dangermousie: (Default)
This time, it's about those idiotic full-body 'see you nekkid' scanners TSA installed in the airports because they are absolute morons who couldn't catch a terrorist when his own father turned him in, and generally should go DIAF.

I used to fly a lot. Guess what - now I do not. I drive/bus/take the train/don't go. I can put up with having to take off my baby's shoes (ooooh, look at the little terrorist? Maybe I hid a bomb in her diaper!) and other idiotic measures (really? 3 ounce rule? What's to prevent someone from buying a bottle of coke in the airport and combining your little 3oz liquids into one big liquid molotov in it?) but this is it. I am out. I've been slowly phasing flying out.

I draw a line at some anonymous sicko seeing me naked (the only people who are allowed to see me naked are my husband and my doctor. I severely doubt the minimum-wage TSA shmuck is either) and I do not need more radiation in my system, especially with my poor genetics (ooooooh, it is so so so safe, says the government! Just like all the other things we said were safe and turned out not to be). And I have no desire to be groped by a stranger (thank you very much, it happened to me once before, then it was by a pervert and not the most pleasant college experience of my life. Maybe the guy was practicing to be a TSA screener?)

BUT while I may have arguably put up with this on my own behalf, like fuck am I putting up with anyone seeing my daughter naked or groping her or giving her radiation. THE FUCK? What is this, TSA is now run by NAMBLA? Because it's not as if these procedures make anyone safer.

We like to take our vacations overseas, so I suppose there will be one flight a year I will have to get on. We don't take Baby Mousie with us as she's too small so there is no issue with her. And as for me, I suppose I'll have to submit to being molested (no way am I getting radiation and at least there are no pics from the groping). But I am seriously trying to plan the flights so we'd drive to an airport with no machines of this sort and fly from there, even if it's longer/much more inconvenient as all our local airports have installed harass-o-matics.

Don't get me started on our lovely pathetic excuse for a President whose comment was of the effect "TSA is awesome and I am sure there is no danger/humiliation/abuse and the new procedures are super great even though I never experienced them myself." Just shut up, Obama. Honestly. Before you sound even more idiotic than you already do.
dangermousie: (Default)
This time, it's about those idiotic full-body 'see you nekkid' scanners TSA installed in the airports because they are absolute morons who couldn't catch a terrorist when his own father turned him in, and generally should go DIAF.

I used to fly a lot. Guess what - now I do not. I drive/bus/take the train/don't go. I can put up with having to take off my baby's shoes (ooooh, look at the little terrorist? Maybe I hid a bomb in her diaper!) and other idiotic measures (really? 3 ounce rule? What's to prevent someone from buying a bottle of coke in the airport and combining your little 3oz liquids into one big liquid molotov in it?) but this is it. I am out. I've been slowly phasing flying out.

I draw a line at some anonymous sicko seeing me naked (the only people who are allowed to see me naked are my husband and my doctor. I severely doubt the minimum-wage TSA shmuck is either) and I do not need more radiation in my system, especially with my poor genetics (ooooooh, it is so so so safe, says the government! Just like all the other things we said were safe and turned out not to be). And I have no desire to be groped by a stranger (thank you very much, it happened to me once before, then it was by a pervert and not the most pleasant college experience of my life. Maybe the guy was practicing to be a TSA screener?)

BUT while I may have arguably put up with this on my own behalf, like fuck am I putting up with anyone seeing my daughter naked or groping her or giving her radiation. THE FUCK? What is this, TSA is now run by NAMBLA? Because it's not as if these procedures make anyone safer.

We like to take our vacations overseas, so I suppose there will be one flight a year I will have to get on. We don't take Baby Mousie with us as she's too small so there is no issue with her. And as for me, I suppose I'll have to submit to being molested (no way am I getting radiation and at least there are no pics from the groping). But I am seriously trying to plan the flights so we'd drive to an airport with no machines of this sort and fly from there, even if it's longer/much more inconvenient as all our local airports have installed harass-o-matics.

Don't get me started on our lovely pathetic excuse for a President whose comment was of the effect "TSA is awesome and I am sure there is no danger/humiliation/abuse and the new procedures are super great even though I never experienced them myself." Just shut up, Obama. Honestly. Before you sound even more idiotic than you already do.
dangermousie: (Default)
This time, it's about those idiotic full-body 'see you nekkid' scanners TSA installed in the airports because they are absolute morons who couldn't catch a terrorist when his own father turned him in, and generally should go DIAF.

I used to fly a lot. Guess what - now I do not. I drive/bus/take the train/don't go. I can put up with having to take off my baby's shoes (ooooh, look at the little terrorist? Maybe I hid a bomb in her diaper!) and other idiotic measures (really? 3 ounce rule? What's to prevent someone from buying a bottle of coke in the airport and combining your little 3oz liquids into one big liquid molotov in it?) but this is it. I am out. I've been slowly phasing flying out.

I draw a line at some anonymous sicko seeing me naked (the only people who are allowed to see me naked are my husband and my doctor. I severely doubt the minimum-wage TSA shmuck is either) and I do not need more radiation in my system, especially with my poor genetics (ooooooh, it is so so so safe, says the government! Just like all the other things we said were safe and turned out not to be). And I have no desire to be groped by a stranger (thank you very much, it happened to me once before, then it was by a pervert and not the most pleasant college experience of my life. Maybe the guy was practicing to be a TSA screener?)

BUT while I may have arguably put up with this on my own behalf, like fuck am I putting up with anyone seeing my daughter naked or groping her or giving her radiation. THE FUCK? What is this, TSA is now run by NAMBLA? Because it's not as if these procedures make anyone safer.

We like to take our vacations overseas, so I suppose there will be one flight a year I will have to get on. We don't take Baby Mousie with us as she's too small so there is no issue with her. And as for me, I suppose I'll have to submit to being molested (no way am I getting radiation and at least there are no pics from the groping). But I am seriously trying to plan the flights so we'd drive to an airport with no machines of this sort and fly from there, even if it's longer/much more inconvenient as all our local airports have installed harass-o-matics.

Don't get me started on our lovely pathetic excuse for a President whose comment was of the effect "TSA is awesome and I am sure there is no danger/humiliation/abuse and the new procedures are super great even though I never experienced them myself." Just shut up, Obama. Honestly. Before you sound even more idiotic than you already do.
dangermousie: (Default)
OBAMA WINS THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE!!!!!!

What????

I am torn between HELL YEAH as he's the first sitting President to do that since Woodrow Wilson, who helped end that little conflict known as the First World War, pushed for the League of Nations and end of colonialism. The only other sitting President to win it is Teddy Roosevelt, for bringing to an end the Russian-Japanese War of 1905; and what-the-hell - Obama hasn't even spent a year in office, and there ain't no League of Nations or end of a major war to his credit. Or anything near it in terms of importance. He hasn't brokered any peace deals, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are still going on. It seems bizarre. Unless he gets an award for not being Bush.

Oh well, good for him, I suppose.

Even if way premature.
dangermousie: (Default)
OBAMA WINS THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE!!!!!!

What????

I am torn between HELL YEAH as he's the first sitting President to do that since Woodrow Wilson, who helped end that little conflict known as the First World War, pushed for the League of Nations and end of colonialism. The only other sitting President to win it is Teddy Roosevelt, for bringing to an end the Russian-Japanese War of 1905; and what-the-hell - Obama hasn't even spent a year in office, and there ain't no League of Nations or end of a major war to his credit. Or anything near it in terms of importance. He hasn't brokered any peace deals, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are still going on. It seems bizarre. Unless he gets an award for not being Bush.

Oh well, good for him, I suppose.

Even if way premature.
dangermousie: (Default)
OBAMA WINS THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE!!!!!!

What????

I am torn between HELL YEAH as he's the first sitting President to do that since Woodrow Wilson, who helped end that little conflict known as the First World War, pushed for the League of Nations and end of colonialism. The only other sitting President to win it is Teddy Roosevelt, for bringing to an end the Russian-Japanese War of 1905; and what-the-hell - Obama hasn't even spent a year in office, and there ain't no League of Nations or end of a major war to his credit. Or anything near it in terms of importance. He hasn't brokered any peace deals, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are still going on. It seems bizarre. Unless he gets an award for not being Bush.

Oh well, good for him, I suppose.

Even if way premature.
dangermousie: (Default)
...really don't know their history.

Congress is ridiculously decorous compared to how it used to be.

E.g. this bit from wiki on a Congressional brawl in 1860 about a brawl started by Laurence Keitt: "Keitt started a massive brawl on the House floor during a tense late-night fillibuster. Keitt, objecting to an argument from Pennsylvania Congressman (and later Speaker of the House) Galusha A. Grow, dismissively demanded that Grow sit down, calling him a "black Republican puppy". Grow responded by telling Keitt that “No negro-driver shall crack his whip over me.” Keitt became enraged and went for Grow's throat, shouting that he would "choke him for that". A large brawl involving two dozen representatives erupted on the House floor, ending only when a missed punch from Rep. Cadwallader Washburn of Illinois upended the hairpiece of Rep. William Barksdale of Mississippi. The embarrassed Barksdale accidentally replaced the wig backwards, causing both sides to erupt in spontaneous laughter."

Yeah.

I really need some books on 19th-century American history, I find the period fascinating.
dangermousie: (Default)
...really don't know their history.

Congress is ridiculously decorous compared to how it used to be.

E.g. this bit from wiki on a Congressional brawl in 1860 about a brawl started by Laurence Keitt: "Keitt started a massive brawl on the House floor during a tense late-night fillibuster. Keitt, objecting to an argument from Pennsylvania Congressman (and later Speaker of the House) Galusha A. Grow, dismissively demanded that Grow sit down, calling him a "black Republican puppy". Grow responded by telling Keitt that “No negro-driver shall crack his whip over me.” Keitt became enraged and went for Grow's throat, shouting that he would "choke him for that". A large brawl involving two dozen representatives erupted on the House floor, ending only when a missed punch from Rep. Cadwallader Washburn of Illinois upended the hairpiece of Rep. William Barksdale of Mississippi. The embarrassed Barksdale accidentally replaced the wig backwards, causing both sides to erupt in spontaneous laughter."

Yeah.

I really need some books on 19th-century American history, I find the period fascinating.
dangermousie: (Default)
...really don't know their history.

Congress is ridiculously decorous compared to how it used to be.

E.g. this bit from wiki on a Congressional brawl in 1860 about a brawl started by Laurence Keitt: "Keitt started a massive brawl on the House floor during a tense late-night fillibuster. Keitt, objecting to an argument from Pennsylvania Congressman (and later Speaker of the House) Galusha A. Grow, dismissively demanded that Grow sit down, calling him a "black Republican puppy". Grow responded by telling Keitt that “No negro-driver shall crack his whip over me.” Keitt became enraged and went for Grow's throat, shouting that he would "choke him for that". A large brawl involving two dozen representatives erupted on the House floor, ending only when a missed punch from Rep. Cadwallader Washburn of Illinois upended the hairpiece of Rep. William Barksdale of Mississippi. The embarrassed Barksdale accidentally replaced the wig backwards, causing both sides to erupt in spontaneous laughter."

Yeah.

I really need some books on 19th-century American history, I find the period fascinating.
dangermousie: (Default)
OK, I don't normally comment on contemporary political stuff but I will now.

You know what drives me crazy in on-line healthcare debates: people, usually college-age (i.e. not paying any taxes) carping on and on about how selfish people are when they are against healthcare reform because it will increase their taxes.

Guess what? Majority of Americans have healthcare insurance already. The majority of them are satisfied enough with it. OK, let me make it more personal - my family has health insurance I am happy with. If the health care reform is passed, I will be indubitably worse off - I will have to pay more taxes (because there is no doubt there will be some sort of tax increase to cover it, whatever the politicians say - income tax, vat-type tax, sales tax whatever). I will have to pay more taxes for something that is of no benefit to me whatsoever. That is the best-case scenario. Worst case scenario is my insurer, who I am very pleased with, will be driven out of business because of its inability to compete with the government-run option - I will end up poorer and with worse insurance. Hooray? I do not think so.

So basically, what health insurance reform means for the majority of people who already have health care is that they have to give up money for other people's benefit - I will have to make my family poorer so a stranger I do not know has better health care. I will have less money to spend on Baby Mousie so some random other family I have never met can take their family members to the dentist for yearly check-ups.

Now, before everyone jumps down my throat - I do support some form of universal health care. I don't mind somewhat higher taxes so my fellow citizens could have access to medicine. But that is the thing - since it's MY money, I am pretty entitled to be picky about where the money comes from (nitty-gritty realistic details) and also want that coverage to be very structured and, frankly, limited. And guess what? I do not hold it against people who do NOT agree with me - who do not want to spend their money on others. Humans are wired this way - we like to take care of our family groups first, strangers later. We prefer the well-being of those near to us to well-being of those we don't know.

After all, a lot of people who are in favor of health-care reform are also doing so on selfish grounds - they have no insurance or insurance they can barely afford and if national health care becomes reality, they will be better off - they are (rightfully) not concerned that it will be at the cost of strangers having to subsidize them. That is how people operate - on selfishness.

I think there would be more of an OK with health care reform if people were told 'because you want to be able to eat out twice a week instead of once, someone else's little Jimmy would die of a heart attack as he would not be admitted into the emergency room' - but because ER is not allowed to discriminate based on your inability to pay, a lot of people believe that worst case scenarios are already covered and anything more is a luxury, not a right.

So yes. I do believe my fellow human beings deserve access to medicine and am OK with paying for it but you can't expect me to blindly agree with whatever the government proposes and also blindly jump for joy I will be losing money for well-being of strangers.

Don't even get me started on rationing - of course it will occur. Whenever there is a scarcity of resources and demand that outweighs them, there will be rationing. Now, national health care is still a good idea despite that, IMO, especially if better private plans are allowed for all those who are willing and able to afford one, but to pretend it won't exist is absurd!
dangermousie: (Default)
OK, I don't normally comment on contemporary political stuff but I will now.

You know what drives me crazy in on-line healthcare debates: people, usually college-age (i.e. not paying any taxes) carping on and on about how selfish people are when they are against healthcare reform because it will increase their taxes.

Guess what? Majority of Americans have healthcare insurance already. The majority of them are satisfied enough with it. OK, let me make it more personal - my family has health insurance I am happy with. If the health care reform is passed, I will be indubitably worse off - I will have to pay more taxes (because there is no doubt there will be some sort of tax increase to cover it, whatever the politicians say - income tax, vat-type tax, sales tax whatever). I will have to pay more taxes for something that is of no benefit to me whatsoever. That is the best-case scenario. Worst case scenario is my insurer, who I am very pleased with, will be driven out of business because of its inability to compete with the government-run option - I will end up poorer and with worse insurance. Hooray? I do not think so.

So basically, what health insurance reform means for the majority of people who already have health care is that they have to give up money for other people's benefit - I will have to make my family poorer so a stranger I do not know has better health care. I will have less money to spend on Baby Mousie so some random other family I have never met can take their family members to the dentist for yearly check-ups.

Now, before everyone jumps down my throat - I do support some form of universal health care. I don't mind somewhat higher taxes so my fellow citizens could have access to medicine. But that is the thing - since it's MY money, I am pretty entitled to be picky about where the money comes from (nitty-gritty realistic details) and also want that coverage to be very structured and, frankly, limited. And guess what? I do not hold it against people who do NOT agree with me - who do not want to spend their money on others. Humans are wired this way - we like to take care of our family groups first, strangers later. We prefer the well-being of those near to us to well-being of those we don't know.

After all, a lot of people who are in favor of health-care reform are also doing so on selfish grounds - they have no insurance or insurance they can barely afford and if national health care becomes reality, they will be better off - they are (rightfully) not concerned that it will be at the cost of strangers having to subsidize them. That is how people operate - on selfishness.

I think there would be more of an OK with health care reform if people were told 'because you want to be able to eat out twice a week instead of once, someone else's little Jimmy would die of a heart attack as he would not be admitted into the emergency room' - but because ER is not allowed to discriminate based on your inability to pay, a lot of people believe that worst case scenarios are already covered and anything more is a luxury, not a right.

So yes. I do believe my fellow human beings deserve access to medicine and am OK with paying for it but you can't expect me to blindly agree with whatever the government proposes and also blindly jump for joy I will be losing money for well-being of strangers.

Don't even get me started on rationing - of course it will occur. Whenever there is a scarcity of resources and demand that outweighs them, there will be rationing. Now, national health care is still a good idea despite that, IMO, especially if better private plans are allowed for all those who are willing and able to afford one, but to pretend it won't exist is absurd!
dangermousie: (Default)
OK, I don't normally comment on contemporary political stuff but I will now.

You know what drives me crazy in on-line healthcare debates: people, usually college-age (i.e. not paying any taxes) carping on and on about how selfish people are when they are against healthcare reform because it will increase their taxes.

Guess what? Majority of Americans have healthcare insurance already. The majority of them are satisfied enough with it. OK, let me make it more personal - my family has health insurance I am happy with. If the health care reform is passed, I will be indubitably worse off - I will have to pay more taxes (because there is no doubt there will be some sort of tax increase to cover it, whatever the politicians say - income tax, vat-type tax, sales tax whatever). I will have to pay more taxes for something that is of no benefit to me whatsoever. That is the best-case scenario. Worst case scenario is my insurer, who I am very pleased with, will be driven out of business because of its inability to compete with the government-run option - I will end up poorer and with worse insurance. Hooray? I do not think so.

So basically, what health insurance reform means for the majority of people who already have health care is that they have to give up money for other people's benefit - I will have to make my family poorer so a stranger I do not know has better health care. I will have less money to spend on Baby Mousie so some random other family I have never met can take their family members to the dentist for yearly check-ups.

Now, before everyone jumps down my throat - I do support some form of universal health care. I don't mind somewhat higher taxes so my fellow citizens could have access to medicine. But that is the thing - since it's MY money, I am pretty entitled to be picky about where the money comes from (nitty-gritty realistic details) and also want that coverage to be very structured and, frankly, limited. And guess what? I do not hold it against people who do NOT agree with me - who do not want to spend their money on others. Humans are wired this way - we like to take care of our family groups first, strangers later. We prefer the well-being of those near to us to well-being of those we don't know.

After all, a lot of people who are in favor of health-care reform are also doing so on selfish grounds - they have no insurance or insurance they can barely afford and if national health care becomes reality, they will be better off - they are (rightfully) not concerned that it will be at the cost of strangers having to subsidize them. That is how people operate - on selfishness.

I think there would be more of an OK with health care reform if people were told 'because you want to be able to eat out twice a week instead of once, someone else's little Jimmy would die of a heart attack as he would not be admitted into the emergency room' - but because ER is not allowed to discriminate based on your inability to pay, a lot of people believe that worst case scenarios are already covered and anything more is a luxury, not a right.

So yes. I do believe my fellow human beings deserve access to medicine and am OK with paying for it but you can't expect me to blindly agree with whatever the government proposes and also blindly jump for joy I will be losing money for well-being of strangers.

Don't even get me started on rationing - of course it will occur. Whenever there is a scarcity of resources and demand that outweighs them, there will be rationing. Now, national health care is still a good idea despite that, IMO, especially if better private plans are allowed for all those who are willing and able to afford one, but to pretend it won't exist is absurd!
dangermousie: (Fruits Basket: Haru by meganbmoore)
The Hell?????

Shah Rukh Khan, dangermousie's favorite actor, and more importantly the world's biggest movie star (because he is the biggest movie star in Bollywood and Bollywood tickets outsell Hollywood) was in the United States for filming and was detained by the immigration folks for questioning - for two hours!!! The Indian Embassy had to intervene to get him out.

Ooooh goody - he is a Muslim man, he's got to be an eeeeeeeevil terrorist? The hell?

Are they flipping INSANE????? Fine, they detained him because the name came up on some screen or other, but why the hell did they question him for hours and only released him after the Indian Embassy got involved? Shouldn't he have been let go immediately? He told them he was a movie star - couldn't they fucking google it to confirm it if they are clueless?

Ironically, I bet he was in the US to film "My Name is Khan," about prejudice a Muslim man is subjected to in America (which apparently got picked up by Fox Searchlight for distribution in the US). How apt.

Ooooh, doesn't he look scary and detainable:

dangermousie: (Fruits Basket: Haru by meganbmoore)
The Hell?????

Shah Rukh Khan, dangermousie's favorite actor, and more importantly the world's biggest movie star (because he is the biggest movie star in Bollywood and Bollywood tickets outsell Hollywood) was in the United States for filming and was detained by the immigration folks for questioning - for two hours!!! The Indian Embassy had to intervene to get him out.

Ooooh goody - he is a Muslim man, he's got to be an eeeeeeeevil terrorist? The hell?

Are they flipping INSANE????? Fine, they detained him because the name came up on some screen or other, but why the hell did they question him for hours and only released him after the Indian Embassy got involved? Shouldn't he have been let go immediately? He told them he was a movie star - couldn't they fucking google it to confirm it if they are clueless?

Ironically, I bet he was in the US to film "My Name is Khan," about prejudice a Muslim man is subjected to in America (which apparently got picked up by Fox Searchlight for distribution in the US). How apt.

Ooooh, doesn't he look scary and detainable:

dangermousie: (Fruits Basket: Haru by meganbmoore)
The Hell?????

Shah Rukh Khan, dangermousie's favorite actor, and more importantly the world's biggest movie star (because he is the biggest movie star in Bollywood and Bollywood tickets outsell Hollywood) was in the United States for filming and was detained by the immigration folks for questioning - for two hours!!! The Indian Embassy had to intervene to get him out.

Ooooh goody - he is a Muslim man, he's got to be an eeeeeeeevil terrorist? The hell?

Are they flipping INSANE????? Fine, they detained him because the name came up on some screen or other, but why the hell did they question him for hours and only released him after the Indian Embassy got involved? Shouldn't he have been let go immediately? He told them he was a movie star - couldn't they fucking google it to confirm it if they are clueless?

Ironically, I bet he was in the US to film "My Name is Khan," about prejudice a Muslim man is subjected to in America (which apparently got picked up by Fox Searchlight for distribution in the US). How apt.

Ooooh, doesn't he look scary and detainable:

dangermousie: (Fruits Basket: Haru by meganbmoore)
Sorry, I need to vent.

Grrr.

GRRRRR.

I just read a post where somebody defends North Korea and states it's all Western propaganda that the place is a hellhole just because it's communist.

I come from a "communist paradise" of former Soviet Union (and lived there while it was still USSR). I am hardly going to be screaming that any communist country = total misery. USSR post Stalin was not the worst place in the world and plenty of people had happy enough lives there before the economy tanked, even with political restrictions, corruption, and ethnic discrimination.

North Korea (which used to be sorta-buddies with USSR - When I was growing up, my best friend's Dad used to work in North Korea) is not the same thing! Leaving aside the cult of personality that makes Stalin's/Mao's/etc seem tame (did you know that Kim Il Sung could walk on water? That Kim Jong Il's birth was profesied by swallows and that he can manipulate time?), the creepy forced political education two times a week, and even hideous labor camps (gulags, NK-style) for anyone accused of slightest unorthodoxy and their entire families, children included!!!! Living in an Asian 1984 is bad enough, but I am not talking about that.

ECONOMY.

I don't mean healthcare and safety procedures still stuck in the stone age or the fact that there is not much one can buy or own.

I mean famine. Yes, under the glorious leadership of Kim Jong Il (who imports brandy, live lobster, and other staples), as many as 3 million people died in North Korea during a famine in mid-90s. Apparently that's 10% of N Korean population! (US, China, and other countries sent food aid, which ended up in hands of political bigwigs and not where it was supposed to go).

I have nothing against Communist regimes, even if I prefer democracies - China, Laos, Cuba, Vietnam - as long as the population at large is relatively OK with it, there are worse place to live in.

North Korea? COME ON!

Yeah, all those people are escaping to China because NKorea is such a great place.

I get so mad precisely because a person posting this is from a Western country - never had to undergo any financial/political restrictions - how easy it is to be smug. Also, the fact that the place is so horrifically controlled and has turned into a modern dystopia, soon with nukes, is scary as hell.

ETA: And now there is a moron who says people in Pyongyang appear very friendly - some wedding party even took pictures with foreigners. Ahhhh, isn't it precious!

That will teach me to read ONTD_political. (Don't even get me started on some of the posters on Iran who think Ahmadinejad is OK simply because US doesn't like him).
dangermousie: (Fruits Basket: Haru by meganbmoore)
Sorry, I need to vent.

Grrr.

GRRRRR.

I just read a post where somebody defends North Korea and states it's all Western propaganda that the place is a hellhole just because it's communist.

I come from a "communist paradise" of former Soviet Union (and lived there while it was still USSR). I am hardly going to be screaming that any communist country = total misery. USSR post Stalin was not the worst place in the world and plenty of people had happy enough lives there before the economy tanked, even with political restrictions, corruption, and ethnic discrimination.

North Korea (which used to be sorta-buddies with USSR - When I was growing up, my best friend's Dad used to work in North Korea) is not the same thing! Leaving aside the cult of personality that makes Stalin's/Mao's/etc seem tame (did you know that Kim Il Sung could walk on water? That Kim Jong Il's birth was profesied by swallows and that he can manipulate time?), the creepy forced political education two times a week, and even hideous labor camps (gulags, NK-style) for anyone accused of slightest unorthodoxy and their entire families, children included!!!! Living in an Asian 1984 is bad enough, but I am not talking about that.

ECONOMY.

I don't mean healthcare and safety procedures still stuck in the stone age or the fact that there is not much one can buy or own.

I mean famine. Yes, under the glorious leadership of Kim Jong Il (who imports brandy, live lobster, and other staples), as many as 3 million people died in North Korea during a famine in mid-90s. Apparently that's 10% of N Korean population! (US, China, and other countries sent food aid, which ended up in hands of political bigwigs and not where it was supposed to go).

I have nothing against Communist regimes, even if I prefer democracies - China, Laos, Cuba, Vietnam - as long as the population at large is relatively OK with it, there are worse place to live in.

North Korea? COME ON!

Yeah, all those people are escaping to China because NKorea is such a great place.

I get so mad precisely because a person posting this is from a Western country - never had to undergo any financial/political restrictions - how easy it is to be smug. Also, the fact that the place is so horrifically controlled and has turned into a modern dystopia, soon with nukes, is scary as hell.

ETA: And now there is a moron who says people in Pyongyang appear very friendly - some wedding party even took pictures with foreigners. Ahhhh, isn't it precious!

That will teach me to read ONTD_political. (Don't even get me started on some of the posters on Iran who think Ahmadinejad is OK simply because US doesn't like him).
dangermousie: (Fruits Basket: Haru by meganbmoore)
Sorry, I need to vent.

Grrr.

GRRRRR.

I just read a post where somebody defends North Korea and states it's all Western propaganda that the place is a hellhole just because it's communist.

I come from a "communist paradise" of former Soviet Union (and lived there while it was still USSR). I am hardly going to be screaming that any communist country = total misery. USSR post Stalin was not the worst place in the world and plenty of people had happy enough lives there before the economy tanked, even with political restrictions, corruption, and ethnic discrimination.

North Korea (which used to be sorta-buddies with USSR - When I was growing up, my best friend's Dad used to work in North Korea) is not the same thing! Leaving aside the cult of personality that makes Stalin's/Mao's/etc seem tame (did you know that Kim Il Sung could walk on water? That Kim Jong Il's birth was profesied by swallows and that he can manipulate time?), the creepy forced political education two times a week, and even hideous labor camps (gulags, NK-style) for anyone accused of slightest unorthodoxy and their entire families, children included!!!! Living in an Asian 1984 is bad enough, but I am not talking about that.

ECONOMY.

I don't mean healthcare and safety procedures still stuck in the stone age or the fact that there is not much one can buy or own.

I mean famine. Yes, under the glorious leadership of Kim Jong Il (who imports brandy, live lobster, and other staples), as many as 3 million people died in North Korea during a famine in mid-90s. Apparently that's 10% of N Korean population! (US, China, and other countries sent food aid, which ended up in hands of political bigwigs and not where it was supposed to go).

I have nothing against Communist regimes, even if I prefer democracies - China, Laos, Cuba, Vietnam - as long as the population at large is relatively OK with it, there are worse place to live in.

North Korea? COME ON!

Yeah, all those people are escaping to China because NKorea is such a great place.

I get so mad precisely because a person posting this is from a Western country - never had to undergo any financial/political restrictions - how easy it is to be smug. Also, the fact that the place is so horrifically controlled and has turned into a modern dystopia, soon with nukes, is scary as hell.

ETA: And now there is a moron who says people in Pyongyang appear very friendly - some wedding party even took pictures with foreigners. Ahhhh, isn't it precious!

That will teach me to read ONTD_political. (Don't even get me started on some of the posters on Iran who think Ahmadinejad is OK simply because US doesn't like him).
dangermousie: (Default)
I've been rabidly following the protests in Iran and this image has especially stuck with me:



In other news, I am glad to hear that apparently as per Iranian State TV, the protesters are trained by UK and Israel. Indeed. Presumably once they are done hiding aliens and controlling the world through ruby rays. If that report is correct, I wonder why US is off the list - I feel left out, as we are supposed to be The Great Satan. Maybe they realize that CIA sometimes gives the impression of not being able to find its headquarters. In daylight. With a map.
dangermousie: (Default)
I've been rabidly following the protests in Iran and this image has especially stuck with me:



In other news, I am glad to hear that apparently as per Iranian State TV, the protesters are trained by UK and Israel. Indeed. Presumably once they are done hiding aliens and controlling the world through ruby rays. If that report is correct, I wonder why US is off the list - I feel left out, as we are supposed to be The Great Satan. Maybe they realize that CIA sometimes gives the impression of not being able to find its headquarters. In daylight. With a map.

Profile

dangermousie: (Default)
dangermousie

November 2012

S M T W T F S
     1 2 3
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Mar. 30th, 2017 08:48 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios