Inlägg
Texten är skriven på min iPad så jag ber om ursäkt för eventuella konstigheter. Paddan och jag har ibland olika åsikter om vikten av möjligheten att gå tillbaka och ändra/korrigera i texten.
Just nu känner jag mig bitter och trött. Bostadsbolaget jag hyr lägenhet hos, ett kommunalägt bolag som omfattas av Allmännyttan, har riktigt udda kriterier för uthyrning.
För det första är det riktigt, riktigt svårt att ens få en lägenhet. Bostadsbristen på orten där jag bor, en ort som marknadsförs som "expansiv och attraktiv", är akut och har varit det under en lång tid. Visst byggs det nytt nu men hyrorna är rena fantasihyror. Eller vad sägs en tvåa på dryga 50 kvadrat, och inte särskilt centralt, för över 7000 kr i månaden. Eller lägenheter i nybyggda hyreshus som redan har börjat spricka i grunden för 7500 kr och uppåt i månaden?
Samtidigt är de gamla hyreshusen i dåligt skick med, på sina håll, gravt eftersatt underhåll.
Dessutom verkar det kommunala bostadsbolaget ha en väldigt konstig prioritering i hur lägenheter ska hyras ut. I första hand kommer de personer som kommer utifrån kommunen och har fått fast jobb. Fine, jag förstår att de vill få in mer folk till kommunen eftersom det på sikt är bra för hela området. Problemet är dock att de som har familj på orten eller redan är bosatta prioriteras bort. De får ingen bostad. I längden innebär det att de flyttar ut. Plus minus noll alltså.
Därutöver har det kommunala bolaget en hyrespolicy som innebär att man inte får ett fast hyreskontrakt om man inte har fast anställning eller en dokumenterat fast inkomst. Har man "bara" ett vikariat får man bara ett korttidskontrakt, till exempel.
Det har hänt mig. Jag fick ett vikariat på orten, flyttade upp och hade sju års kötid på lägenhet. Det tog mig närmare fyra månader att få en egen bostad, under tiden fick jag vara inneboende hos min bästa vän och hennes familj. När jag sedan äntligen fick en lägenhet försvann givetvis kötiden men kontraktet för bostaden löpte bara på tre månader, så länge som vikariatet var på. När jag sedan lyckades få ett annat vikariat så förlängdes kontraktet med ytterligare tre månader men inget mer.nu är det återigen dags för förnyelse av hyreskontraktet. Förra fredagen, 14 september och dag innan helgdag, fick jag hem ett brev i brevlådan. Där stod att hyreskontraktet måste förnyas senast 27 september. Om jag inte skulle bo kvar, eller om kontraktet inte förnyas, ska nycklarna till lägenheten lämnas in senast det nämnda datumet. Inte ens två veckors uppsägningatid, alltså. Redan i för förra omförhandlingen ifrågasatte jag deras policy. I dagens samhälle är det där med fast jobb, tillsvidareanställning, en raritet utan dess like. Arbetsgivarna använder ju även gärna vikariat och korttidsanställningar som ett sätt att initialt locka arbetskraft. Problemet som uppstår är att det bildas ett moment 22. Man vågar inte acceptera ett jobb om man inte kan känna sig säker på att man även har någonstans att bo. Men man får inte känna sig säker på att ha tryggheten i en bostad om man inte har ett jobb. Är det bara jag som tycker att det är otroligt snedvridet?
Nu är jag långtifrån den enda som påverkats av detta och eftersom jag fortfarande har kvar lägenheten i Umeå så finns den utvägen. Om jag tvingas lämna min bostad här på orten så flyttar jag tillbaka till Umeå. Denna kommun förlorar därmed en person i arbetsför ålder, som dessutom bedöms ha mycket goda möjligheter till längre anställning om en relativt kort tid, som kan och vill arbeta och betala skatt på orten. Då får Umeå kommun istället mina skattepengar
Andra som berörs har inte samma möjligheter. Det finns folk i min omgivning som är ensamstående föräldrar. När förhållant med deras sambo tagit slut eller de av annat skäl inte längre kan ha kvar just sin bostad har de inte fått tag i något nytt boende. De får flytta hem till sina släktingar, om de har turen att ha några på orten, oavsett hur trångbott det blir. Med andra ord blir de och deras barn, officiellt sett, hemlösa då de inte har någon egen bostad utan får förlita sig på släktingarnas välvilja. Antalet hemlösa barn i kommunen har, enligt vissa källor, tydligen ökat, något som går emot såväl kommunala som rikstäckande mål och lagar. Trots de riktlinjer som finns om trygghet och så vidare har dessa personer, när de ifrågasatt varför de, som har betalningsförmåga och inga anmärkningar, inte får hyra en bostad rent ut fått svaret att "Missbrukare och invandrare
/inflyttade får förtur". Varför det prioriteras så låter jag vara osagt i brist på personlig erfarenhet av sådana uttalanden.
Jag kan dock inte förstå hur det kan få vara så här, att ett kommunalt bolag kan sätta sådana kriterier och i princip diskriminera på ett sådant sätt. Vad har hänt med vårt samhälle när tryggheten mer och mer urholkas. Och varför kan inte kommunen, som så gärna vill vända trenden med stadigt minskande invånarantal, vakna upp och, som ägare av åtminstone ett bostadsbolag, inse att så som saker och ting ser ut just nu kommer avfolkningen fortsätta eller på sin höjd stanna upp. Nytt blod kommer utifrån men lika mycket försvinner då kommunens egna, etablerade invånare i princip tvingas söka trygghet på annat håll. På vilket sätt är detta ett recept för en expansiv och attraktiv kommun?
lördag 22 september 2012
fredag 6 juli 2012
Artikelkommentarer och oförmågan att se bortanför tidningssidan
Det finns något som jag inte kan låta bli att förundras över... Det är artikelkommentarer. I mitt dagliga yrkesutövande stöter jag ofta på sådana som får mig att haja till. Det här inlägget, som handlar om just mina funderingar kring vissa som kommenterar, kommer att fokusera på huvudsakligen skriven journalistik, men läget är i stort detsamma inom radio och TV.
Jag kan inte låta bli att reagera över att det fortfarande tycks finnas folk som tror att artikeln de läser är en enmansproduktion. Att det finns folk som tror att journalister av idag är fria att skriva precis vad de vill, välja exakt vad de vill fokusera på i en text och hur mycket tid de har till att arbeta upp en artikel. De flesta journalister har inte den friheten över huvud taget. Det är en svår värld, journalistiken, fylld av överväganden, resonemang, tidsbrist och "måsten".
Jag förundras över att det fortfarande finns folk som är så blåögda att de inte inser att vad de ser när de öppnar tidningen är bara den färdiga produkten. De ser den färdiga texten med journalistens namn och tycks inte inse, eller inte vilja inse, att bakom varje text de läser finns det en mängd människor, diskussioner och tankar.
Journalisten är där, förstås, och intervjupersonerna.
Men där finns även redigerarna, vars jobb det är att se till så att texten är läsbar, inte bara rent stilistiskt utan många gånger även utförd i den form och på det sätt som behövs för tidningen. Deras namn skrivs aldrig ut och de är i stort väldigt anonyma, men de finns där och deras ingrepp i texterna kan ofta vara omfattande även om ingen som inte varit med under arbetets gång någonsin kan gissa sig till det. De ser bara den färdiga produktionen, trots allt, och har ingen aning om hur många versioner som skrivits, förkastats och förändrats. Redigerarna kan välja att helt ta bort delar av texten som inte fungerar, eller som bedöms vara för kontroversiella/ inte viktiga, och de kan även skriva om, ifall det bedöms nödvändigt.
Och där finns också nyhetschefen som oftast är den som bestämmer/godkänner vad journalisten ska fokusera på, som godkänner om det som skrivits är publicerbart/nyhetsvärt. Det är nyhetschefen som avgör hur snart texten måste vara inne (inte sällan samma dag, vilket ofta leder till att journalistens möjligheter för en nyanserad och väl underbyggd text minskar drastiskt och därför ofta innebär att man väljer den mindre kontroversiella vägen). Nyhetschefen värderar vad som är viktigt/passande att få ut och delegerar uppgifterna till journalisten.
Och sedan har vi, givetvis, den ansvarige utgivaren som, i slutänden, är den som godkänner om texten är ok eller inte. Och då pratar vi inte stilistiskt eller språkligt, utan innehållsmässigt. Det är den ansvarige utgivaren som till syvende och sist blir den som får ta smällen om något blir för kontroversiellt.
Nuförtiden finns även nästa dimension i betydligt högre grad och vikt än tidigare: finansiärerna. Hur gärna jag än skulle vilja att det var annorlunda så går det inte att komma undan: Även journalistiken är beroende av ekonomi.
Folk tycks dock inte inse att det inte är gratis att trycka en tidning eller producera ett inslag. Tekniken, pappret, trycksvärtan, distributionen, programmen som används. Allt kostar. Därtill kommer också lokalhyra, el, värme och vatten. En journalistisk produktion uppstår inte från tomma intet och, återigen oavsett hur gärna man skulle önska det, kan inte bara dyka upp i din morgontidning eller din radio eller i TV-rutan utan att en krona har spenderats.
I dagens läge är journalistiken inte sällan mer eller mindre beroende av medel som kommer från företagsinvesteringar eller staten, exakt samma som journalisterna är satta att granska. Idealiskt sett borde det inte spela någon roll i den större bilden, journalistikens roll borde inte få förändras. Men i verkligheten fungerar det inte så. Man kan vara idealistisk, man kan försöka att gå sin egen väg. Men i dagens värld är jag rädd att pengarna har fått en alltför stor plats och makt, även över dem som ska granska vårt samhälle. Det är ingen lätt balansgång, att göra sitt jobb, utföra sin journalistiska plikt och passion och samtidigt klara sig i denna värld.
Och sedan kommer folk, som tror att de vet allt om texten (trots att de, återigen, bara sett den färdiga versionen), och förfasar sig över osakliga journalister, över "köpta" eller "propagandapåverkade" journalister. Som uttalar sig som om de tror att de skulle ha gjort det bättre, som uttalar sig om vad som passar och vad som inte passar, som anklagar journalisterna för att blåögt eller ohederligt svälja företagens och politikernas sida av saken. Personer som tror sig känna journalisten och veta vad som pågått i dennes huvud under arbetet med texten.
Debatter är bra. Feedback är bra. Det hjälper journalistiken, och samhället, att utvecklas. Men samtidigt ska man vara medveten om att det är alldeles för lätt att tycka i efterhand, när texten redan är publicerad och "klar". Det är lätt att tycka när man själv inte har den minsta aning om vad som skedde på redaktionen, på journalistens block och dataskärm, via telefonlinjen eller i intervjusituationen under arbetets gång.
Det är helt ok att lämna artikelkommentarer, det är helt ok att vara kritisk. Men innan man sätter sig ner och börjar skriva och förfasa sig, ryta över "abrovinscher" och slänga ur sig anklagelser bör man ta ett djupt andetag och fråga sig:
"Vad vet jag egentligen om den här texten?"
Jag kan inte låta bli att reagera över att det fortfarande tycks finnas folk som tror att artikeln de läser är en enmansproduktion. Att det finns folk som tror att journalister av idag är fria att skriva precis vad de vill, välja exakt vad de vill fokusera på i en text och hur mycket tid de har till att arbeta upp en artikel. De flesta journalister har inte den friheten över huvud taget. Det är en svår värld, journalistiken, fylld av överväganden, resonemang, tidsbrist och "måsten".
Jag förundras över att det fortfarande finns folk som är så blåögda att de inte inser att vad de ser när de öppnar tidningen är bara den färdiga produkten. De ser den färdiga texten med journalistens namn och tycks inte inse, eller inte vilja inse, att bakom varje text de läser finns det en mängd människor, diskussioner och tankar.
Journalisten är där, förstås, och intervjupersonerna.
Men där finns även redigerarna, vars jobb det är att se till så att texten är läsbar, inte bara rent stilistiskt utan många gånger även utförd i den form och på det sätt som behövs för tidningen. Deras namn skrivs aldrig ut och de är i stort väldigt anonyma, men de finns där och deras ingrepp i texterna kan ofta vara omfattande även om ingen som inte varit med under arbetets gång någonsin kan gissa sig till det. De ser bara den färdiga produktionen, trots allt, och har ingen aning om hur många versioner som skrivits, förkastats och förändrats. Redigerarna kan välja att helt ta bort delar av texten som inte fungerar, eller som bedöms vara för kontroversiella/ inte viktiga, och de kan även skriva om, ifall det bedöms nödvändigt.
Och där finns också nyhetschefen som oftast är den som bestämmer/godkänner vad journalisten ska fokusera på, som godkänner om det som skrivits är publicerbart/nyhetsvärt. Det är nyhetschefen som avgör hur snart texten måste vara inne (inte sällan samma dag, vilket ofta leder till att journalistens möjligheter för en nyanserad och väl underbyggd text minskar drastiskt och därför ofta innebär att man väljer den mindre kontroversiella vägen). Nyhetschefen värderar vad som är viktigt/passande att få ut och delegerar uppgifterna till journalisten.
Och sedan har vi, givetvis, den ansvarige utgivaren som, i slutänden, är den som godkänner om texten är ok eller inte. Och då pratar vi inte stilistiskt eller språkligt, utan innehållsmässigt. Det är den ansvarige utgivaren som till syvende och sist blir den som får ta smällen om något blir för kontroversiellt.
Nuförtiden finns även nästa dimension i betydligt högre grad och vikt än tidigare: finansiärerna. Hur gärna jag än skulle vilja att det var annorlunda så går det inte att komma undan: Även journalistiken är beroende av ekonomi.
Folk tycks dock inte inse att det inte är gratis att trycka en tidning eller producera ett inslag. Tekniken, pappret, trycksvärtan, distributionen, programmen som används. Allt kostar. Därtill kommer också lokalhyra, el, värme och vatten. En journalistisk produktion uppstår inte från tomma intet och, återigen oavsett hur gärna man skulle önska det, kan inte bara dyka upp i din morgontidning eller din radio eller i TV-rutan utan att en krona har spenderats.
I dagens läge är journalistiken inte sällan mer eller mindre beroende av medel som kommer från företagsinvesteringar eller staten, exakt samma som journalisterna är satta att granska. Idealiskt sett borde det inte spela någon roll i den större bilden, journalistikens roll borde inte få förändras. Men i verkligheten fungerar det inte så. Man kan vara idealistisk, man kan försöka att gå sin egen väg. Men i dagens värld är jag rädd att pengarna har fått en alltför stor plats och makt, även över dem som ska granska vårt samhälle. Det är ingen lätt balansgång, att göra sitt jobb, utföra sin journalistiska plikt och passion och samtidigt klara sig i denna värld.
Och sedan kommer folk, som tror att de vet allt om texten (trots att de, återigen, bara sett den färdiga versionen), och förfasar sig över osakliga journalister, över "köpta" eller "propagandapåverkade" journalister. Som uttalar sig som om de tror att de skulle ha gjort det bättre, som uttalar sig om vad som passar och vad som inte passar, som anklagar journalisterna för att blåögt eller ohederligt svälja företagens och politikernas sida av saken. Personer som tror sig känna journalisten och veta vad som pågått i dennes huvud under arbetet med texten.
Debatter är bra. Feedback är bra. Det hjälper journalistiken, och samhället, att utvecklas. Men samtidigt ska man vara medveten om att det är alldeles för lätt att tycka i efterhand, när texten redan är publicerad och "klar". Det är lätt att tycka när man själv inte har den minsta aning om vad som skedde på redaktionen, på journalistens block och dataskärm, via telefonlinjen eller i intervjusituationen under arbetets gång.
Det är helt ok att lämna artikelkommentarer, det är helt ok att vara kritisk. Men innan man sätter sig ner och börjar skriva och förfasa sig, ryta över "abrovinscher" och slänga ur sig anklagelser bör man ta ett djupt andetag och fråga sig:
"Vad vet jag egentligen om den här texten?"
torsdag 19 april 2012
Assorted updates
Well, it would seem I've sorely neglected spewing my sarcastic cynicism by way of this blog for quite some time. To my defense I was tricked into starting to blog and then real life decided I needed an intervention just for the hell of it.
So, what's new? Most everything, I would say. I have relocated some 540 km north of my previous home town, thus making a skip sideways and maybe slightly back to the place where I once grew up. The very place that began the shaping of the human I am today.
It all began when the news desk I've been working at for the last two summers contacted me and asked if I could fill in for one of their journalists here in Gällivare. Naturally I decided to take the plunge, three months more experience (as well as a steady salary during that time) is definitely nothing to scoff at. So, said and done. I packed the most necessary things into my little Golf and drove northbound. The first two months or so I stayed with a friend and her family since it's almost impossible to find vacant apartments in quick order (even if you, like me, had seven years of queuing for one). The cats and my horse had to make do without me, which they seem to have done perfectly well, aided by my wonderful friends and stable-mates.
Then I finally got an apartment. It's really cute, bigger than my previous one but with lower rent so I jumped at it. I have come to realize, though, that I've got way too little in the way of furniture. My living room still looks quite unbalanced at the moment, with way too many empty areas. But no matter, I'll fix it later. Thanks to the apartment I could finally fetch my cats and rent out the apartment in Umeå to a wonderful friend. The horse came up shortly after and is now quite happily installed at a brand new stable and spending his days having breakfast, lunch and dinner with a hot Spanish young thing. He seems quite happy though he's still doing his best to uphold his usual heteronormative behavior. Poor boy's got to be confused with all those gorgeous Spanish and Icelandic boys going gaga over him.
Anyway, back to my favorite subject, me. The three months of temporary work were up this Sunday (which I deeply lament since I had a heap of fun working at that news desk). Now I'm once again without a job, but only for two months. Then I'll hop onto two months of working for the rivaling news desk in this town. Something that is so exciting I can't even begin to describe it. It'll be fun to see things from that side of political colors.
Lastly I think it is more or less required of me to say something about my darling cars. The Toyota got a big red mark for the shock absorbers and is thus currently loitering on my friend's yard until I can afford buying new shock absorbers and convince someone, by way of my oh so considerable charm, that they would like nothing more than to tinker around with installing the damn things. I'll write an update on my success someday in the future.
The Golf is singing on its last verse, and quite a bit out of tune at that. The generator is making the most awful noises, like someone torturing a banshee ghost with a wooden spoon, at inopportune moments, usually when we're driving through a resident block late at night... I'm currently taking bets as to how long it will take before a) the generator flips me the bird definitely and the car won't start or b) an enraged mob decides to take matters in their own hands and reduce my little red bullet (or the Cow as it is fondly addressed as) to a pathetic pile of rusting red metal... To be updated if I get away unscathed.
So, that was probably all I had to write now. Now I'm going to return to staring fondly at my new ceiling lamp.
So, what's new? Most everything, I would say. I have relocated some 540 km north of my previous home town, thus making a skip sideways and maybe slightly back to the place where I once grew up. The very place that began the shaping of the human I am today.
It all began when the news desk I've been working at for the last two summers contacted me and asked if I could fill in for one of their journalists here in Gällivare. Naturally I decided to take the plunge, three months more experience (as well as a steady salary during that time) is definitely nothing to scoff at. So, said and done. I packed the most necessary things into my little Golf and drove northbound. The first two months or so I stayed with a friend and her family since it's almost impossible to find vacant apartments in quick order (even if you, like me, had seven years of queuing for one). The cats and my horse had to make do without me, which they seem to have done perfectly well, aided by my wonderful friends and stable-mates.
Then I finally got an apartment. It's really cute, bigger than my previous one but with lower rent so I jumped at it. I have come to realize, though, that I've got way too little in the way of furniture. My living room still looks quite unbalanced at the moment, with way too many empty areas. But no matter, I'll fix it later. Thanks to the apartment I could finally fetch my cats and rent out the apartment in Umeå to a wonderful friend. The horse came up shortly after and is now quite happily installed at a brand new stable and spending his days having breakfast, lunch and dinner with a hot Spanish young thing. He seems quite happy though he's still doing his best to uphold his usual heteronormative behavior. Poor boy's got to be confused with all those gorgeous Spanish and Icelandic boys going gaga over him.
Anyway, back to my favorite subject, me. The three months of temporary work were up this Sunday (which I deeply lament since I had a heap of fun working at that news desk). Now I'm once again without a job, but only for two months. Then I'll hop onto two months of working for the rivaling news desk in this town. Something that is so exciting I can't even begin to describe it. It'll be fun to see things from that side of political colors.
Lastly I think it is more or less required of me to say something about my darling cars. The Toyota got a big red mark for the shock absorbers and is thus currently loitering on my friend's yard until I can afford buying new shock absorbers and convince someone, by way of my oh so considerable charm, that they would like nothing more than to tinker around with installing the damn things. I'll write an update on my success someday in the future.
The Golf is singing on its last verse, and quite a bit out of tune at that. The generator is making the most awful noises, like someone torturing a banshee ghost with a wooden spoon, at inopportune moments, usually when we're driving through a resident block late at night... I'm currently taking bets as to how long it will take before a) the generator flips me the bird definitely and the car won't start or b) an enraged mob decides to take matters in their own hands and reduce my little red bullet (or the Cow as it is fondly addressed as) to a pathetic pile of rusting red metal... To be updated if I get away unscathed.
So, that was probably all I had to write now. Now I'm going to return to staring fondly at my new ceiling lamp.
torsdag 3 november 2011
Sad news
After spending about a week in the Swedish fall season, complete with rain and temperatures that cannot seem to remain stable, trying to dry the inside of the windshield from fog while driving I made a heavy but necessary decision this weekend. I have finally realized that my beloved Toyota has been begging for a retirement for quite some time and I have also realized I have no choice but to obey it. Needless to say, it wasn't an easy decision since I really do love it but with the prospect of even more visits to the workshop to fix the surly heat fan, as well as the realization my little red trooper probably wouldn't pass the yearly inspection due to four lousy shock absorbers, I took a deep breath and went car hunting.
In the end I found a cute little red VW Golf from 1987 (so it's the same age as my Toyota, as well as almost the same color, if only a bit fresher in that area). It's got an automatic gear box, which was quite interesting since I've only ever driven an automatic once before, and only for a short distance. However, once I relaxed I realized that automatic is indeed easier than manual. I no longer have to drive for miles before realizing I'd forgotten to put in a higher gear (consequently lowering the amount of fuel needed). I don't have to watch how I balance the clutch and the gas pedals in order to drive smoothly. And the Golf is quite a bit more perky than my Toyota. Not that I'm especially much of a speed nut, quite the opposite. but even I have to grin a bit when the little red bullet takes off, and yeah, it is fun to press the gas pedal :).
Now all I have to do is switch the tires between the two cars (one of the prerequisites for my "new" car was that it had to have the same dimension on the tires as the Toyota. Since those tires, both sets of them, are less than a year old and I really don't want to put money into buying yet another set of tires).
What's going to happen to the Toyota, then? I wish i could say that it would get a well-deserved retirement, spending the days in a warm garage, all cozy and sweet. However, I only have one parking space, and I'm afraid I need that one for my Golf. So the Toyota will most likely end up donating choice parts to whomever wishes to do the surgery and then move on to car heaven. I will miss it, of course. It's served me and my family fairly well for so many years it wasn't an easy decision. But one has to know when it's time to put an end to the misery. And this is it for my darling Toyota, I'm afraid.
So, that is the ending of the chapter called "The little red pebble - going strong since 1987" in the book "Cat and the cars". However, stay tuned for the next chapter, "Red Bullet and the automatic", in the tragically comical story that is "Cat and the cars" or "How Cat pissed off the car fairy in a previous life and is paying dearly for it now".
In the end I found a cute little red VW Golf from 1987 (so it's the same age as my Toyota, as well as almost the same color, if only a bit fresher in that area). It's got an automatic gear box, which was quite interesting since I've only ever driven an automatic once before, and only for a short distance. However, once I relaxed I realized that automatic is indeed easier than manual. I no longer have to drive for miles before realizing I'd forgotten to put in a higher gear (consequently lowering the amount of fuel needed). I don't have to watch how I balance the clutch and the gas pedals in order to drive smoothly. And the Golf is quite a bit more perky than my Toyota. Not that I'm especially much of a speed nut, quite the opposite. but even I have to grin a bit when the little red bullet takes off, and yeah, it is fun to press the gas pedal :).
Now all I have to do is switch the tires between the two cars (one of the prerequisites for my "new" car was that it had to have the same dimension on the tires as the Toyota. Since those tires, both sets of them, are less than a year old and I really don't want to put money into buying yet another set of tires).
What's going to happen to the Toyota, then? I wish i could say that it would get a well-deserved retirement, spending the days in a warm garage, all cozy and sweet. However, I only have one parking space, and I'm afraid I need that one for my Golf. So the Toyota will most likely end up donating choice parts to whomever wishes to do the surgery and then move on to car heaven. I will miss it, of course. It's served me and my family fairly well for so many years it wasn't an easy decision. But one has to know when it's time to put an end to the misery. And this is it for my darling Toyota, I'm afraid.
So, that is the ending of the chapter called "The little red pebble - going strong since 1987" in the book "Cat and the cars". However, stay tuned for the next chapter, "Red Bullet and the automatic", in the tragically comical story that is "Cat and the cars" or "How Cat pissed off the car fairy in a previous life and is paying dearly for it now".
söndag 19 juni 2011
Continuing my masterpiece
It's time for another chapter in the horror comedy/oddly amusing, in a twisted way, tragedy called "Cat and the cars".
The setting this time is the stables... to begin with.
Yesterday I was on my way home from the stables after a nice training session. I slid into my beloved Toyota and turned the ignition... And then turned it again. There wasn't even as much as a "click".
It was clinically dead, not even a single blip on the radar.
Taking a deep breath I climbed out and gingerly made my way over to where the husband of the stable owner was sitting. Feeling like the most airheaded bimbo (if you can be one while wearing baggy clothes covered with dust) I asked him if he knew anything about cars. Not too long after that the stable owner returned from her horseback ride and the two of them helped me electrocute the Toyota with the jumper cables (in an operation that looked a lot like the TV show "ER" would look... if it happened outside... in the shade of an old barn). I managed to get my ass home, thinking it was ok now since my darling car did indeed start even after I made a quick stop at the grocery store.
Now this is where the story takes a darker turn and the tension-building music starts to fade in...
Today I once more slid into the driver's seat, on my way to pick up my co-rider since we'd planned to take a nice horsebackride in the forest. And, wonders above wonders..., the car was dead again. Not a single dip or up on the EKG of cars (if you don't count the fact that the clock did indeed light up when I had the key in the ACC-mode. It went out once I turned to ignition, though...).
Exasperated and feeling much like my favourite pet dog had just bitten me I got out, texted my co-rider who, thankfully, came by with her car so we could get to the stables. The horsebackride was nice, though the horse I'd borrowed was quite different from my own so we had our discussions.
Back from the stables again my co-rider kindly parked her car next to mine and we attempted the jumper cable routine again. It seemed to work. My darling started up nicely and was allowed to mooch some power from her car for a while. Then, when we thought it'd done so enough, we disconnected the cables again. I'd barely removed the cable for the minus pole when the headlights of my darling started dimming off. And by the time we got to remove the plus pole... Well, it was a close call whether the car wanted to stop altogether or jump a few times before stopping.
Not wanting to find out what would happen if my Toyota turned bronco I turned it off and... lo and behold, didn't get it to work again afterwards. Apparently it can't seem to hold the charge.
So now I'm sitting here with a clinically dead car, a mere two weeks before I'm supposed to be apx 30 Swedish miles north for work. Tomorrow I'm heading to the store to buy a new battery and offer up some very sincere and heartfelt prayers to appease whatever short-tempered car-god whose sensibilities I've apparently managed to severely wound. Let's just hope I'll manage to connect the new battery correctly and that there aren't any other issues effing things up...
The setting this time is the stables... to begin with.
Yesterday I was on my way home from the stables after a nice training session. I slid into my beloved Toyota and turned the ignition... And then turned it again. There wasn't even as much as a "click".
It was clinically dead, not even a single blip on the radar.
Taking a deep breath I climbed out and gingerly made my way over to where the husband of the stable owner was sitting. Feeling like the most airheaded bimbo (if you can be one while wearing baggy clothes covered with dust) I asked him if he knew anything about cars. Not too long after that the stable owner returned from her horseback ride and the two of them helped me electrocute the Toyota with the jumper cables (in an operation that looked a lot like the TV show "ER" would look... if it happened outside... in the shade of an old barn). I managed to get my ass home, thinking it was ok now since my darling car did indeed start even after I made a quick stop at the grocery store.
Now this is where the story takes a darker turn and the tension-building music starts to fade in...
Today I once more slid into the driver's seat, on my way to pick up my co-rider since we'd planned to take a nice horsebackride in the forest. And, wonders above wonders..., the car was dead again. Not a single dip or up on the EKG of cars (if you don't count the fact that the clock did indeed light up when I had the key in the ACC-mode. It went out once I turned to ignition, though...).
Exasperated and feeling much like my favourite pet dog had just bitten me I got out, texted my co-rider who, thankfully, came by with her car so we could get to the stables. The horsebackride was nice, though the horse I'd borrowed was quite different from my own so we had our discussions.
Back from the stables again my co-rider kindly parked her car next to mine and we attempted the jumper cable routine again. It seemed to work. My darling started up nicely and was allowed to mooch some power from her car for a while. Then, when we thought it'd done so enough, we disconnected the cables again. I'd barely removed the cable for the minus pole when the headlights of my darling started dimming off. And by the time we got to remove the plus pole... Well, it was a close call whether the car wanted to stop altogether or jump a few times before stopping.
Not wanting to find out what would happen if my Toyota turned bronco I turned it off and... lo and behold, didn't get it to work again afterwards. Apparently it can't seem to hold the charge.
So now I'm sitting here with a clinically dead car, a mere two weeks before I'm supposed to be apx 30 Swedish miles north for work. Tomorrow I'm heading to the store to buy a new battery and offer up some very sincere and heartfelt prayers to appease whatever short-tempered car-god whose sensibilities I've apparently managed to severely wound. Let's just hope I'll manage to connect the new battery correctly and that there aren't any other issues effing things up...
fredag 17 juni 2011
About damn time
I heard on the news today that the UN has finally passed a resolution that states that it's a human right not to be persecuted for one's sexual orientation. A great decision in my opinion and about damn time it happened.
No one should ever have to hide part of who they are just because there are narrow-minded bigots infesting the world. There is a reason why one has something called "private" life. What does it concern anyone else what gender a person's chooses for his or her partner, after all? As long as it's consensual and both (or everyone, in cases of polygamous relationships) are of legal age I don't see why it should concern an outsider how the partners live their private lives.
The only thing bothering me is that it's taken so long for a resolution like this to come into effect. I shudder to think of all the people who have been persecuted, ridiculed, abused or even killed/executed because of their sexual orientation up to now. And, unfortunately, I am too cynical to believe it will end completely just because the UN has decided so. As long as there are narrow-minded idiots out there who are unable to stop sticking their nasty paws into other people's private business this world will continue to force people to hide who they are and what they like. I blame a lot of those narrow-minded views on sexuality and the likes on religion. I've never quite understood where religion applies to human relationships, really. It's a lot of rules that frankly don't seem to fit in anywhere other than in the narrowest and most bigoted world.
I want to see a more open-minded world where no one should have to be afraid to be who they are (provided they don't hurt others in doing so). Sadly, such a world will never exist. So I'll just hope that this UN resolution will at least help to give a few more people some peace of mind, and that the UN won't cave in at the pressure from countries built on outdated and bigoted views.
Go UN! Stand strong and do what you're supposed to be doing: Protect the rights of all human beings.
No one should ever have to hide part of who they are just because there are narrow-minded bigots infesting the world. There is a reason why one has something called "private" life. What does it concern anyone else what gender a person's chooses for his or her partner, after all? As long as it's consensual and both (or everyone, in cases of polygamous relationships) are of legal age I don't see why it should concern an outsider how the partners live their private lives.
The only thing bothering me is that it's taken so long for a resolution like this to come into effect. I shudder to think of all the people who have been persecuted, ridiculed, abused or even killed/executed because of their sexual orientation up to now. And, unfortunately, I am too cynical to believe it will end completely just because the UN has decided so. As long as there are narrow-minded idiots out there who are unable to stop sticking their nasty paws into other people's private business this world will continue to force people to hide who they are and what they like. I blame a lot of those narrow-minded views on sexuality and the likes on religion. I've never quite understood where religion applies to human relationships, really. It's a lot of rules that frankly don't seem to fit in anywhere other than in the narrowest and most bigoted world.
I want to see a more open-minded world where no one should have to be afraid to be who they are (provided they don't hurt others in doing so). Sadly, such a world will never exist. So I'll just hope that this UN resolution will at least help to give a few more people some peace of mind, and that the UN won't cave in at the pressure from countries built on outdated and bigoted views.
Go UN! Stand strong and do what you're supposed to be doing: Protect the rights of all human beings.
torsdag 5 maj 2011
Politics, public opinion and other loose musings
These last few days the media seems to be wallowing in the news about Usama bin Laden's death. Wherever I turn the headlines scream it out (granted, I've mostly turned in places where the evening newspapers reign). First it was the whole deal about him "finally" being dead after a ten year long hunt. And now that the first awe about that seems to have died down speculations about how he died, when he died and so on have taken over.
While I am sure some people can finally sleep well at night now that he is supposedly dead (I'm still faintly sceptic since it seems the only picture of him "dead" so far seems to have been a photoshopped fake from 2009) the thing that affects me the most is the absurdity of how big of a news item it has become.
Frankly, I feel distinctly ill at ease when I see this type of single-minded focus, this right out wallowing in someone's death. I don't know how bad he was, I don't defend what he did, I know what his group claims to have done, I've seen the footage about 9/11 more times than I can remember, but still, while the Western world (including those countries that really haven't ever been in danger of the al-Qaida) celebrates they seem to forget that bin Laden was a human just like everyone else. He probably had people who actually liked him and who will truly mourn him, if he didn't have people following him most likely he'd never have been able to do what he's done.
Let's turn the scenario around: A charismatic ("good") leader of the West world has been killed (for the sake of reference let's remember the murder of JFK). The world is flooded with pictures of the place where he died, complete with pools of blood and what-not, speculations and so on about how it was done. And it turns out that there are thousands of people somewhere else cheering loudly because of his death, bragging even. How would those who relied on that person feel? We would immediately become enraged and filled with anger towards those people, right? So really now, is it any surprise so many in the Muslim countries hate the West? After all, we're doing exactly what the scenario above described right now that bin Laden has been killed.
Anyway, that wasn't really the main thing for me though. I'm neither happy nor sad he's supposedly dead. I haven't been affected either way by his existence and frankly haven't been all that interested in following what went on (other than being surprised to find out they were still looking for him). What goes on in my mind is more the issue of popularity. I know that some might think I'm way off my rocker and that my musings aren't nearly well-grounded enough for me to have an opinion. And I also admit that they're probably right. It still doesn't stop me from musing.
Apparently president Obama's popularity hadn't been all that great. And according to some sources it's better now that Usama is dead. This worries me. I've actually followed the presidency of Obama with quite a bit of interest. From my point of view (which, granted, is coloured by Swedish values and what is reported in the media, on the web and the likes) he seems to have really gone into it with a wish to make the US a better place, to improve the health of the citizens, to open up more opportunities for a better life for the majority. His health reform, the way he seems to have imposed regulations for credit card companies' right to raise interests and so on should be the good things. It should definitely gain him a lot more popularity than most presidents since he genuinely seems to care for his people and wish a better life for them. And yet I've seen a lot more negative, hard criticism from his own people about his reforms than George W Bush (who really only seemed to be aiming for more war, more oil and taking over the world while not caring a whit about his people) seems to have gotten during his time in office. At most Bush was ridiculed.
What I'm wondering is what kind of politic do people want when they think better of a head of state because a terrorist has been killed rather than for the improvements to their own everyday lives created during that head of state's time of office? Why should one person's popularity be boosted by someone else's death? To me it feels quite... nasty, really.
As for mass-murders and acts of terrorism I, under the threat of being mislabelled a religious fanatic, will now mention one of the few quotes I know from the Bible:
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
What country hasn't got something like that in their history? The US quite often seems to conveniently forget the whole issue of what was done to the native Americans when the settlers (the future Americans) came to the continent and during the years of settlement. Or for that matter, the slavery. All those years white Americans treated other humans worse than cattle, forcing them to work their bones to dust and all sorts of other unpalatable acts. Or how the UK took over large parts of Asia and treated the natives there as servants, lower beings. Or South Africa with the apartheid. Or Scandinavia's vikings (who did indeed deal with slaves as well, both native and those they had stolen from other countries during their raids). The list could go on forever. There's Darfur, there's Zimbabwe and so on. Really, wherever you look, if you dare to dig deep enough, acts of terrorism, mass-murder and other dark acts of mankind will be found.
Terrorism by the way... It's a really hazy thing. In these last ten years the term has come to, almost solely, be used when Islamic groups have committed crimes against the West world. However, the Muslim fanatics does not have monopoly on committing them and is definitely not synonymous to the term. In fact, according to the UN's opinion on what is considered terrorism:
"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."For reference of the exact place it was written
This text segment does not specifically point out that the act has to be committed by anti-government forces, religious fanatics or even non-citizens of the country affected. With a phrasing like that, governments, religious representants (The Catholic church and their threats of Hell, anyone?) and just about anyone else throughout history could very well have been labelled terrorists.
With that definition... Which country can, after looking back at what their own history holds, truly say they are qualified to throw the first stone?
(There are plenty more definitions of the term "terrorism", of course, but I won't list them all here. To those who really are interested Google is a great way to find stuff and Wikipedia has it's own merits).
With this I'm going to finish up for this post, I think. The gist of above text is probably just my own wish that people started to think for themselves, started to reflect on what's going on and learnt some self-reflection. And maybe a small wish that people realised that no matter who it is that died it is still a life lost, no matter what type of person it was that died.
Just because Hitler and Usama bin Laden is dead it doesn't mean the world is a better place. One or two persons' deaths can't make it so. Only the positive effort, energy and will-power of millions of people working together and helping each other, without fighting over money, resources or power, will bring about a true change for the better.
While I am sure some people can finally sleep well at night now that he is supposedly dead (I'm still faintly sceptic since it seems the only picture of him "dead" so far seems to have been a photoshopped fake from 2009) the thing that affects me the most is the absurdity of how big of a news item it has become.
Frankly, I feel distinctly ill at ease when I see this type of single-minded focus, this right out wallowing in someone's death. I don't know how bad he was, I don't defend what he did, I know what his group claims to have done, I've seen the footage about 9/11 more times than I can remember, but still, while the Western world (including those countries that really haven't ever been in danger of the al-Qaida) celebrates they seem to forget that bin Laden was a human just like everyone else. He probably had people who actually liked him and who will truly mourn him, if he didn't have people following him most likely he'd never have been able to do what he's done.
Let's turn the scenario around: A charismatic ("good") leader of the West world has been killed (for the sake of reference let's remember the murder of JFK). The world is flooded with pictures of the place where he died, complete with pools of blood and what-not, speculations and so on about how it was done. And it turns out that there are thousands of people somewhere else cheering loudly because of his death, bragging even. How would those who relied on that person feel? We would immediately become enraged and filled with anger towards those people, right? So really now, is it any surprise so many in the Muslim countries hate the West? After all, we're doing exactly what the scenario above described right now that bin Laden has been killed.
Anyway, that wasn't really the main thing for me though. I'm neither happy nor sad he's supposedly dead. I haven't been affected either way by his existence and frankly haven't been all that interested in following what went on (other than being surprised to find out they were still looking for him). What goes on in my mind is more the issue of popularity. I know that some might think I'm way off my rocker and that my musings aren't nearly well-grounded enough for me to have an opinion. And I also admit that they're probably right. It still doesn't stop me from musing.
Apparently president Obama's popularity hadn't been all that great. And according to some sources it's better now that Usama is dead. This worries me. I've actually followed the presidency of Obama with quite a bit of interest. From my point of view (which, granted, is coloured by Swedish values and what is reported in the media, on the web and the likes) he seems to have really gone into it with a wish to make the US a better place, to improve the health of the citizens, to open up more opportunities for a better life for the majority. His health reform, the way he seems to have imposed regulations for credit card companies' right to raise interests and so on should be the good things. It should definitely gain him a lot more popularity than most presidents since he genuinely seems to care for his people and wish a better life for them. And yet I've seen a lot more negative, hard criticism from his own people about his reforms than George W Bush (who really only seemed to be aiming for more war, more oil and taking over the world while not caring a whit about his people) seems to have gotten during his time in office. At most Bush was ridiculed.
What I'm wondering is what kind of politic do people want when they think better of a head of state because a terrorist has been killed rather than for the improvements to their own everyday lives created during that head of state's time of office? Why should one person's popularity be boosted by someone else's death? To me it feels quite... nasty, really.
As for mass-murders and acts of terrorism I, under the threat of being mislabelled a religious fanatic, will now mention one of the few quotes I know from the Bible:
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
What country hasn't got something like that in their history? The US quite often seems to conveniently forget the whole issue of what was done to the native Americans when the settlers (the future Americans) came to the continent and during the years of settlement. Or for that matter, the slavery. All those years white Americans treated other humans worse than cattle, forcing them to work their bones to dust and all sorts of other unpalatable acts. Or how the UK took over large parts of Asia and treated the natives there as servants, lower beings. Or South Africa with the apartheid. Or Scandinavia's vikings (who did indeed deal with slaves as well, both native and those they had stolen from other countries during their raids). The list could go on forever. There's Darfur, there's Zimbabwe and so on. Really, wherever you look, if you dare to dig deep enough, acts of terrorism, mass-murder and other dark acts of mankind will be found.
Terrorism by the way... It's a really hazy thing. In these last ten years the term has come to, almost solely, be used when Islamic groups have committed crimes against the West world. However, the Muslim fanatics does not have monopoly on committing them and is definitely not synonymous to the term. In fact, according to the UN's opinion on what is considered terrorism:
"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."For reference of the exact place it was written
This text segment does not specifically point out that the act has to be committed by anti-government forces, religious fanatics or even non-citizens of the country affected. With a phrasing like that, governments, religious representants (The Catholic church and their threats of Hell, anyone?) and just about anyone else throughout history could very well have been labelled terrorists.
With that definition... Which country can, after looking back at what their own history holds, truly say they are qualified to throw the first stone?
(There are plenty more definitions of the term "terrorism", of course, but I won't list them all here. To those who really are interested Google is a great way to find stuff and Wikipedia has it's own merits).
With this I'm going to finish up for this post, I think. The gist of above text is probably just my own wish that people started to think for themselves, started to reflect on what's going on and learnt some self-reflection. And maybe a small wish that people realised that no matter who it is that died it is still a life lost, no matter what type of person it was that died.
Just because Hitler and Usama bin Laden is dead it doesn't mean the world is a better place. One or two persons' deaths can't make it so. Only the positive effort, energy and will-power of millions of people working together and helping each other, without fighting over money, resources or power, will bring about a true change for the better.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)