Do You Know What I Like About Donald Trump?

There are a lot of things I like about The Donald, even including his crudity because it's honest. It's a case of tongue=>brain v. brain=>tongue. He almost always speaks from the heart instead of calculating and weighing everything that he's going to say before letting it escape.

Consider the other day when all the press was up in arms because he spoke a Truth about what happened to Hilliary back in 2008. She got whipped by Obie-One. Despite fighting hard, she got "schlonged" and lost the election. Because Donald Trump said something publicly in the heat of a political season that at least one person said back in 2011 there is a plethora of panty twisting going on here in America and across The Pond in the U.K.

So what was said back then in 2011? Golly - here it is:

"...according to The Washington Post:

Only one use of "schlonged" as a verb came from a respected political source. In 2011, NPR's Neal Conan made this observation (to The Post's Chris Cillizza) on the 1984 Walter Mondale/Geraldine Ferraro campaign: "That ticket went on to get schlonged at the polls..."

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a40714/donald-trump-schlonged-definition/

So, as you can see from that, it was first used by NPR, a left-wing media outlet in reference to another political campaign which also happened to be a Democrat ticket. Now, can we all say "double-standard"?

In recent days, all of the media talking heads have had their figurative hands over their mouths in shock at the fact that he used such a disgusting term! As if they have never once said or thought something equally as foul. Not on camera because they would get fired, but come on - in private they've never said or thought anything like that? Even Grandma in Iowa has heard (and probably used) the words before. This Pre-Cultural Revolution pretense at shock-talk is stupid. It is utterly false and pathetically disingenuous.

So back to Donald. In my view, above all the other characteristics a human being can have, the most important trait is honesty. I don't care who you are or what you look like, I care about how truthful you are - not just in deed but in word. And, if you have a habit of saying precisely what you think without filter, that's just fine. I'm a grown up and have heard (and used) all the words before. It's not new, it's not shocking and that's another point of laughter for me because I know that all these idiots that are pretending shock are lying about their reaction. They've used the words before, too.

No matter. Donald Trump is crude, coarse and would do far better in a barnyard amongst the pigs and muck than at a state dinner when it comes to his speech habits. He does routinely denigrate women while saying that he admires them, but I think that's the same as some people in various communities referring to friends in less than sparkling terms. Like some young men referring to their friends as "motherfucker" or women calling friends "bitch" or worse. Common pejoratives are routinely turned on their head and used as compliments. In sport, for instance, I've heard illiterate broadcasters say that a player is "filthy good". I've been down this path - it's a stupid use of that adjective, but it is what it is.

Donald speaks from his heart, not from his brain. If he spoke from his brain, weighing every single last thing that he says, he would be no different at all from every other calculating politician. But it's refreshing, in my view, to have someone who does speak plainly.

The other thing in this that I find amusing is that all the media are rushing to Hilliary's aid and comfort, saying what a nasty horrible man Donald is. As if we don't all know that already, and as if that woman needs aid and comfort.

She has skin a mile thick. She's been in the arena of public politics - both with her husband and on her own for long enough that I'm confident she hasn't a single chink in her armor.

If she has had her feelings hurt by Donald Trump then she had better throw in the towel on her campaign right now because there's a whole lot worse in the world than him.

At least with Trump's in-your-face approach to things, you know where he stands and what he's thinking. If it's over the top, you can go toe-to-toe with him, call him out and demand an explanation because there's little wiggle room. With the squishy-touchy-feelie language used by most other people, it's harder to pin down and demand explanation. Which is why I do like Donald's up front approach to things. You know where you stand. You know what he thinks. There's no ambiguity and right now, for this world, we need clarity and I think Donald is the guy to bring it.

So that's what I like about Donald Trump.

Now - have a lovely Christmas! I'm taking tomorrow off, but I'll be back Saturday.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

The Clinton Dynasty - Vacancy at the DNC

I watched Saturday night's debate even though it was, according to some media reports, an effort on the part of the DNC to prevent people from watching Hilliary in action. Thinking about it, I think they might be right. Otherwise, what is the purpose of holding a debate on the Saturday night before Christmas? That's not going to generate a lot of interest and this is, I think, how the DNC and Hilliary Clinton wanted it.

After all, on the Saturday before Christmas, people are starting to shift into high gear for The Day. They're getting ready to travel over the river and through the woods to Grandma's. They're in panic mode over the last minute shopping for gifts and food and starting to plan menus and fend off the kid's questions. They are not, at this point, paying attention to politics and an election that's still a year away. So it was (quite a lot more than) a bit of obfuscation on the part of the DNC and Clinton campaign.

It's inevitable, no matter what anyone says, that Hilliary is going to be The Anointed One for the Democrat ticket. Sanders and O'Malley are only there as props to kind of try to hide the fact that Hilliary is The Anointed One.

Watching Berns again the other night, the best I can say is that he is weak-willed and limp-wristed. He has no drive or interest in winning the nomination. If he did, if he really wants to win the race, he would attack Hilliary, not suck up to her. He would slam her over the e-mail server and Benghazi. He wouldn't skim over issues like that. He wants to be VP so he can promote the things that interest him without the pressure of being in The Big Chair, and that's as high as his aspirations go.

Besides, it's a done deal. After the debate another one of the endless polls was taken and Hilliary won the debate among the 760 poll respondents, by a LOT.

When asked, the respondent's answered 62% to 30% that Hilliary won.

http://www.oann.com/dncdebate/

So we're almost certainly going to have another Clinton in the fight for the White House. Somehow, I don't think this is what the Founders envisioned. They set up the government model so one family or two would not dominate the landscape. Still, we've had the Bush Dynasty - GHW and GW. I'm grateful Jeb is doing as poorly as he is. We do not need Royal Families running this country. So we just have to worry about Hilliary and Bill - the Clinton Dynasty.

However, Hilliary is hauling around an entire trainload of baggage and it's all open to question and ridicule. Except no one is questioning or ridiculing and that's a bit disturbing. It's also one of the reasons I hope Trump wins the GOP nomination.

He will not be afraid to take her on and call her out on all the garbage with its swirling clouds of flies. After all, he has nothing to lose - so many in this country don't like her, so to see her brought down would please a lot of people, even if they will be among those who vote for her when the time comes. They'll vote for her for the wrong reasons - being The Anointed Democrat Candidate and Having Ovaries. Party lines are strong, after all.

As far as Hilliary and her baggage train goes, there was the White Water financial scandal which led to the savings and loan crash that shook the U.S. financial markets for more than a couple of years. In that, there were questions about Hilliary's participation and knowledge. She was elbow deep in the mess and records from the Rose Law firm where she worked were subpoenaed. For nearly a year she denied knowing where they were or having them in her possession, yet they "magically" appeared a year after the subpoena in her White House office.

Vince Foster, one of her associates at the Rose Law firm who was embroiled in the White Water scandal ended up dead in Fort Marcy Park outside of Washington DC. Even though it was ruled a suicide, there are still unanswered questions about it. However, it's twenty-two years in the past now, and not highly relevant - except for the questions relating to Hilliary Clinton that were raised at the time.

There was Filegate, the FBI's record collection of political opponents (specifically Republicans) by her hubby's administration. According to the Wiki article, quoted below, she hired the guy who obtained them and she read the files.

It is old news, but it's telling about the ethics, morals and character of a woman who will do and say anything in order to get elected and advance her political agenda.

In the case of Filegate, there was a man - Craig Livingstone - who was hired at the recommendation of Hilliary not because he was qualified or had experience, but because she knew the man's mother. This man was given security clearance and was at the center of the Filegate controversy.

Allegations were made that senior White House figures, including First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, may have requested and read the files for political purposes, and that the First Lady had authorized the hiring of the underqualified Livingstone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_FBI_files_controversy#Who_hired_Livingstone_issue

Then there was Cattlegate. No matter what anyone says, Hilliary was involved up to her broad hips with Wall Street. She was plenty cozy with Wall Street back then. Cozy enough to get special treatment.

For "normal" people, you have to have a minimum amount of money in an options or futures trading account before you can trade. It's to ensure that if things go south you don't lose more than you can afford to lose. Hilliary didn't. Most people who invest in futures and options for the first time don't make a boatload of money relative to their initial balance in their trading account. Hilliary did. She made quite a tidy sum from her trading. About $100,000 in all - even though the rules were definitely "bent" for her.


Hillary Clinton Futures Trades Detailed
By Charles R. Babcock
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 27, 1994; Page A01


Hillary Rodham Clinton was allowed to order 10 cattle futures contracts, normally a $12,000 investment, in her first commodity trade in 1978 although she had only $1,000 in her account at the time, according to trade records the White House released yesterday.

The computerized records of her trades, which the White House obtained from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, show for the first time how she was able to turn her initial investment into $6,300 overnight. In about 10 months of trading, she made nearly $100,000, relying heavily on advice from her friend James B. Blair, an experienced futures trader.

The new records also raise the possibility that some of her profits -- as much as $40,000 – came from larger trades ordered by someone else and then shifted to her account, Leo Melamed, a former chairman of the Merc who reviewed the records for the White House, said in an interview. He said the discrepancies in Clinton's records also could have been caused by human error.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm

Yeah. Human error. Uh huh. A convenient explanation, isn't it?

Her husband was impeached - http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/20/us/impeachment-overview-clinton-impeached-he-faces-senate-trial-2d-history-vows-job.html?pagewanted=all

But now he's going to be back in the White House as First Lady and primary adviser to a woman whose morals and ethics are worse than his - he's been caught twice while she's done equally questionable things and has consistently dodged the bullets. To me, that indicates a thick coating of slime and cunning. It also comes down to whether you ascribe to the old truism "birds of a feather".

There was Travelgate and Vince Foster, Benghazi and the e-mail server, a total of twenty-two scandals of greater and lesser import. Just about one a year since they hit the national political radar. Heck, Google "Hillary Clinton Scandals" and you'll get a list of stories and links from Washington Times, The Atlantic, The New York Post and other reputable news outlets.

If you Google Donald Trump scandals you get things from Salon - a leftist web-based outlet that is unapologetically in Obama's hip pocket. Liberalamerica.org also has stuff - gee, I wonder how fair and balanced that one is? What there is - about two things - also seem to be pure speculation and made-up stuff.

Doing a Google of 'Hillary Clinton Scandals' I came up with a long and varied list, including this link: 

http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/here-they-are-hillarys-22-biggest-scandals-ever/

So the question is: with this woman being the leading contender for the Democrat party, what does this say about the character, morals, ethics, values and intelligence of the Democrats? Seems to me there's a gigantic flashing "Vacancy" sign atop the twin pillars of Honesty and Decency at DNC headquarters.

Personally, I find morality and ethics to be keys to a quality human being.

If someone lies to me, I don't trust them again. If they lie to someone else, I don't trust them after that, either. After all, if they lie, how can I be sure that anything else they say is the truth?

I do not affiliate or associate with people of questionable character. If I can't trust you to do the ethically right thing no matter what the situation, how can I trust you at my back, at all? I can't and therefore I don't want you around.

In my life I have a standard for my behavior. I don't lie. I don't cheat. I don't steal. It's straightforward. Therefore, given that outlook, I don't associate with people who do lie and cheat and steal. I deliberately and decisively steer well clear of them.

Given my moral compass and ethical standards, it seems to me that the Democrat National Committee and the Democrat leaning PACs lack anything that remotely looks like any standard at all. Just look at the "character" of the woman they're pushing to lead their party.

Now, is Donald Trump pure as the driven snow? Probably not. But I also think that he has integrity. If he didn't he wouldn't be successful in a business where large parts of the transactions are based on trust. After all, if you're investing in a new development, putting hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, there is a lot of trust there - and if he lied to people, no one would trust him. He wouldn't be successful, but he is - and that says a lot about his character.

Closer to home, do you embrace people who have no moral compass whatsoever? Do you embrace liars and cheaters and thieves? Do you call them friend and trust them to do the right thing no matter the circumstance?

Probably not, yet it seems to me that many of those who back Hilliary, regardless of her lying and cheating and utter lack of anything resembling ethics, are lacking a major part of their character, too. They must be if they willingly support someone who has proved to be untrustworthy, a liar and a cheat. Then again, maybe that's just me. Then again, maybe it's not because even the Washington Times has this story from back in August, and things haven't noticeably changed if you Google "Hillary Clinton Trustworthy".

But voters overall gave Mrs. Clinton a negative 44 percent/51 percent favorable/unfavorable split and said by a 59 percent to 35 percent margin that she is not honest and trustworthy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/7/hillary-clinton-not-honest-and-trustworthy-florida/?page=all

Food for thought though and this is the season for feasting so get to it.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

Knowing When To Quit - And Not Feeling Guilty

There's the first - the knowing when to quit. And then there's the second, the not feeling guilty. Unfortunately, the two are just not comfortable going hand-in-hand.

After deciding to throw in the towel on NaNo yesterday, I began feeling guilty. I made a commitment. True, it was more to myself than to anyone else. After all, whether I made the grade or not, no one else would be affected and all I would have to show for it is pride. And pride comes at too high a price, sometimes.

This morning I've gone to my various writer's sites and confessed my "sin" or "Failure" (note the capital F because that's how it feels). Honesty, along with Pride, is a thin blanket on a frosty night.

However, I do know I made the right decision. I didn't act on the impulse this morning, but the first thought I had on waking up was about 'Shady' - the story that's been pushing and nudging the hardest lately. If I hadn't been so darned comfortable and if the room hadn't been so darned cold (I sleep with the window wide open - even in November), I would have gotten up and started writing.

Instead, I lay in bed until eight o'clock, got my chores done, made my 'confession' around the places, and now, at 10:30, I'm here. When I get done here, I'll start on 'Shady' and see how much more I can get through.

I also thought about meeting the 50,000 word goal on NaNo, anyway. Copy my book that I started for it, and each of the blog posts I've made this month - which also qualify as writing, and the flash fiction pieces that I write in the next few weeks for the FFF group on Scribblers. I think between each of those, I would be well over the goal for the month.

In fact, since I would never be in position to publish what I was writing for NaNo (it would be too incomplete, too rough), maybe I should. Just to measure how many words I do write in a given month. Of course, that wouldn't count the in-line corrections I make along the way, but that would be bonus in any case.

It's an interesting idea. And, following further navel contemplation, I don't think it's cheating. After all, it's not like I'm doing this on a publisher's website or in a place where it counts for anything. Once I post the update and have the system count the words, the site doesn't retain what I've written. It goes back to zero with the count registered until the next time I pick "Validate" and paste my writing.

You know? I think I will do that. What the heck?

Now - I hope you have a lovely day. I'm going to get to work on something I want to do.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/i/notifications

A Moment of Truth

Generally, when I write this little missive every day, it's as much an exercise in just writing as it is in relating little things going on in my tiny corner of the great big world. Like the letters to my mother, it's a means of opening the door a bit so she knew I was well and happy.

Since she's been gone since 2012, I haven't really had a release for these things. Since starting this in April I have, and it's been helpful and pleasant - a means of sharing good news and not so good stuff.

Today, however, I got to thinking about other things. Friends I miss, people who called me friend but who, for whatever reason, didn't really seem to be fully invested in 'friendship' as I define it. Even family hasn't been entirely 'there', so that's why. It's the why behind this post in which I'm going to open the door to a little bit of me today.

In my lexicon, friendship has a specific meaning. It's not a marriage or dedicated relationship, but it is a more than a 'when it's convenient to me' relationship.

I have few friends. It's not because I'm not friendly or rude or unpleasant. It's because I'm selective.

If I call you 'friend' it means that I will drop what I am doing to pick you up if you've fallen - but I expect the same in return should I need it.

If I call you 'friend', I will write to you, call you and listen when you need an ear or a shoulder. But, I expect the same in return, to the same amount.

In that case, if it's one hundred percent reciprocal, it's a 1:1 relationship. If I send a message or write a letter, I expect one back. My time and energies are just as limited anyone else's, and if it's down to a 2:1 or 3:1 exchange - it's not worth it to me.

Because of this attitude, I have stopped communicating with all of my 'friends' from past lives, which is sad and sometimes, like today, bothers me.

See, what happened, from my perspective only, of course, is this.

In 1995 I was hired at a company. I met some wonderful people along the way and I was there for seventeen years - until 2012 - when I was laid off because the company was downsizing. They had two people competing for the same position. One worked for the man who had the need, and I wasn't her. Ergo sum. And it was fine because I was getting stale in my job and it was time for a change.

However, in all those years I met several people who called me 'friend' and whom I called 'friend'. What was eye-opening, and more than a little sad, was that once I was laid off, those 'friendships' ended. Oh, we had lunch together once, but the e-mails I sent - well over a dozen - went unanswered.

Granted, I was on unemployment and spending my days looking for work - Craigslist and about a dozen other websites, crafting letters and refining my resume - so the e-mails were broadcasts to those I considered 'friends'. What upset me though, was the utter lack of response from those who had said, specifically, 'oh, let's stay in touch!'

Yeah. Like when you break up with your boy/girlfriend and you say, 'oh, we'll still be friends'. Riiiiight. We all know how that generally goes. And this was no different.

Twice in the following years - from then to now - I received some bare nod of a message. Along the lines of 'hope you're doing well, let me know how it's going' and nothing more. In other words, take your time to tell me what you're doing but I can't be arsed to reciprocate.

To me, this is not a friendship. This is something else and, frankly, I'm not sure what to call it.

I have the same approach to family.

My sister, for instance, after a silence of more than a year even though I sent her e-mail after e-mail until I gave up in late 2012 / early 2013 sent me a birthday card earlier this month. In it is a message that I took pleasure in receiving. I have the card on my bookcase at home. I have not, however, answered because that would re-open the door to the 2:1 or 3:1 or 4:1 communications.

Oh, we would start off at 1:1 but, and I can state this with certainty since it's been a repeated result, we would get to the point where I send one, then another, and perhaps a third with no response. With all I have going on in my life, and the limitations on my time and life expectancy, I don't have time for that kind of communication.

In a sense, a very big sense, this little blog I do every day fulfills that need to communicate. I hardly ever get comments on my posts - and that's fine. I've said it before, this is a rather selfish endeavor. If you stop by or trip over it on your way past, stop to peek in and take a look, that's great. But I do this, genuinely, for me. And if that sounds narcissistic and self-centered, so be it. It's real - which is how I roll.

So what's the point of this particular post, you ask? I don't know. Because I'm thinking of it. Because I miss those relationships but I'm not willing to sacrifice myself to try again when I know it will probably fail again. Because it's been bugging me. Whatever.

It's there. It's real. It's me and I won't apologize or retract. It's up to you, now, to decide how to take it.

Have a lovely day!

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

What Makes a Person "Bulletproof"?

According to American Law, at least in theory, no one is supposed to be above it. We're all supposed to be subject to the same blind Justice no matter who we are or what we do. Of course, that's sadly laughable. Just turn on the news and see the different strokes for different folks playing out on a daily basis.

What got me thinking about this is the fact that people don't seem to care anymore whether someone is honest, or whether they're a renowned liar. Honesty, integrity, ethics and values, the important points in a person's character just don't seem to matter.

Personally, I hate being lied to. It's a sign of either fear or utter disrespect. Since I'm not a particularly scary person and have no sway over anyone else, I have to believe that when someone lies to me, it's because they don't respect me. And that bothers me. Particularly if it's someone I've hired for a job.

Now, you might say, "Ah ha! You hired them, therefore you do have power over them!" And that would be true - if it were a regular job in which I am either their employer or their supervisor.

But when I vote to elect someone into public office, that's a form of hiring. They're going to work, supposedly representing me and my neighbors and, in exchange, they'll get paid. It's a job - just look at the Career Politicians we have.

So I don't really have power or control over them, not unless they really do badly, in which case the majority of that person's constituents have to get together and agree, then there's the messy business of a recall election. How often does that happen?

With all that's happening with Hillary Clinton again, I am astonished that she is doing so well in the polls. Is it because the majority of people who say they would vote to elect her like being lied to? Have they no self-respect, or are they truly the moronic ignorant hands-out sheeple that some people say they are? Mindless creatures who cannot, under any circumstance, think for themselves or discern right from wrong - is that who these people are?

I mean, let's face it, there has got to be some fire under all that smoke. That thick haze has been pretty constant for more than twenty years, now.

Remember the Rose Law Firm and the Whitewater investigation? Two years or something into it, the files just magically appeared in Hillary's White House office. Of course, they had been carefully purged of anything remotely damning but, golly gee whiz, there they were!

Remember Vince Foster and his "suicide"? That case was never solved, never definitively proved one way or the other, but whispers went around for months after the event. There was doubt that it was suicide. Some said that it was a murder because the scene made no sense and the Clintons or their associates were complicit.

Then there was Filegate. The FBI file scandal where one of the Clinton aides was accused of gathering files and information on people the Clintons didn't like.

And Travelgate and futures trading, investigations galore and accusations of perjury. and all the rest of them. Since Bill and Hillary first appeared on the national stage, it has been one scandal or another without relief.

While Hillary was Secretary of State, hubby Bill wanted to go to North Korea and the Congo and collect speaker's fees, for Heaven's sake!

More recently there was Benghazi and her 'what does it matter' comment. Now, that, taken out of context, is damning. In the time, it was spoken in frustration and without thought, but still...

A woman who wants to be President is sitting in a hearing room with the grieving families of the men killed that night, on television, and she basically says 'who cares'? Oh, yeah. That's who I want as a leader. Yep - with that attitude I'll follow 'em... nowhere.

Now there's the scandal over whether she was sending and receiving classified information across an open domain service. That's pretty scary. Our national secrets aren't precisely secret, anyway. Not with Snowden and the Chinese and Israelis snooping around, but it's a nice illusion to keep that at least some of our secrets will remain secret. But where is the sense of loyalty and responsibility?

When I worked for a government defense contractor a few years ago, they were very serious about security. I had no clearance at all but if I plugged anything into their network, IT knew about it. If I sent an e-mail, IT knew about it and had access to it. There was no privacy there - it was all for them, as it should be in a national defense setting.

Yet Hillary Clinton, the wannabe next President, doesn't seem to have one shred or iota of intelligence when it comes to our nation's intelligence. She certainly hasn't any commonsense, or any sense at all. If I was her mother I would give her a good hard shake and demand to know, "What were you thinking?"

Answer to that would no doubt be, "I wasn't" and that is not the kind of person I want sitting in the White House with the nuclear codes to hand.

Still, for many, she is bulletproof. She is above the law and must be excused from all culpability no matter what she does or how damaging it might be to our country. Her sycophants just wave their hands and say, 'oh, that doesn't matter.'

There's a word for that, but I'll let you guess what it is.

Have a lovely day.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

Humility - It's Good for the Soul

It’s Friday afternoon and I have been mulling over this post all day. Okay, that’s an exaggeration. But I have been mulling for the last five hours, since I woke up. I still don’t have any clue what to write, or what to write about. I'll just start and see where it goes...

Thinking it over and watching the news, reading about it, Greece will do what Greece is going to do tomorrow. The EU will then have to decide for itself what to do about whatever Greece does. Either way a whole lot of people are going to see a whole lot of their personal wealth disappear in a cloud of dust.

Will Portugal, Spain and Italy, all equally iffy risks, follow Greece’s lead? Either way, one way or the other, they’re going to have a day of reckoning, too. It’s inevitable.

Barron’s has a good article on this mess:

http://online.barrons.com/articles/how-a-greek-default-could-hammer-bonds-1435894311 

This all means that the bond market will suffer. Along with people who have invested in them through their retirement savings accounts. The pain will be widespread and, if the others go – the rest of the PIGS – as expected, it’ll happen again. When is the only question awaiting an answer.

That’s a primary reason I don’t invest in my company’s 401k. I don’t trust governments and I don't trust the investment markets. It's a Ponzi scheme and a shell game. Which means that I’m strictly a sideline observer in all of this kerfuffle.

Yesterday, I was looking at economic statistics on Iceland because of a discussion I was in. I had gotten into something of a debate about Iceland’s economy since they walked away from the EU and re-established their own currency.

Along the way I had a pretty hard comeuppance moment. It was because I, looking at what I was seeing from the outside, was shocked by the state of their economy.

Iceland has a median annual salary of 3.5 million after taxes? That's the average annual income? It costs an average of 260 Krona for a loaf of bread? Horrifying!

Then, after I was virtually slapped upside the head, I stopped and thought about it. Those are average prices. That is what the average person earns and pays. So the fish swimming in that pool, sharing that water, are all seeing the same thing. So it’s okay. It really isn’t that bad, particularly since the majority of Icelanders are working. They have relatively low unemployment and their quality of life is pretty good.

Following through, rubbing salt into the wound of my ignorance and arrogance, I ran some numbers and discovered that, despite its outward appearance, it really isn’t that bad.

If you take the Icelandic median annual after tax income of 3,543,935.16 Kr and divide that to the monthly after-tax income you arrive at 295,327.93 Kr. If you convert that to Euros, it results in a monthly after tax income of €2,007.87. That’s not too bad.

Maybe that’s the answer for Greece. Swallow the bitter pill. Walk away from dependency on the rest of Europe. Hit rock bottom and start to climb up again. Maybe study Iceland and what they’ve done to get things back on track.

Greece does have a problem that Iceland doesn't. It's an aging society but, with some serious effort, they still might be able to turn things around and, who knows, maybe they could become a magnet for younger people. Maybe after a few years, with the right restructuring, young people who are finding it hard to make ends meet in France or Spain or Italy might be attracted to a thriving economy and a chance to earn a decent living.

Who knows but it remains to be seen. But wouldn't that be a kick in the head if Greece, as it did several thousand years ago, became the model for future civilization, future economies?

In any case, no matter what happens with Greece and the EU tomorrow and into the future, I certainly learned a salutary lesson: Just because you think you know something, don’t assume you do. Check your facts, be careful to make sure they’re accurate and then talk about it. Otherwise the maxim ‘better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt’ is likely to come into play. As it did for me, yesterday.

Oh well. Humility is good. It builds character. So I’ve had some character building.

Oh – and look at that. This just about wrote itself.

Have a lovely (non-humbling) day!

Best~

Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories