The idea for this post came from a conversation at work one day. Not the hotel I'm working at now, but back in the day at the embassy. We were sitting around enjoying some of the local beverages (this was actually after work, I should point out) and we got to talking about this. I don't think we actually came up with a Top 10 list, just groups we thought were a waste of time. I decided to expand it because 10 is better than 7. This conversation took place several years ago, but I've just gotten around to writing it up. I don't think I forgot any particular organization. Most of them I have personal experience with, so it was kind of easy to remember. Anyhow, here's the list:
10. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Assholes with attitudes. This people just don't get it. We're carnivores. We eat meat. It's the natural way of life. We also use animals for many things like shelter, clothing, transportation, and many other uses. I'm not into being cruel to animals, and killing elephants for ivory (for example) is despicable, but killing an animal to eat is perfectly acceptable. It's the way of life. And we have the right to do so, and they don't have the right to attack people for doing it. If they really want to be do-gooders, there are millions of children dying around the world from starvation and disease. How about helping them out first. Then we'll talk about the animals.
Also, you have to wonder, if one of these idiots were out walking in the woods and was attacked by a wild animal, are they going to advocate someone shoot the animal to save them, or just stand true to their belief and take one for the team? Want to take a walk?
9. The Office of the Commissioner of Major League Baseball
Bud. Seriously, does anyone need more of an explanation than this?
8. The American Civil Liberties Union
Yeah, I know, they fight for every one's rights. That's the problem. They fight for every one's right. They don't have a stance on anything. They'll argue everything. I'm waiting until the day when they get hired to fight different sides of the same issue. And it will happen someday. You just get the feeling its not really about the particular battle they are fighting, just that they are involved somehow and get their name in the news. Wonder if that has anything to do with fundraising? Just curious. Little note guys. Want to make me a believer. Take a stand on something. Choose a side. Believe in something. Not just your own power. I just can't take these guys seriously.
7. Any religious organization except the Catholic Church
Faith is an internal issue that an individual decides for them self. It is not an issue where one person tells a group of people how they should act based on his own beliefs, and not theirs. Particularly when it is based off books of fables. Most of these groups are hypocrites who demand money for the pleasure of belonging to the organization, and promising something that is based on a fairytale. Can't you get the same euphoria for free by walking out into a meadow and watching the sunset?
6. The United States House of Representatives
My first issue is what they cost us, the second issue is that they don't do anything. Its political wrangling for the good of the party, and not for the good of the people. We don't need both houses, as they do the exact same thing and we don't get enough work out of one of them. Some states only have one representative as it is, and I'm pretty sure they don't do anything that a Senator can't do. If you need to, double the number of Senators. All the house does is create two votes on each issue. The citizens don't get to vote twice for the issues that concern them; seems to me the states can get by under the same system.
5. The United States State Department
I can't say too much about this right now, because I still have friends who work there. I've sat in the meetings and read the memos. They involve themselves in every aspect of other countries operations, even when it has nothing to do with the U.S. interests, or is a completely internal issue. They are not there as an equal partner, but as a dominant one. This is non-specific to president. They also feel that they are the governing body of the Department of Defense, and are completely willing to sit back and let the military do the fighting and dying while taking the moral high ground as the loyal opposition, then immediately demand that they be put in charge as soon as the last bullet has been fired. The motto of the State Department is 'there will be peace in our time'.
4. The United Nations
They go to poor countries wearing $500 suits, ride in limos, and stay at 5-star hotels, all while claiming they are there to help the poor, down-trodden people who can't afford food, medicine, or clothing. Meanwhile, the United States pays 25% of the UN budget, and 50% of the peacekeeping budget, but has to have it's vote approved by other countries that pay a fraction of that cost and are fundamentally opposed to their politics. Additionally, they pretend to be a vital force by sending in "peace keepers" composed of units from countries for hire that don't want to go in unless they have the Americans, Brits, or Australians there to protect them, but then want to have command. Don't forget to send the check. These are troops who aren't allowed to actually conduct combat operations to rid the world of bad guys, and and get their asses handed to them by every second-rate insurgent group willing to actually shoot people.
Meanwhile, they spend hundreds of millions to airlift food into the same areas because they are 'unstable'. No shit.
Can't feed the starving, and can't stop wars. Why does this organization exist?
3. The European Union
A continent that spent well over 2,000 years fighting each other for survival now thinks it can band together to outshine 'America'. Not going to happen, boys. For one thing, the USA is a country, where you are a 'collection' of countries. Not the same thing, not at all. Also, you guys really still don't like each other. You're coexisting, but that's all. Peace might exist, but brotherhood doesn't. You still have different countries that have internal problems with regions that want their own statehood, and you want to pretend you're a united Europe? Nope, not buying it. There's still a lot of conflict going on, and meanwhile, the EU is ripping the nationalistic heart out of the individual countries by passing legislation to make them all alike. Individualism, even in countries, is good. Collectivism isn't. Anyone remember the Soviet Union?
2. The Catholic Church
I don't have anything against Catholics, this is the Church, or more importantly, the leadership of the church that I have an issue with. As everyone should. As the richest organization in the world, they leave poor boxes in churches for the parishioners to put their own money in. Yet Cardinals make $12,000 a month, have a free place to live, and most often have personal aides and drives. I'll take that vow of poverty any day. Throw in the abuse scandal, the denials, the billions they have paid people off with, and I have a hard time thinking this organization is can be taken seriously. Add in the the treasure trove of artifacts they have, the real estate, and their tax free status they enjoy, and I don't understand why any Catholic person is still poor.
1. The committee that approved the use of the designated hitter in the American League.
If it were legal to hunt people down and mount them on the wall, well, I'm not saying I would do it myself, but I probably wouldn't stop someone else from doing it. Actually, no proably about it. I would lend them a hammer and the nails.
The end of modern civilization as we know it, and quite possibly, the last sign of the apocalypse.
This is just my personal list, and I'm sure many people, to include many friends and family of mine, will disagree with the choices. Particularly the one ones about religion and the ACLU. Oh well, write your own list. However, feel free to live your list in the comments.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Taxation with representation
My father watches a lot of news programs. Mostly FOX. I think it's more for all the blond, female talking heads vs being a right-wing radical, but who knows. Hey, Megyn Kelly is hot, in my opinion. Anyhow, my politics are not the issue here, and his aren't either. FOX, to me, is no better or worse than any other news channel. They present the opinion they want, and people can either agree or disagree. I always have wondered why people watch news programs when they disagree with the politics so much. Oh well, that's a post for another day.
Anyhow, the point I was getting to is this. I've been listening as I sit here at the computer, wasting my life with frivolous pursuits of knowledge, and I've heard quite a few things I hadn't been aware of before. One of those is the fact that several cities have initiatives on their ballots to allow LEGAL immigrants the right to vote in local elections, such as city council, school board, and anything that affects day-to-day living. I'm entirely for this, as I've written about this before.
I think it's a great idea, and support it wholeheartedly. Which probably isn't surprising to anyone, as I'm an immigrant myself and feel I should have the right to have a say in my local community. One of the drawbacks to this, which I fully understand, is giving this right to people who have no vested interest in the community and don't really give anything back to it. Here in Bournemouth, there is a large Polish community, which breaks down along two lines.
The first - Polish people who have immigrated on a permanent basis and plan on making this their home permanently. They are part of the community, learn the language, and make the effort to assimilate into the population.
The second - Polish people who have immigrated on a temporary basis, and don't plan on staying any longer than it takes to save enough money to buy a house and a car. As soon as that's done, they head on back to Poland. They live together, associate together, work together, and make no effort to learn the language or to insert themselves into the community.
I'm not picking on the Polish, as there are other nationalities here that do the same thing, but its more prevalent with the Polish, and I have some background with this situation. Also, I'm not going to say it's right or wrong. But there are many Mexicans and Central Americans who do the same thing in the states. Again, it's not an issue of right or wrong. But not all them are illegal. Many of them here/there legally, and work legitimately.
The question is, if you give the vote to people like this/me, is it the right thing to do? The upside is you are telling people that they are productive and accepted members of the community, and the downside is that you are giving the vote to people who don't really care. But those people probably wouldn't vote in the first place, so it's probably an acceptable trade-off.
All-in-all, I'm for the vote. I'll still maintain (whatever country it is) that only citizens should vote in national, or mabye even state elections. I'm still up in the air about that. But I think anyone who is in a country legally as an immigrant should have a say in what happens in the community.
If you give people a reason to care about something, they most often end up working harder to take care of it.
Anyhow, the point I was getting to is this. I've been listening as I sit here at the computer, wasting my life with frivolous pursuits of knowledge, and I've heard quite a few things I hadn't been aware of before. One of those is the fact that several cities have initiatives on their ballots to allow LEGAL immigrants the right to vote in local elections, such as city council, school board, and anything that affects day-to-day living. I'm entirely for this, as I've written about this before.
I think it's a great idea, and support it wholeheartedly. Which probably isn't surprising to anyone, as I'm an immigrant myself and feel I should have the right to have a say in my local community. One of the drawbacks to this, which I fully understand, is giving this right to people who have no vested interest in the community and don't really give anything back to it. Here in Bournemouth, there is a large Polish community, which breaks down along two lines.
The first - Polish people who have immigrated on a permanent basis and plan on making this their home permanently. They are part of the community, learn the language, and make the effort to assimilate into the population.
The second - Polish people who have immigrated on a temporary basis, and don't plan on staying any longer than it takes to save enough money to buy a house and a car. As soon as that's done, they head on back to Poland. They live together, associate together, work together, and make no effort to learn the language or to insert themselves into the community.
I'm not picking on the Polish, as there are other nationalities here that do the same thing, but its more prevalent with the Polish, and I have some background with this situation. Also, I'm not going to say it's right or wrong. But there are many Mexicans and Central Americans who do the same thing in the states. Again, it's not an issue of right or wrong. But not all them are illegal. Many of them here/there legally, and work legitimately.
The question is, if you give the vote to people like this/me, is it the right thing to do? The upside is you are telling people that they are productive and accepted members of the community, and the downside is that you are giving the vote to people who don't really care. But those people probably wouldn't vote in the first place, so it's probably an acceptable trade-off.
All-in-all, I'm for the vote. I'll still maintain (whatever country it is) that only citizens should vote in national, or mabye even state elections. I'm still up in the air about that. But I think anyone who is in a country legally as an immigrant should have a say in what happens in the community.
If you give people a reason to care about something, they most often end up working harder to take care of it.
Friday, October 29, 2010
One more go
So here I go again, giving it another try. At least for now. We'll see how long it will last this time. A little bit more than the previous ones, I hope. Things seem to be going somewhat better, and are a little more stable, so if I can get back to a regular schedule, I'll be able to keep this going. So, for those of you who are interested, a few updates:
Neeve -- things are going great, mostly. She'll be 7 in 3 weeks, which is hard to believe. Plus, she's getting pretty big. She's looking forward to being 7 and having her birthday. She'll have a party with her mother, and then come here for a party. She's actually looking forward to it, and doesn't have too many issues with coming over. She still does a little bit too much "I miss Mummy" with the big crocodile tears, but neither one of us actually believe it's true. She's having a good time, and only really has problems when she's getting ready for bed.
She's also learning French and taking swimming lessons. That's a lot more than I did in 2nd grade.
Family -- my father is back to visit. He's been here about 6 weeks. He's enjoying it more than last time, but mostly because the weather has been great, and just started raining and getting cold. He also got to know a few people while he was here last time, so he's not a complete stranger anymore. Plus, I have a car now and we can get around to different places, which makes it much easier.
Work -- much better, overall. Back working days, as the hotel Administrator and early Duty Manager every day. More money, better hours, and a chance to work up, if I want. I'll do more on this later. The job is okay, but it's some of the people I have an issue with. I'm not used to working in areas where 'good enough' is an acceptable standard. Laziness, sloppiness and being in it for themselves isn't the best way to be successful. Some good stuff going on, and some good people, but some problems also.
Personal life -- well, if I had one, there would be something to write about. Still not much in that area. I'm still broke most weeks after the bills are paid, so there isn't a lot of money to be chasing women with. So, mostly working, sitting at home, and a couple of beers at the pub.
So that's it for now. I actually have a couple of other posts written up and ready to go, so I'll get at least a week out of it this time. A note also. I'm being hit by spammers, so all comments will be moderated in the future. But don't let that stop you.
Neeve -- things are going great, mostly. She'll be 7 in 3 weeks, which is hard to believe. Plus, she's getting pretty big. She's looking forward to being 7 and having her birthday. She'll have a party with her mother, and then come here for a party. She's actually looking forward to it, and doesn't have too many issues with coming over. She still does a little bit too much "I miss Mummy" with the big crocodile tears, but neither one of us actually believe it's true. She's having a good time, and only really has problems when she's getting ready for bed.
She's also learning French and taking swimming lessons. That's a lot more than I did in 2nd grade.
Family -- my father is back to visit. He's been here about 6 weeks. He's enjoying it more than last time, but mostly because the weather has been great, and just started raining and getting cold. He also got to know a few people while he was here last time, so he's not a complete stranger anymore. Plus, I have a car now and we can get around to different places, which makes it much easier.
Work -- much better, overall. Back working days, as the hotel Administrator and early Duty Manager every day. More money, better hours, and a chance to work up, if I want. I'll do more on this later. The job is okay, but it's some of the people I have an issue with. I'm not used to working in areas where 'good enough' is an acceptable standard. Laziness, sloppiness and being in it for themselves isn't the best way to be successful. Some good stuff going on, and some good people, but some problems also.
Personal life -- well, if I had one, there would be something to write about. Still not much in that area. I'm still broke most weeks after the bills are paid, so there isn't a lot of money to be chasing women with. So, mostly working, sitting at home, and a couple of beers at the pub.
So that's it for now. I actually have a couple of other posts written up and ready to go, so I'll get at least a week out of it this time. A note also. I'm being hit by spammers, so all comments will be moderated in the future. But don't let that stop you.
Friday, April 9, 2010
25 Random Things: # 6
6. If they offered me a place on a space mission to explore new planets, I'm gone. No doubt, no hesitation. I won't even pack. I'll buy it when I get there.
Seriously, how could you not do this? The adventure of it, not knowing what's out there? Even the danger involved. I'm there. Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of America, and an even bigger fan of the Earth. This is my home. I like it. But I'm gone.
There's too much out there, too much unknown, to much to discover and too much to explore. I wouldn't even stop to pack. I'll get it when I get there. From some alien convenience store.
There's not really a lot I can say about this one. Either you're in, or you're out. You want to make the trip, or you're staying at home. Simple.
The only drawback would be having to leave Neeve, and I'm not sure I could do that. So it might have to be when she is older and has her own life going on. Or maybe she can go with me.
We'll figure it out. But somehow, someday, someway, I'm going.
Seriously, how could you not do this? The adventure of it, not knowing what's out there? Even the danger involved. I'm there. Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of America, and an even bigger fan of the Earth. This is my home. I like it. But I'm gone.
There's too much out there, too much unknown, to much to discover and too much to explore. I wouldn't even stop to pack. I'll get it when I get there. From some alien convenience store.
There's not really a lot I can say about this one. Either you're in, or you're out. You want to make the trip, or you're staying at home. Simple.
The only drawback would be having to leave Neeve, and I'm not sure I could do that. So it might have to be when she is older and has her own life going on. Or maybe she can go with me.
We'll figure it out. But somehow, someday, someway, I'm going.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
More on driving over here
As I've said in the past, I won't be critical of the United Kingdom, as Neeve was born and is being raised here. She's British (and American), but being raised as a Brit. I'm not going to be derogatory, make fun, or ridicule the country, the people or the customs. The government is a different issue however; as it is always appropriate to ridicule the government.
The one thing that has irritated me the most here (beyond Immigration) is the issue of car insurance. I recently bought a car. An old, 1999, piece-of-shit, Ford Mondeo Estate (station wagon). It cost me £350 ($600). It’s probably the most expensive thing I own right now, but it's still just an old beater.
In my life, I've driven in the United States, Canada, South Korea, the United Kingdom, Latvia (the worst country in Europe for driving), Lithuania, Germany, Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Angola (it has to be experienced to be believed). A variety of countries, many of them not known for their special skills on the road. But I've spent 30 years driving in those countries, without an accident of any kind, and haven't had a ticket in 20 years. I've only had 3 total, and they all came in an 18-month period after I left the autobahns of Germany.
Now, to my way of thinking, the United States is a developed country, and you don't just get handed a driver's license. There are written and driving tests required, insurance is mandatory, and the police are all over the place. There are strict rules and procedures for driving. This isn't like some other countries, where, although a licenses and insurance are required, the lack of either can be handled with a $20 to the police. No, there are standards, and records that cover the driving period, document all accidents and tickets, and a standardized system for tracking all of this.
So what is my problem, you might wonder? The United Kingdom refuses to recognize this. I can't receive my U.K. driver's license as a transfer from my U.S. license. And I'm not happy.
There are four categories of licenses available in the U.K.:
Full - just like what you get in the states
Provisional - a temporary license for people like me until we pass a written and driving test to get a full license
International - one of those paper licenses you get at AAA for $10, and gives you a year of driving anywhere in the world
Learners - a restricted license for people learning to drive
But if I came from one of the following countries, I could exchange my license with no problem:
Australia
Barbados
British Virgin Islands
Canada
Falkland Islands
Faroe Islands*
Hong Kong
Japan
Monaco
New Zealand
Republic of Korea*
Singapore
South Africa
Switzerland
Zimbabwe
Now I realize that a lot of those are Commonwealth countries, but Japan? South Korea? Monaco!!!?
Really.
So I need to get a provisional license, and have to take a written and driving test. As far as they are concerned, my U.S. license carries no more weight than one from Angola or Iraq would carry.
So you'll know why I'm bitching, this is not just the inconvenience of having to take the tests. I think its silly, but I can deal with that. No, it goes much deeper than that.
Insurance on a full license - £54 ($90) per month
Insurance on a provisional license - £111 ($170) per month
See the issue. I'm getting screwed. My driving isn't considered good enough to warrant a lower rate, but people from other countries from throughout the world can come to the U.K. and exchange their licenses. For the simple reason that there has been a governmental agreement between the two. It doesn't matter what the standard, or what the background of the driver is. Just what is on the cover of the their passport.
They get a full U.K. license. And cheap insurance. Meanwhile, I've been driving for 30 years with no accidents and tickets against my record, in a country with some of the highest standards in the world, and I'm a substandard driver.
To be fair, I don't know what the procedure for Brits moving to the states is, so this could be the fault of the United Stats also. But maybe not. But the U.K. doesn't have to do it. They just are.
The one thing that has irritated me the most here (beyond Immigration) is the issue of car insurance. I recently bought a car. An old, 1999, piece-of-shit, Ford Mondeo Estate (station wagon). It cost me £350 ($600). It’s probably the most expensive thing I own right now, but it's still just an old beater.
In my life, I've driven in the United States, Canada, South Korea, the United Kingdom, Latvia (the worst country in Europe for driving), Lithuania, Germany, Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Angola (it has to be experienced to be believed). A variety of countries, many of them not known for their special skills on the road. But I've spent 30 years driving in those countries, without an accident of any kind, and haven't had a ticket in 20 years. I've only had 3 total, and they all came in an 18-month period after I left the autobahns of Germany.
Now, to my way of thinking, the United States is a developed country, and you don't just get handed a driver's license. There are written and driving tests required, insurance is mandatory, and the police are all over the place. There are strict rules and procedures for driving. This isn't like some other countries, where, although a licenses and insurance are required, the lack of either can be handled with a $20 to the police. No, there are standards, and records that cover the driving period, document all accidents and tickets, and a standardized system for tracking all of this.
So what is my problem, you might wonder? The United Kingdom refuses to recognize this. I can't receive my U.K. driver's license as a transfer from my U.S. license. And I'm not happy.
There are four categories of licenses available in the U.K.:
Full - just like what you get in the states
Provisional - a temporary license for people like me until we pass a written and driving test to get a full license
International - one of those paper licenses you get at AAA for $10, and gives you a year of driving anywhere in the world
Learners - a restricted license for people learning to drive
But if I came from one of the following countries, I could exchange my license with no problem:
Australia
Barbados
British Virgin Islands
Canada
Falkland Islands
Faroe Islands*
Hong Kong
Japan
Monaco
New Zealand
Republic of Korea*
Singapore
South Africa
Switzerland
Zimbabwe
Now I realize that a lot of those are Commonwealth countries, but Japan? South Korea? Monaco!!!?
Really.
So I need to get a provisional license, and have to take a written and driving test. As far as they are concerned, my U.S. license carries no more weight than one from Angola or Iraq would carry.
So you'll know why I'm bitching, this is not just the inconvenience of having to take the tests. I think its silly, but I can deal with that. No, it goes much deeper than that.
Insurance on a full license - £54 ($90) per month
Insurance on a provisional license - £111 ($170) per month
See the issue. I'm getting screwed. My driving isn't considered good enough to warrant a lower rate, but people from other countries from throughout the world can come to the U.K. and exchange their licenses. For the simple reason that there has been a governmental agreement between the two. It doesn't matter what the standard, or what the background of the driver is. Just what is on the cover of the their passport.
They get a full U.K. license. And cheap insurance. Meanwhile, I've been driving for 30 years with no accidents and tickets against my record, in a country with some of the highest standards in the world, and I'm a substandard driver.
To be fair, I don't know what the procedure for Brits moving to the states is, so this could be the fault of the United Stats also. But maybe not. But the U.K. doesn't have to do it. They just are.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
The political process
General elections are coming soon, and will be held on May 9th. The campaign season has begun. Who is elected concerns me, as I live here now. Particularly since immigration is the second biggest issue in the election, behind the economy. As an immigrant myself, I'm curious and wondering. As a permanent resident, I don't get to vote, as I'm not a citizen. Same system as in the states. I can't run for office, either. Maybe one day, if I decide to take citizenship. We'll see how it goes, and if they decide to let immigrants stay.
What I don't agree with is the fact that other residents and non-citizens do get to vote. If a citizen of a European Union country moves to the U.K., they are allowed to vote in all elections, except national parliamentary elections. So they can vote for local councilors, mayors, etc; just not Ministers of Parliament. I don't have a problem with them getting to do that. In fact, it's actually a good idea, to my way of thinking. The residents of the E.U. nations live here, shop here, spend money here, send their kids to school here, and pay taxes here. They are settled, a part of the community, and should get to vote.
The issue I have is that I do all of the same things, especially pay taxes, and I'm not allowed to vote. That hardly seems fair to me, after all, if other immigrants get to vote, why shouldn't I? I know its one of those E.U. things, which is ruining Europe, but it would seem to be a matter of discrimination to me. One group gets to do something based on where they are from, but another doesn't get to do the same thing based on where they are from? People from Bulgaria, a country known for it's democratic values, get to vote for mayor, but I don't?
I know this is beating a dead horse, and no one is going to listen to me. But this is one thing I don't like. Just seems wrong that I don't get a say in how much my water bill is. Wow, taxation without representation. Nah, just kidding.
What I don't agree with is the fact that other residents and non-citizens do get to vote. If a citizen of a European Union country moves to the U.K., they are allowed to vote in all elections, except national parliamentary elections. So they can vote for local councilors, mayors, etc; just not Ministers of Parliament. I don't have a problem with them getting to do that. In fact, it's actually a good idea, to my way of thinking. The residents of the E.U. nations live here, shop here, spend money here, send their kids to school here, and pay taxes here. They are settled, a part of the community, and should get to vote.
The issue I have is that I do all of the same things, especially pay taxes, and I'm not allowed to vote. That hardly seems fair to me, after all, if other immigrants get to vote, why shouldn't I? I know its one of those E.U. things, which is ruining Europe, but it would seem to be a matter of discrimination to me. One group gets to do something based on where they are from, but another doesn't get to do the same thing based on where they are from? People from Bulgaria, a country known for it's democratic values, get to vote for mayor, but I don't?
I know this is beating a dead horse, and no one is going to listen to me. But this is one thing I don't like. Just seems wrong that I don't get a say in how much my water bill is. Wow, taxation without representation. Nah, just kidding.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Saving our dough
Sunday, Easter Sunday that is, I was going to go do my grocery shopping for the month. No particular reason for that day, just needed to get it done. After all, my days kind of all run together, so which day I do my errands isn't really important. So I got to the shopping center, and to my surprise, all the stores were closed. I was kind of confused, but couldn't do much about it, so I headed home. Most of the way convenience stores, restaurants and pubs were open as usual, but as I drove back, I noticed all the big stores were closed along the way. Imagine Wal-Mart and all the malls being closed on the Sunday of a 4-day weekend. Hard to imagine, isn't it?
I mentioned it to a co-worker that night, and he told me something that surprised me a little. Actually, a lot. They were all closed because it's the law. Based on religion, which happens, but still seems strange. Much like the United States, the United Kingdom used to have 'blue laws'. Essentially, stores couldn't be open on Sunday because it was the Sabbath. The only place to spend your money was the collection plate. For a country where only 10% of the population attends church and religion isn't all that important, the church still has a lot of power.
Remember, it is a state church, and the head of the church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is appointed by the monarch, even though it is really the Prime Minister. That's the Church of England, for those that don't know. The Anglican Church as its known around the world, and the Episcopal Church in the states. Yep, England's answer to Catholicism. According to my co-worker, the law was changed awhile back to allow big stores to stay open on Sundays, but with the agreement that they would be closed on Easter. Convenience stores, restaurants, and pubs, which had always been open on Sundays, were exempt form this. So eating and drinking is allowed, but not buying stuff. I guess I'm okay with that, fundamentally speaking.
I don't remember this from last year, although I was here. I wasn't working at the time, and hadn't been for 5 months. I didn't have the money to go shopping, regardless of whether or not the stores were open. I had been here a few times in April before, but not on Easter. So a new thing for me, entirely. As stated many times, this isn't meant to be an insult, but informative. I remember living in Georgia in the mid-'80's and not being able to buy beer on a Sunday. Even worse, when I was forced to live in Kansas in 2005, you still couldn't buy beer on a Sunday there, either. You could drive to a bar, drink there, and drive home, but not buy it a store and take it home to drink.
So in two different countries, one with a state church, and one with separation of church and state, some of the same archaic religious traditions still dominate, and saving you soul trumps saving your dough.
I mentioned it to a co-worker that night, and he told me something that surprised me a little. Actually, a lot. They were all closed because it's the law. Based on religion, which happens, but still seems strange. Much like the United States, the United Kingdom used to have 'blue laws'. Essentially, stores couldn't be open on Sunday because it was the Sabbath. The only place to spend your money was the collection plate. For a country where only 10% of the population attends church and religion isn't all that important, the church still has a lot of power.
Remember, it is a state church, and the head of the church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is appointed by the monarch, even though it is really the Prime Minister. That's the Church of England, for those that don't know. The Anglican Church as its known around the world, and the Episcopal Church in the states. Yep, England's answer to Catholicism. According to my co-worker, the law was changed awhile back to allow big stores to stay open on Sundays, but with the agreement that they would be closed on Easter. Convenience stores, restaurants, and pubs, which had always been open on Sundays, were exempt form this. So eating and drinking is allowed, but not buying stuff. I guess I'm okay with that, fundamentally speaking.
I don't remember this from last year, although I was here. I wasn't working at the time, and hadn't been for 5 months. I didn't have the money to go shopping, regardless of whether or not the stores were open. I had been here a few times in April before, but not on Easter. So a new thing for me, entirely. As stated many times, this isn't meant to be an insult, but informative. I remember living in Georgia in the mid-'80's and not being able to buy beer on a Sunday. Even worse, when I was forced to live in Kansas in 2005, you still couldn't buy beer on a Sunday there, either. You could drive to a bar, drink there, and drive home, but not buy it a store and take it home to drink.
So in two different countries, one with a state church, and one with separation of church and state, some of the same archaic religious traditions still dominate, and saving you soul trumps saving your dough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)