This year we took our summer vacation on board The Queen Victoria, the newest cruise ship in the Cunard line. We boarded her in Venice after spending a night there in a wonderful little hotel in the district across the canal from St. Mark’s Square, near the Peggy Guggenheim Museum. From there we began our cruise of the Mediterranean, which was going to conclude in Barcelona after making several stops along the way, which include Istanbul, Massina, the Tuscan region and Marseilles.
We departed from Venice via one of its major canals. It was very impressive to be thirteen stories high on board ship as we floated through the city, looking down on it. I am sure there is no experience like it anywhere, traveling through a city on a massive ship to get out to sea.
Our first stop after leaving Venice was Dubrovnik on the Dalmatian coast, where the breed of dog with the same name comes from. Dubrovnik is in Croatia, which used to be part of Yugoslavia. Croatia declared independence in 1990, an independence that was instantly recognized by most of world. After it declared independence, though, war broke out, started by the Serbs, who wanted to keep Croatia in the Yugoslav Federation. As our tour guide explained, up until the bombing of Dubrovnik the world hadn’t paid much attention to the war there. What got the world’s attention was Dubrovnik’s designation as a world heritage sight. It was pressure from the rest of the world, which didn’t want to loose this gem on the Adriatic, that eventually stopped its total destruction. Our guide also explained that a major reason for Serbia wanting to keep Croatia in the Federation is that without it Serbia would be landlocked and have no access to the Adriatic Sea. So it was also of economic importance that Serbia keep Croatia within Yugoslavian. Dubrovnik was badly damaged from the bombing but now it is mostly restored. However, even thought it was full of tourists while we were there, with several cruise ships in port, tourism still hasn’t reached its pre-war levels.
We took a coach from Dubrovnik to a country inn where we had a wonderful lunch. On the trip back to the ship our guide said she hoped that we had a wonderful time in her country and hoped that one day we would come back. However, she wished that tourists would also come at other times so as to spread the tourism throughout the year in order to keep people more evenly employed. Tourism there is mostly concentrated over a few months in the summer. One day, for example, our guide told us, twelve cruise ships were in port at once. The place was pandemonium.
From Dubrovnik we sailed into Greek waters, visiting the islands of Katakolon and Mykonos. The islands were hot and full of tourists and merchants trying to sell them stuff. It was quite a sight to see our huge ship docked beside these islands. From there we went on to Istanbul.
It was very impressive sailing up the Bosporus into Istanbul, seeing from our balcony the “Eye of Sophia” and the “Blue Mosque”. After disembarking we met our friend who took us to both those sights and then on a tram ride to the famous Bazaar, where we bought three rugs. Here too it was very hot. But I was very impressed with the modern, articulated trams we rode on, which, although they were always crowded, were comfortable and air-conditioned. We also took a few cabs. I was impressed with the roads and how well the traffic flowed. Later, before boarding the ship, we had tea in a very swank hotel that once used to be a palace, which had fallen into disrepair. Our friend told us that Istanbul has become quite a destination for conventions from around the world. That kind of tourism has enabled the restoration of building like the former palace we had tea in.
From Istanbul we went to Messina, Sicily, where we took a bus tour to a beautiful town in the hills. From there we went on to Rome, where we spent most of the day, seeing such sites as the Coliseum and the Vatican. From there we sailed off to Tuscany. Tuscany was everything one would imagine, from its rolling hills, vineyards, unbelievable villages and beautiful food. Our next stop was Marseilles, from where we took a bus to Ariel where Van Gogh lived, pained and died. The interesting think about Ariel is that it didn't own any paints of the great artist. Barcelona was our port of disembarkation There we visited the famous Gaudi Cathedral, which is still under construction. We spent a pleasant day and night in Barcelona before flying home.
On board ship we had some wonderful meals. I think it was the best food we ever had on a cruise, though I found the coffee disappointing. This was our tenth cruise. We also met some interesting people on board, like always. And like on most cruises we’ve been on the majority of the passengers were Americans. But this time there seemed to more nationalities on board.
While we were on board ship the summer Olympics was happening. And as I noticed, our travels this past summer took us to three cities that once hosted the Olympics, Rome, Munich and Barcelona. Munich was where we change flights, on our way to Venice and on our way back home. And as I recall, we were also on water when the 1992 Olympics happened. That year we went barging on a canal in England. But our first cruise occurred during the Atlanta Olympics in 1996. That year we went to Alaska from Vancouver.
We were fortunate, like on most of our cruises. The weather everywhere was great. And our air journeys went smoothly.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Bush Legacy
Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are two corporations that were established by the American government under FDR to make loans to ordinary people so that they could buy homes. They were made necessary because other lenders were often reluctant to make loans to low income and first-time homebuyers. They were established to help fulfill the America dream of being an ownership society. But lately they have been in the news because of the financial meltdown brought on by the bursting of the housing 'bubble' in the US. These two corporations were seriously ensnared in it and have subsequently been nationalized and propped up with taxpayers’ money, because they were unable to survive on their own. I understand, though, that George Bush wanted to reform these institutions in 2006 but was prevent by a Democratic Congress.
Yes, Bush was stopped from reforming Fannie and Freddie. But how serious was he about reforming them? He put party cronies in charge to run those agencies. They were Bush loyalist, but poor administrators, a norm for his administration. This kind of cronyism set the tone for further financial calamities during his term.
Perhaps I don't have it quite right. Kevin Hassett of Bloomberge.com News wrote how the Democrats created the financial crisis by not supporting reform legislation for Fannie and Freddy. But his analysis sounded a bit like a parable that evokes the-barn-door-being-closed-after-the-horse-has-left. Even Kevin Phillips, author of “Bad Money’”, who is more knowledgeable about the origins of the present financial crises, doesn’t make such an indictment. He spreads the blame on many decisions and events, while Hassett’s explanation is just too pat and simple. The Democrats, in voting against reform for Fannie and Freddy, probably did exacerbate the problem, like many other decisions before. But Democrats alone didn’t create the problem. No, the seeds of this financial crisis were sown by many players over many years.
Phillips is a Republican. He foretold the rise of conservatism in America. But in his laying blame for the financial crisis he doesn’t make it a partisan witch hunt, like Hassett does, who is quite partisan and narrow in his criticism and finger pointing.
If Bush really had wanted to reform those agencies he would have put reformers in charge, to reform things from inside. Instead he gave the jobs to party loyalists. Under those circumstances it's lucky Bush was stopped from reforming and privatizing Social Security, as he desperately wanted to. Image what an additional catastrophe it would have been if Social Security were connected to the performance of the stock market, as Bush wanted?
In a way I think it is fitting that George Bush is ending his tenure on this note, with one of the greatest financial debacles in American history. It is the crowning achievement for his abysmal presidency. Sadly, though, there's still time for him to screw things up.
I wish Milton Friedman were alive today to comment on recent events because of the free marketeer that he was. I am glade the financial meltdown occurred because it has helped put an end to a fallacy that Friedman supported, that the free market is the be-all and end-all. It also puts an end to the Reagan fallacy that government is the problem and not the solution. If one makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy as Bush did, with his neglect and incompetence as a manager, then government is the problem.
It is ironic that Bush was the first president with a MBA (Master of Business Administration). Just goes to show you that strictly MBA holders are not always the smartest people in the room. In Bush's case a MBA was a very hollow achievement, like most of his achievements. He should have also educated himself in other areas, like history and geography.
In the last few months Bush has been looking shell-shocked, like he did after 9/11. It's good that he has recruited grown-ups to look after this crisis, people who are trying to clean up the financial mess he helped create by not enforcing the financial regulations that were on the books.
Thanks to George Bush and his brand of conservatism America has become less influential in the world, and less relevant. When Bush started his presidency I sensed that he would drive America and the world into a state of despair. Low and behold he has. He said he was a uniter, not a divider. However, in most of his dealings he has been a divider and a very divisive president. Ironically, though, this one time, with the financial crisis he helped create, he has united not only America in economic pain but also the world.
When the reality of financial crisis was really beginning to become apparent it is said that Washington DC took on the feeling of a wartime capital, like it did after 9/11, because legislators were feeling shell-shocked by the magnitude and cost of the financial mess America was in. I found this interesting because of Bush's self-proclamation that he was a War President, fighting a ‘war on terror’. But he didn't expect to be this kind of war president, fighting a financial war. However, most of the time as War President, in both cases, he has acted like Don Quixote, tilting-at-windmills.
Yes, Bush was stopped from reforming Fannie and Freddie. But how serious was he about reforming them? He put party cronies in charge to run those agencies. They were Bush loyalist, but poor administrators, a norm for his administration. This kind of cronyism set the tone for further financial calamities during his term.
Perhaps I don't have it quite right. Kevin Hassett of Bloomberge.com News wrote how the Democrats created the financial crisis by not supporting reform legislation for Fannie and Freddy. But his analysis sounded a bit like a parable that evokes the-barn-door-being-closed-after-the-horse-has-left. Even Kevin Phillips, author of “Bad Money’”, who is more knowledgeable about the origins of the present financial crises, doesn’t make such an indictment. He spreads the blame on many decisions and events, while Hassett’s explanation is just too pat and simple. The Democrats, in voting against reform for Fannie and Freddy, probably did exacerbate the problem, like many other decisions before. But Democrats alone didn’t create the problem. No, the seeds of this financial crisis were sown by many players over many years.
Phillips is a Republican. He foretold the rise of conservatism in America. But in his laying blame for the financial crisis he doesn’t make it a partisan witch hunt, like Hassett does, who is quite partisan and narrow in his criticism and finger pointing.
If Bush really had wanted to reform those agencies he would have put reformers in charge, to reform things from inside. Instead he gave the jobs to party loyalists. Under those circumstances it's lucky Bush was stopped from reforming and privatizing Social Security, as he desperately wanted to. Image what an additional catastrophe it would have been if Social Security were connected to the performance of the stock market, as Bush wanted?
In a way I think it is fitting that George Bush is ending his tenure on this note, with one of the greatest financial debacles in American history. It is the crowning achievement for his abysmal presidency. Sadly, though, there's still time for him to screw things up.
I wish Milton Friedman were alive today to comment on recent events because of the free marketeer that he was. I am glade the financial meltdown occurred because it has helped put an end to a fallacy that Friedman supported, that the free market is the be-all and end-all. It also puts an end to the Reagan fallacy that government is the problem and not the solution. If one makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy as Bush did, with his neglect and incompetence as a manager, then government is the problem.
It is ironic that Bush was the first president with a MBA (Master of Business Administration). Just goes to show you that strictly MBA holders are not always the smartest people in the room. In Bush's case a MBA was a very hollow achievement, like most of his achievements. He should have also educated himself in other areas, like history and geography.
In the last few months Bush has been looking shell-shocked, like he did after 9/11. It's good that he has recruited grown-ups to look after this crisis, people who are trying to clean up the financial mess he helped create by not enforcing the financial regulations that were on the books.
Thanks to George Bush and his brand of conservatism America has become less influential in the world, and less relevant. When Bush started his presidency I sensed that he would drive America and the world into a state of despair. Low and behold he has. He said he was a uniter, not a divider. However, in most of his dealings he has been a divider and a very divisive president. Ironically, though, this one time, with the financial crisis he helped create, he has united not only America in economic pain but also the world.
When the reality of financial crisis was really beginning to become apparent it is said that Washington DC took on the feeling of a wartime capital, like it did after 9/11, because legislators were feeling shell-shocked by the magnitude and cost of the financial mess America was in. I found this interesting because of Bush's self-proclamation that he was a War President, fighting a ‘war on terror’. But he didn't expect to be this kind of war president, fighting a financial war. However, most of the time as War President, in both cases, he has acted like Don Quixote, tilting-at-windmills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)