoking venues, while smokers could still enjoy themselves in smoking establishments.
The problem? It doesn't work.
The fact is, the freedom for every owner to decide whether his business will allow smoking or not has existed effectively for, well, ever. In the past 24 years, it may have been technically illegal to have a smoking nightspot, but this law has never really been enforced; and on the flip side, every nightspot owner has always enjoyed the legal freedom to ban smoking on his property if he wished. But what happened? All the bars ended up being smoking bars. There have been only a handful of attempts to open non-smoking bars in Israel.
The problem? It doesn't work.
The fact is, the freedom for every owner to decide whether his business will allow smoking or not has existed effectively for, well, ever. In the past 24 years, it may have been technically illegal to have a smoking nightspot, but this law has never really been enforced; and on the flip side, every nightspot owner has always enjoyed the legal freedom to ban smoking on his property if he wished. But what happened? All the bars ended up being smoking bars. There have been only a handful of attempts to open non-smoking bars in Israel.
The bottom line is, this twisted situation has remained: a three-quarter (and growing) non-smoking majority, with virtually no options for attending a nightspot without being exposed to cigarette smoke. It's what's known in economics as a market failure - when the combined interests, preferences and tastes of people operating with free reign do not manage to bring about their desired result. The reasons for the failure in this case would be too long to write out here, but it does go to show the tremendous power of the norm, of habit, of what is.
The "classic" solution to market failures is government intervention. While this has been hotly contested by the more conservative end of the economic spectrum - also worthy of its own post - I feel this is largely as a reaction to a long tradition of uncalled-for or overused government intervention, rather than an actual preference of market failures over alternatives in every case. As I've written earlier, I'm no fan of interventionism per se, but the facts on the ground remain: given effective property rights, the non-smoker does not face a realistic non-smoking option. I think the pros outweigh the cons in this case.
There's a lot of semantics involved. If one paints this as a major Property Rights Issue, then it sounds like something that should be defended to the grave; but we're not talking about curtailing anyone's freedom of expression, freedom of employment (which has been curtailed under the present system) or any other basic freedom. We're not forbidding smoking - that would be a far more fundamental issue. We're only restricting smoking in areas where lots of non-smokers normally gather. Smokers can smoke at home or outside all they want.*** I don't see how the alternatives, in which non-smokers had no viable options, or even the "segregated nightspots" theory (which would hurt freedom of employment as well as drive a social wedge in Israeli nightlife), are so much better.
One day - when smokers become an even smaller segment of society, when the common social norm is that they never light up unless they know they won't be bothering anyone, and when plenty of non-smoking venues exist - this law won't be necessary. Right now, I think it absolutely is.
* for the sake of this post, I'm referring specifically to nightspots.
*** I've been asked what the distinction is between the home and a nightspot - since they're both private property, and people can choose whether to come to them. While they are both technically private, for this particular issue the answer is in the latter part of the question - people couldn't (until now) really choose not to come because they had no realistic non-smoking nightspot options.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Talk Talk Talk
In an article that came out today, Jerusalem's glorious mayor, Uri Lupolianski, wrote Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz requesting that Road 9 not become a toll road. Road 9 connects those coming to Jerusalem from the direction of Tel-Aviv straight to the Begin thruway, and bypasses the traffic at the center of the city.
I couldn't help but notice there was no mention of who had put such an offer on the table in the first place, or anyone explaining the underlying logic for such a proposal. I'd be happy to make up my mind, if I were given some rational explanations either way, but instead the article only quotes politicians too busy covering their own asses to professionally address this issue.
One by one, they dispel and excoriate the idea. It's a chorus of them, yelling "noooo... no no no. Of course I'm against it. It's a terrible idea". It's almost like these damned empty-rhetoric throw-a-fish-to-the-"masses" politicos are trying to one-up each other in the vividness of their description; all, presumably, to get more votes next time their sorry asses are up for reelection. Loophole-ianski went for gold by writing, "it's inconceivable that at the entrance to our nation's capital, there will be one slow, clogged road for the poor, while next to them the Mercedes', Volvo's and luxury cars of the wealthy will be whizzing by". Yep, you write 'em, boy. Tug on the hearts of your constituency you must think are really, really, stupid. Thanks for the professional assessment.
I can't get over this incredibly annoying habit politicians have - a complete and utter disconnect between action and rhetoric. Do anything you want, absolutely anything you feel like; just remember to give it a ridiculous, shamelessly see-through spin for the "masses" you must scorn so much.
A couple other recent examples come to mind: the laughable stipend the government has offered Holocaust survivors, and the bread price wars. In the first affair, Prime Minister Olmert's Office offered an 83-shekel (around $20) monthly stipend for Holocaust survivors, to begin next year (and gradually grow). I couldn't believe this when I read it. It's like a government course in shamelessness: let's give our people, who have endured the worst horror ever wrought in history, as little money as possible. Holocaust survivors are old, so let's start next year, since progressively more are dying every year. Then, let's not give a lump sum, but again - a monthly stipend, so we can stop as soon as those costly survivors drop off. As if that's not enough, let's make that monthly sum the price of, well, nothing. Sure, we'll increase the amount as time goes on - once virtually none of them are left.
Of course, Olmert's office describes this is as somehow having righted an historical injustice, patting themselves on the back like this has been a major achievement. Said Olmert, (I can't believe he's still in power! I can't!) "Survivors living in Israel deserve to live with respect without reaching a state where they can't enjoy a hot meal or a slice of bread [..] over the years nothing has been done to take care of this, and the neglect on the part of past governments won't continue. With us, this [problem] will be taken care of." With $20. starting next year. Bull.
Same with the bread wars. Events conspired to make the price of flour go up. This meant the price of the plain, price-controlled bread was liable to go up as well. Eli Yishai, Minister of Industry, Trade and Labor, immediately started swearing up and down that bread prices won't go up. It's so transparent: He has to say that, purely for votes' sake. No serious discussion, nothing. In the end, of course, the prices went up, because you can only fight simple facts on the ground - transportation costs are not what they were in 1999 - for so long. But no, like a mother pacifying her baby, he has to tell the "people" one thing while whatever has to happen goes ahead anyway. Can't you give the public a little more credit and share some of the considerations? No dilemmas? What, would our tiny little brains explode trying to wrap our heads around notions like, "listen guys, the price of wheat worldwide, has gone up. So has gas. Bread is made of wheat. Bread has to be brought to the store using gas-consuming vehicles. We may have a problem here"?
That's really what it is - the mother pacifying the baby. But we're not babies. I would hope most readers have reached this conclusion long ago, but in case you haven't:
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Dirty Hypocrites
It's been ages, I know. Lots going on, so I'll just quickly point out one peeve and leave it at that:
I live in Jerusalem, and I happen to like this city. Lots of my friends do too. But we all know plenty of people who don't, which is fine. I can even see why they don't - it just doesn't bother me as much.
Every year on Jerusalem Day, and several times in between, an article comes out with doomsday predictions for the non-haredi 20- and 30-year-olds of this city. Haredis pouring in, young "talents" leaving, no employment etc. This is legitimate subject matter for an article, but what always gets me is the hypocrisy of the talkbackers: with each new damning article, dozens of bozos go online with responses titled "dirty city", alluding to Jerusalem's allegedly filthy streets, under anonymous pen-names indicating they're from Tel Aviv.
And I ask: have these morons ever been to the entire half of their own city known as South Tel Aviv? This large area contains unique mixtures of organic and non-organic substances, the odor of which could bring a hardcore New Yorker to his knees. We're talking about streets that make Gotham City look like Toronto. To tell the truth, I find parts of south Tel Aviv quite charming in a grotty, nahlaot kind of way, but I'll never accuse Jerusalem of being particularly filthy after seeing/smelling that.
Jerusalem's got tons of problems - the municipality first among them - but let's refrain from gloating at one of Israel's truly special cities for gloating's sake.
P.S. Unbelievable! The day after I post this, another article comes out (Hebrew, article titled "Jerusalem of Ugliness").
I live in Jerusalem, and I happen to like this city. Lots of my friends do too. But we all know plenty of people who don't, which is fine. I can even see why they don't - it just doesn't bother me as much.
Every year on Jerusalem Day, and several times in between, an article comes out with doomsday predictions for the non-haredi 20- and 30-year-olds of this city. Haredis pouring in, young "talents" leaving, no employment etc. This is legitimate subject matter for an article, but what always gets me is the hypocrisy of the talkbackers: with each new damning article, dozens of bozos go online with responses titled "dirty city", alluding to Jerusalem's allegedly filthy streets, under anonymous pen-names indicating they're from Tel Aviv.
And I ask: have these morons ever been to the entire half of their own city known as South Tel Aviv? This large area contains unique mixtures of organic and non-organic substances, the odor of which could bring a hardcore New Yorker to his knees. We're talking about streets that make Gotham City look like Toronto. To tell the truth, I find parts of south Tel Aviv quite charming in a grotty, nahlaot kind of way, but I'll never accuse Jerusalem of being particularly filthy after seeing/smelling that.
Jerusalem's got tons of problems - the municipality first among them - but let's refrain from gloating at one of Israel's truly special cities for gloating's sake.
P.S. Unbelievable! The day after I post this, another article comes out (Hebrew, article titled "Jerusalem of Ugliness").
Thursday, February 15, 2007
The Israeli Disease
(warning - rant coming up)
A friend of mine was kind enough to fly me on a business trip with him once. We were going to have a stopover in Europe, and I wanted to duck into the city for something. I was certain I could do it and come back in time for the connecting flight. He wasn't too thrilled about my plan, but I kept pressing - "It'll work out, c'mon!".
He then asked me The Question - the one question Israelis avoid bringing up, or even contemplating privately, ever:
This is really a simple question. I couldn't word it any more simply. It means exactly what it says, and doesn't insinuate anything beyond. To an Israeli, however, this question is negative thinking at best, an out-and-out accusation at worst. "What do you mean 'what happens if it doesn't work out'? what, you don't trust me? nothing will go wrong!". And that's exactly it - to an Israeli, nothing will ever go wrong. It's an amazing, widespread delirium. If you don't live in Israel, you may think I'm exaggerating; but if you do, this should sound pretty familiar - it's the Israeli Disease.
While completely detached from reality, the Israeli Disease has its (few) advantages - this eternal optimism is behind our renowned ability to improvise, to miraculously create a solution out of thin air at the last second. It can also be said to be the result of a traditionally more cohesive, trusting society. However, its main problem is that it entails the wholesale sidestepping of consequences to one's actions. Everything will work out because "somehow, it always does", and the results - well, we see the results every day: in the news, and all around us.
Ahh, we lucky Israelis. Since nothing will ever go wrong, we allow ourselves to ask for any favor, big or small, damned the consequences. For the same reason exactly, warranties are nice pieces of paper that give an American-esque aura to a purchase or a service, but not much else. Since nothing will ever go wrong, we can build a rail system and then discover later the rails don't fit the cars. We can build event halls with floors that cave in, not to mention bridges. Since nothing will ever go wrong, government ministries and municipalities needn't concern themselves too much with, say, doing anything. The expression "cover for me" should be in the national anthem.
The Israeli Disease is responsible for us finding ourselves, again and again, up s#!t creek without a paddle. We see our politicians spreading promises left and right with no hope of fulfilling them, blabbing to the press, groping subordinates and taking bribes with no thought of consequence; we see wars fought under the assumption that winning them is somehow an ingrained Israeli "trait"; we see social security messing up, hospitals messing up, the police messing up, the army messing up, companies messing up, drivers messing up. As a good friend pointed out once, the common line you'll hear from a reckless driver - "haven't been killed yet!" - applies to every single person who has, one second before the crash.
So if you're Israeli, by birth or by symptom: please, stop and think. Ask yourself what happens if it doesn't work out exactly the way you planned*. By doing this you're not paranoid or self-defeating, you're merely being smart. By all means, go ahead with your plan, just remember it's only that- not a certainty.
As for my plan? As soon as my friend asked The Question, I dropped it. And surprise surprise: turned out there was no way in hell I could've pulled it off.
* if there even was a plan; "assumed" might be more appropriate.
A friend of mine was kind enough to fly me on a business trip with him once. We were going to have a stopover in Europe, and I wanted to duck into the city for something. I was certain I could do it and come back in time for the connecting flight. He wasn't too thrilled about my plan, but I kept pressing - "It'll work out, c'mon!".
He then asked me The Question - the one question Israelis avoid bringing up, or even contemplating privately, ever:
What happens if it doesn't work out?
This is really a simple question. I couldn't word it any more simply. It means exactly what it says, and doesn't insinuate anything beyond. To an Israeli, however, this question is negative thinking at best, an out-and-out accusation at worst. "What do you mean 'what happens if it doesn't work out'? what, you don't trust me? nothing will go wrong!". And that's exactly it - to an Israeli, nothing will ever go wrong. It's an amazing, widespread delirium. If you don't live in Israel, you may think I'm exaggerating; but if you do, this should sound pretty familiar - it's the Israeli Disease.
While completely detached from reality, the Israeli Disease has its (few) advantages - this eternal optimism is behind our renowned ability to improvise, to miraculously create a solution out of thin air at the last second. It can also be said to be the result of a traditionally more cohesive, trusting society. However, its main problem is that it entails the wholesale sidestepping of consequences to one's actions. Everything will work out because "somehow, it always does", and the results - well, we see the results every day: in the news, and all around us.
Ahh, we lucky Israelis. Since nothing will ever go wrong, we allow ourselves to ask for any favor, big or small, damned the consequences. For the same reason exactly, warranties are nice pieces of paper that give an American-esque aura to a purchase or a service, but not much else. Since nothing will ever go wrong, we can build a rail system and then discover later the rails don't fit the cars. We can build event halls with floors that cave in, not to mention bridges. Since nothing will ever go wrong, government ministries and municipalities needn't concern themselves too much with, say, doing anything. The expression "cover for me" should be in the national anthem.
The Israeli Disease is responsible for us finding ourselves, again and again, up s#!t creek without a paddle. We see our politicians spreading promises left and right with no hope of fulfilling them, blabbing to the press, groping subordinates and taking bribes with no thought of consequence; we see wars fought under the assumption that winning them is somehow an ingrained Israeli "trait"; we see social security messing up, hospitals messing up, the police messing up, the army messing up, companies messing up, drivers messing up. As a good friend pointed out once, the common line you'll hear from a reckless driver - "haven't been killed yet!" - applies to every single person who has, one second before the crash.
So if you're Israeli, by birth or by symptom: please, stop and think. Ask yourself what happens if it doesn't work out exactly the way you planned*. By doing this you're not paranoid or self-defeating, you're merely being smart. By all means, go ahead with your plan, just remember it's only that- not a certainty.
As for my plan? As soon as my friend asked The Question, I dropped it. And surprise surprise: turned out there was no way in hell I could've pulled it off.
* if there even was a plan; "assumed" might be more appropriate.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Them American Ladies
Was horrified to see my last two posts were political, as if what I really care about isn't what all my fellow male hetero 28-year-olds care about: women.
Or can I use "girls"? "women" sounds so old to me - when I think of that word, I see a faded, 1910's photo of a girdled 55-year-old with a shower cap on. But can I use "girls" without sounding patronizing? I'll go with that term simply because it fits the excitement, curiosity and intellectual and emotional inspiration (I mean that!) that you girls awaken in us, far better than "women". You're with me, right? I mean, if I say "I like women", it only works if I slur the last syllable because I'm a toothless 88-year-old blind blues player: "Ah like wiMUH". Sheesh, four hundred trillion words in the English language and they can't come up with something that captures the spirit better than "girls" or "women"..
So yeah, I'm talking about those females in their 20s and 30s, who inevitably draw the attention of us males in our 20s and 30s. Whatever, if you've decided I'm a sexist pig by now, I'm better off without you. :) But if you know what I'm talking about, welcome, fellow 20-39 year-old singles. [in Stewie Griffin accent] You know exaaactly what I mean.
Background info: I Just got back from a month and a half tour of the States with a rock band I won't name. It was a serious tour, a tour tour: 37 shows played, 11000 miles driven (that's close to 18000 Kms for you locally bred folk), all in 46 days. We were everywhere from NY and Boston to Texas to LA to Seattle and back east, east coast, west coast, midwest, south, everywhere. Hell, we even hit Ashville (not Nashville, Ashville), Tennessee. It was the whole rock'n'roll shebang. I don't mean Led Zeppelin style - we're not big and certainly not famous - but more along the spirit of that AC/DC song... roughing it, the long drives, meager food, sleeping on floors but loving every minute of it.
"will you get to the girls already?" Well, not to disappoint but I'm not going to divulge any details of my romantic encounters.. Just isn't that kind of blog. But I would like to point out the difference, nay, gulf that exists between the girls I've met here - at least in Jerusalem - and those I met over there.
Maaaahn, what a difference. I'm really a shy guy. I don't mean with any self-esteem problems, just shy - it's awkward for me to strike up a conversation with a total stranger. But on tour, I could talk with any of them. True, they were softened, so to speak, by my brilliant performance in the rock band, but still.. I was struck by this culture of politeness that meant I could feel comfortable talking with any girl. And if I thought "hey, I like her, maybe I'll make a move", that was fine; and if not - that was fine too. The whole thing just was not such a big deal. I mean, god, over here, the whole exercise is so fraught with suspicion and stress. you just get near an Israeli girl and they give you this look. Try talking with her - there's always, alllllways a friend with her - and she excuses you with a withering comment. That is if you haven't gotten a squaker who all but hollers "rape! rape!" because she's used to all these other low-life creeps hitting on her. It's hard. It's hardened me. I would never have written something like this - I truly, truly fall into the nice-guy category - if I weren't frustrated at, well, being in the nice-guy category.
It was a real change of pace over there. I could talk to a girl, and even if she wasn't interested, if she already had a boyfriend, then she would bring it up, but gently. Nothing's sudden, nothing gives a bad taste to the evening. They won't blow the wind right out of you and leave you just wanting to go home, like Israeli girls can. We would both feel like we had a pleasant conversation and we're both really nice people and we actually found each other pretty attractive but we won't act on it because she has a boyfriend but it's been very nice talking and where do you go tomorrow and you guys rocked and.... All very pleasant.
So is there anything I can do? Is there any kind of positive action I can take to try to make Jerusalem's Bnot Yisrael (daughters of Israel) a little less paranoid and a little more friendly? No. but if some of you readers fit this description, or know those who do, spread the word: not all of us are lowlife chimpanzees. If you close off all access because you're fed up with them, which I can understand, just remember you're also blocking off us well-meaning guys.
And then we'll be reduced to blogging about it...
------ IMPORTANT UPDATE ---------
I graciously accept your proposals to use "ladies". thanks tafkaPP and Dooby!
Momkiss - thanks for the advice. I keep hearing that (the "be yourself" bit) so often, I'm beginning to think it might even true!
Tafkapp - brilliant. sure, it renders entire paragraphs obsolete, but hey - I enjoyed writing them..
Dooby - coming for you, anything sounds suave. But I know what ya mean..
Angela - you're definately a girl - to you. but I needed a word that captures what the girls are to me - and "ladies" is pretty damn close. now PUT YOUR HANDS UP IN THE AIR! AND WAVE EM LIKE YA JUST DON'T CARE! BOOYAAAAH! P.S. - All the way from Edmonton, wow. so.. hi!
Or can I use "girls"? "women" sounds so old to me - when I think of that word, I see a faded, 1910's photo of a girdled 55-year-old with a shower cap on. But can I use "girls" without sounding patronizing? I'll go with that term simply because it fits the excitement, curiosity and intellectual and emotional inspiration (I mean that!) that you girls awaken in us, far better than "women". You're with me, right? I mean, if I say "I like women", it only works if I slur the last syllable because I'm a toothless 88-year-old blind blues player: "Ah like wiMUH". Sheesh, four hundred trillion words in the English language and they can't come up with something that captures the spirit better than "girls" or "women"..
So yeah, I'm talking about those females in their 20s and 30s, who inevitably draw the attention of us males in our 20s and 30s. Whatever, if you've decided I'm a sexist pig by now, I'm better off without you. :) But if you know what I'm talking about, welcome, fellow 20-39 year-old singles. [in Stewie Griffin accent] You know exaaactly what I mean.
Background info: I Just got back from a month and a half tour of the States with a rock band I won't name. It was a serious tour, a tour tour: 37 shows played, 11000 miles driven (that's close to 18000 Kms for you locally bred folk), all in 46 days. We were everywhere from NY and Boston to Texas to LA to Seattle and back east, east coast, west coast, midwest, south, everywhere. Hell, we even hit Ashville (not Nashville, Ashville), Tennessee. It was the whole rock'n'roll shebang. I don't mean Led Zeppelin style - we're not big and certainly not famous - but more along the spirit of that AC/DC song... roughing it, the long drives, meager food, sleeping on floors but loving every minute of it.
"will you get to the girls already?" Well, not to disappoint but I'm not going to divulge any details of my romantic encounters.. Just isn't that kind of blog. But I would like to point out the difference, nay, gulf that exists between the girls I've met here - at least in Jerusalem - and those I met over there.
Maaaahn, what a difference. I'm really a shy guy. I don't mean with any self-esteem problems, just shy - it's awkward for me to strike up a conversation with a total stranger. But on tour, I could talk with any of them. True, they were softened, so to speak, by my brilliant performance in the rock band, but still.. I was struck by this culture of politeness that meant I could feel comfortable talking with any girl. And if I thought "hey, I like her, maybe I'll make a move", that was fine; and if not - that was fine too. The whole thing just was not such a big deal. I mean, god, over here, the whole exercise is so fraught with suspicion and stress. you just get near an Israeli girl and they give you this look. Try talking with her - there's always, alllllways a friend with her - and she excuses you with a withering comment. That is if you haven't gotten a squaker who all but hollers "rape! rape!" because she's used to all these other low-life creeps hitting on her. It's hard. It's hardened me. I would never have written something like this - I truly, truly fall into the nice-guy category - if I weren't frustrated at, well, being in the nice-guy category.
It was a real change of pace over there. I could talk to a girl, and even if she wasn't interested, if she already had a boyfriend, then she would bring it up, but gently. Nothing's sudden, nothing gives a bad taste to the evening. They won't blow the wind right out of you and leave you just wanting to go home, like Israeli girls can. We would both feel like we had a pleasant conversation and we're both really nice people and we actually found each other pretty attractive but we won't act on it because she has a boyfriend but it's been very nice talking and where do you go tomorrow and you guys rocked and.... All very pleasant.
So is there anything I can do? Is there any kind of positive action I can take to try to make Jerusalem's Bnot Yisrael (daughters of Israel) a little less paranoid and a little more friendly? No. but if some of you readers fit this description, or know those who do, spread the word: not all of us are lowlife chimpanzees. If you close off all access because you're fed up with them, which I can understand, just remember you're also blocking off us well-meaning guys.
And then we'll be reduced to blogging about it...
------ IMPORTANT UPDATE ---------
I graciously accept your proposals to use "ladies". thanks tafkaPP and Dooby!
Momkiss - thanks for the advice. I keep hearing that (the "be yourself" bit) so often, I'm beginning to think it might even true!
Tafkapp - brilliant. sure, it renders entire paragraphs obsolete, but hey - I enjoyed writing them..
Dooby - coming for you, anything sounds suave. But I know what ya mean..
Angela - you're definately a girl - to you. but I needed a word that captures what the girls are to me - and "ladies" is pretty damn close. now PUT YOUR HANDS UP IN THE AIR! AND WAVE EM LIKE YA JUST DON'T CARE! BOOYAAAAH! P.S. - All the way from Edmonton, wow. so.. hi!
Sunday, December 03, 2006
"They are Trying to Get Rid of Us in any Way Possible"
..said Ahmed Tibi. This is in response to various proposals for electoral reform that suggest raising the electoral threshold to five percent. Tibi's claim is that the Arab sector is harmed in that the three major Arab-sector parties - Rahat-Ta'al, Balad and Hadash - will be forced to merge, thus proving anti-Arab electoral tinkering. Without getting into politics (though, I suppose, who am I kidding really..), Tibi's accusations are unfounded.
Tibi's claim of discrimination in the proposed new electoral systems is only valid if they cut back dispropotionately more on the choices facing Arab voters than those for the rest of the population. The irony is that right now, in sharp contrast to Tibi's wailing, Arab voters are actually more "spoiled for choice", per voter, than the remaining population: in the last elections, the three Arab parties picked up a combined 252,944 votes, or roughly one party for every 85,000 Arab voters. The remaining 2,884,120 had 25 parties to split between them, or one for every 112,000. So per voter, the Arabs face more sector-based parties than do the voters represented by those Tibi is so certain "are trying to get rid of us".
Tibi claims the proposed changes will eliminate choice altogether by forcing the three parties to merge. I disagree.
The parties currently hold 10 seats in the Knesset. the proposed threshold will be 6 seats, and so this would still allow for two large Arab parties, provided the Arab parties invest enough effort in encouraging their constituency to care enough to vote. True, this eventuality will cut back on the choices - two parties instead of three - but is a far cry from no choice at all, and is presumably what most of the population wants in order to bring about a less fractured, more efficient Knesset. That a sector making up one tenth of the voter population will be faced with two large sector-oriented parties is still certainly reasonable.
Like any downsizing, like any act of "trimming the fat", the smaller contestants in the next race will all have to work harder to swim and not sink - Jewish and Arab alike. But there's no foul play here.
Tibi's claim of discrimination in the proposed new electoral systems is only valid if they cut back dispropotionately more on the choices facing Arab voters than those for the rest of the population. The irony is that right now, in sharp contrast to Tibi's wailing, Arab voters are actually more "spoiled for choice", per voter, than the remaining population: in the last elections, the three Arab parties picked up a combined 252,944 votes, or roughly one party for every 85,000 Arab voters. The remaining 2,884,120 had 25 parties to split between them, or one for every 112,000. So per voter, the Arabs face more sector-based parties than do the voters represented by those Tibi is so certain "are trying to get rid of us".
Tibi claims the proposed changes will eliminate choice altogether by forcing the three parties to merge. I disagree.
The parties currently hold 10 seats in the Knesset. the proposed threshold will be 6 seats, and so this would still allow for two large Arab parties, provided the Arab parties invest enough effort in encouraging their constituency to care enough to vote. True, this eventuality will cut back on the choices - two parties instead of three - but is a far cry from no choice at all, and is presumably what most of the population wants in order to bring about a less fractured, more efficient Knesset. That a sector making up one tenth of the voter population will be faced with two large sector-oriented parties is still certainly reasonable.
Like any downsizing, like any act of "trimming the fat", the smaller contestants in the next race will all have to work harder to swim and not sink - Jewish and Arab alike. But there's no foul play here.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Horrible Report on Teachers Salaries - Declawed (somewhat)
I'm writing on a topic that was in the news! Allright! I celebrate this fact, since I've been reading other bloggers do this with a fair degree of envy.. "They've SO got their shit together", I'd figuratively say, "they're well enough informed and opinionated to draw out a complete theory, analysis and/or rebuttal in an organized, linear fashion". Now I'm doing it too... well, trying anyway..
Ynet burst out with a report revealing the ostensibly shameful salaries teachers earn in this country (Israel, in case you've been napping). The reader shockingly learns that an Israeli teacher in the major cities earns "half of what a teacher in Canada does, a third of one in Germany, and almost a sixth!! of a Swiss teacher's salary". Now first of all, let me be the first to agree that teachers salaries are, without question, pitifully low, and that this does indeed indicate a very real mistake in our national priorities. The horrifics and injustices of our educational system have been covered at length in the media, and I need not elaborate.
This report, however, is fundamentally flawed; and while I have a background in economics (and media..and music, while we're at it), it doesn't take a single econ lesson to understand why. For one thing, it doesn't adjust for prices, or the "value of money", so to speak, in each country.
What does $100 mean? If you were living in, say, Zaire, you could probably buy a mansion and a masseuse for life for around $100. In London, this will buy you a bite-sized muffin and maybe a candy wrapper (well, it sure felt that way when I was there). So by their same calculation, I'm sure you could find an Israeli teacher earns several times more, probably by a factor well northwards of ten, than a teacher in Burundi.. we just know that doesn't mean much. These ratios have to be tempered somewhat so as to be comparable in any meaningful way. Now how we temper figures like these can get tricky - do we use the ratio of consumer prices? or possibly GDP per capita? or average wage, or minimum wage, or cost of building materials, or minimal health package.. What factors in to comparing the meaning of money or standards of living is immensely complicated, and quite a heated topic for argument among economists.
But luckily, there is some kind of usable standard to compare money, that most economists do agree on. It's not perfect, it's quite "mainstream" if you will, but it's something.. it's called PPP (Purchasing Power Parity). I'll skip the econ lesson, let's just say it's something like a measurement of the average prices of "everything" in a given country. So that if I earn 100$ in a country where the PPP is half that of another, I can buy twice as much as in the other country.
So, if we apply the PPP ratios to the first big figure, we'll find that the salary the Israeli is earning isn't worth 50% of what a Canadian is, it's effectively 78%. Big difference! The six-fold ratio given for Swiss teachers of Israelis is trimmed to four-fold by this same calculation; the three-fold ratio for German teachers to a little below 2 and a half.
So, it's looking a little better now, but still not great, I know. And this is no surprise, since we already know the education system here is going to shit. But, bear in mind all we've done is level the playing field a bit so that we can even begin to talk about the same dollar when comparing a salary.
What we still haven't adjusted for is the state of the local economy. I mean, all Israel can realistically try to do is bump teachers up on the list of national priorities, but we can't just miraculously start paying them like the Swiss.. So we have to ask how a teacher ranks, salary-wise, compared to other employees in his or her own country. We can't really do much more than that. Remember the average Israeli plain earns a lot less that a German. If Israel just decided "hey, we have to match wages to those in Europe", it would be tantamount to a 5-year-old declaring he can now play basketball as well as Michael Jordan. Not happening.
So I compared German and Israeli teachers to their countries' average salary. This is deeply flawed, and wouldn't get me a passing grade in Elementary Economics for Hedgehogs, but it's something, it's a heuristic. the Israeli teacher is earning 69% of his country's average salary, and the German earns 87%*. Not quite the three-fold difference they were talking about, is it?
All in all Israeli teachers, compared to other workers in Israel, are a little worse off than teachers in Germany, but not by a factor anywhere near three! Feel free to do the same with Switzerland and Canada - It may not seem that way, but I have a life..
The real issue here is that Israel as a whole may be approaching third-world-country status, and that's another kettle of fish entirely. But the degree to which Israeli teachers are screwed salary-wise, and they are screwed, is significantly less than the headline would have you believe.
* The stats given in the article present an Israeli teacher earning the equivalent of $1117 a month, and a German earning $3575. Yet the average salaried employee in Israel earns $1621, whereas the German earns $4113.
Ynet burst out with a report revealing the ostensibly shameful salaries teachers earn in this country (Israel, in case you've been napping). The reader shockingly learns that an Israeli teacher in the major cities earns "half of what a teacher in Canada does, a third of one in Germany, and almost a sixth!! of a Swiss teacher's salary". Now first of all, let me be the first to agree that teachers salaries are, without question, pitifully low, and that this does indeed indicate a very real mistake in our national priorities. The horrifics and injustices of our educational system have been covered at length in the media, and I need not elaborate.
This report, however, is fundamentally flawed; and while I have a background in economics (and media..and music, while we're at it), it doesn't take a single econ lesson to understand why. For one thing, it doesn't adjust for prices, or the "value of money", so to speak, in each country.
What does $100 mean? If you were living in, say, Zaire, you could probably buy a mansion and a masseuse for life for around $100. In London, this will buy you a bite-sized muffin and maybe a candy wrapper (well, it sure felt that way when I was there). So by their same calculation, I'm sure you could find an Israeli teacher earns several times more, probably by a factor well northwards of ten, than a teacher in Burundi.. we just know that doesn't mean much. These ratios have to be tempered somewhat so as to be comparable in any meaningful way. Now how we temper figures like these can get tricky - do we use the ratio of consumer prices? or possibly GDP per capita? or average wage, or minimum wage, or cost of building materials, or minimal health package.. What factors in to comparing the meaning of money or standards of living is immensely complicated, and quite a heated topic for argument among economists.
But luckily, there is some kind of usable standard to compare money, that most economists do agree on. It's not perfect, it's quite "mainstream" if you will, but it's something.. it's called PPP (Purchasing Power Parity). I'll skip the econ lesson, let's just say it's something like a measurement of the average prices of "everything" in a given country. So that if I earn 100$ in a country where the PPP is half that of another, I can buy twice as much as in the other country.
So, if we apply the PPP ratios to the first big figure, we'll find that the salary the Israeli is earning isn't worth 50% of what a Canadian is, it's effectively 78%. Big difference! The six-fold ratio given for Swiss teachers of Israelis is trimmed to four-fold by this same calculation; the three-fold ratio for German teachers to a little below 2 and a half.
So, it's looking a little better now, but still not great, I know. And this is no surprise, since we already know the education system here is going to shit. But, bear in mind all we've done is level the playing field a bit so that we can even begin to talk about the same dollar when comparing a salary.
What we still haven't adjusted for is the state of the local economy. I mean, all Israel can realistically try to do is bump teachers up on the list of national priorities, but we can't just miraculously start paying them like the Swiss.. So we have to ask how a teacher ranks, salary-wise, compared to other employees in his or her own country. We can't really do much more than that. Remember the average Israeli plain earns a lot less that a German. If Israel just decided "hey, we have to match wages to those in Europe", it would be tantamount to a 5-year-old declaring he can now play basketball as well as Michael Jordan. Not happening.
So I compared German and Israeli teachers to their countries' average salary. This is deeply flawed, and wouldn't get me a passing grade in Elementary Economics for Hedgehogs, but it's something, it's a heuristic. the Israeli teacher is earning 69% of his country's average salary, and the German earns 87%*. Not quite the three-fold difference they were talking about, is it?
All in all Israeli teachers, compared to other workers in Israel, are a little worse off than teachers in Germany, but not by a factor anywhere near three! Feel free to do the same with Switzerland and Canada - It may not seem that way, but I have a life..
The real issue here is that Israel as a whole may be approaching third-world-country status, and that's another kettle of fish entirely. But the degree to which Israeli teachers are screwed salary-wise, and they are screwed, is significantly less than the headline would have you believe.
* The stats given in the article present an Israeli teacher earning the equivalent of $1117 a month, and a German earning $3575. Yet the average salaried employee in Israel earns $1621, whereas the German earns $4113.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Me? Blog?
It's gotten a hold of me! AHHH! get it off!
I'm 27 (in 2006), single, male, Jewish, am relatively not messed up by organized theologies or crashing, failed relationships (by which I mean there haven't been any), am completely incapable of bullshitting. You'll probably see that here. Love music of the more independent rock variety, and play in several bands. I find partisanship and deceitfulness to be the dumbest, most confounding signs of our time, am essentially an optimist, get excited about down-to-earth people, ideas and art, have a nasty lazy streak sometimes and am not as self-confident as these last few sentences would have you believe. But yeah, I guess I'm ok.
I've had an uneasy relationship with online interaction simulators/enhancers/userpers for a while... For example, I couldn't stomach the idea of online dating services - and I've stuck to that doctrine to this very day! - even at my loneliest. It just seemed like a final concede of defeat. And worse, it seemed to say our lives have gotten the best of us. That we're really too busy to get out there and meet in person, our standards are too high, let's now meet online where we can get loads of information on each other and make sure we're juuust the right temperature before we pop the potato out of the microwave.. It made perfect sense. it was clean, scientific and pragmatic. It was depressing. It meant no old-fashioned romance in my book, and that's what I couldn't take. Every day not succuming online dating sites, I'm quite proud of myself.
And blogging - what was that all about? What induced people to write all their personal crap? It seemed like the same sad story.. For me, stepping away from the screen and out of your house was and is the only reality. Not that I do it often enough, but I enjoy it through and through when I do. All the witty comments in the world, even when coming from very real people, can't hold a candle to meeting them! So why? why?
Here's the real, unexciting reason: I found that I have an unexplained tendency to spill every once in a while. I'd figure I ought to write an old friend in the States, ponder how there's nothing to say ("there's never anything to say!"), start writing whatever's in my head, and find a twisted, sprawling letter half an hour later. And I'd go back and look at it. And I'd see that it was good - not the writing ("uch! this could be worded SO much better! damn 'send' button") - but my feeling after writing it. Anecdotes would pile up, thoughts - some temporary and some reconsidered and revised to the point of doctrine - I had to write something. So here it is.
But people, I ask only one thing: sitting at home reading blogs can be fun/interesting/informative, but don't let it get a hold of you. Get out there and LIVE, BABY! This comes from el numero uno wild child on the block, I assure you all...
No idea what direction this blog will take - political, personal, romantic whining, music adulation, Fugazi call-to-arms - but heeere we go!
I'm 27 (in 2006), single, male, Jewish, am relatively not messed up by organized theologies or crashing, failed relationships (by which I mean there haven't been any), am completely incapable of bullshitting. You'll probably see that here. Love music of the more independent rock variety, and play in several bands. I find partisanship and deceitfulness to be the dumbest, most confounding signs of our time, am essentially an optimist, get excited about down-to-earth people, ideas and art, have a nasty lazy streak sometimes and am not as self-confident as these last few sentences would have you believe. But yeah, I guess I'm ok.
I've had an uneasy relationship with online interaction simulators/enhancers/userpers for a while... For example, I couldn't stomach the idea of online dating services - and I've stuck to that doctrine to this very day! - even at my loneliest. It just seemed like a final concede of defeat. And worse, it seemed to say our lives have gotten the best of us. That we're really too busy to get out there and meet in person, our standards are too high, let's now meet online where we can get loads of information on each other and make sure we're juuust the right temperature before we pop the potato out of the microwave.. It made perfect sense. it was clean, scientific and pragmatic. It was depressing. It meant no old-fashioned romance in my book, and that's what I couldn't take. Every day not succuming online dating sites, I'm quite proud of myself.
And blogging - what was that all about? What induced people to write all their personal crap? It seemed like the same sad story.. For me, stepping away from the screen and out of your house was and is the only reality. Not that I do it often enough, but I enjoy it through and through when I do. All the witty comments in the world, even when coming from very real people, can't hold a candle to meeting them! So why? why?
Here's the real, unexciting reason: I found that I have an unexplained tendency to spill every once in a while. I'd figure I ought to write an old friend in the States, ponder how there's nothing to say ("there's never anything to say!"), start writing whatever's in my head, and find a twisted, sprawling letter half an hour later. And I'd go back and look at it. And I'd see that it was good - not the writing ("uch! this could be worded SO much better! damn 'send' button") - but my feeling after writing it. Anecdotes would pile up, thoughts - some temporary and some reconsidered and revised to the point of doctrine - I had to write something. So here it is.
But people, I ask only one thing: sitting at home reading blogs can be fun/interesting/informative, but don't let it get a hold of you. Get out there and LIVE, BABY! This comes from el numero uno wild child on the block, I assure you all...
No idea what direction this blog will take - political, personal, romantic whining, music adulation, Fugazi call-to-arms - but heeere we go!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)