I happened to have a computer problem the other month so after trying to figure it out myself for a while I thought that a bit of expert advice would not go amiss. I signed up to a forum and was pretty much given, albeit not explicitly, the solution I required.
Interestingly on one of the signatures of the people that helped me was a ink to a topic called 'Help Vampire'. Intrigued I clicked on it and learnt that 'Help Vampires' are people who suck the life out of someone they are asking help from either by continually asking questions or, more pertinently, by not showing any effort themselves to actually try to nut out the problem.
Now, I appreciate there are people out there who take advantage, after all as the old adage goes "why do something when you can get someone else to do it for you?". Assuming of course that people who do ask these questions have that intention. Yet it got me thinking, is there, conversely, such a thing as a 'Help Snob'? My definition of a 'Help Snob' is someone who knows his subject but enjoys the perverse thrill of lecturing others about 'needing to research'.
They might even maintain a help website such as the one I visited so they can lord it over other people who are indeed stuck, as I was. The thing is by being so smug in their attitude they conveniently forget that once upon a time, unless they are totally self-taught, which is unlikely, they needed help to learn, if not computing then something else. Also when a person knows something, they, usually, know it back to front and cannot understand why others do not.
In short a 'Help Snob' would be analogous to a driving instructor becoming irritated when you demonstrate you cannot use the controls with a disdainful "it is easy!". This sort of unncessary oneupmanship does little to move things forward, indeed it takes more time to strut and argue than to actually explain the solution. In addition this attitude simply does not impress many. It is also a bad teaching method, in my opinion, to effectively say, "have a guess." just so they can play the 'all-knowing professor' for a few moments. My own learning style is based on plenty of examples and explanation and sometimes the solution to the problem simply will not sink in, the circuit, therefore, needs to be broken with a little help and explanation.
A lot of the people on these "help" sites would probably counter by saying "I am not getting paid to do this, why should I drop everything and give you the answer?" to which I would say "why do it at all, if dealing with 'amateurs' annoys you so much?" Maybe it is just part of a human condition. Maybe, in reality, a lot of us resent giving other people our help, by default? Mercifully, however, not everyone is like this and to those that have taken the time in the past, I thank you.
30 January 2012
2 July 2009
Dictatorship Deterred
Source: FrontPage Magazine
By: Ryan Mauro
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
It was the coup heard around the world.
No sooner had the Honduran military overthrown the country’s leftist president, Manuel Zelaya, than the international community erupted in outrage. The United Nations General Assembly condemned the military’s intervention, and called for Zelaya to return to power. The World Bank is temporarily suspending loans to Honduras. Venezuela and Ecuador have threatened military retaliation if their embassies or staff members are harmed. Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez has even threatened war, warning that “I’ll do everything possible to overthrow” the transition government. Even President Obama has joined the international chorus denouncing the coup as a subversion of democracy and the rule of law.
But is such censure justified? Although the coup may not have been the best course of action, in removing Zelaya the Honduran military was acting to preserve the checks and balances required for a democracy to function. Moreover, if Zelaya were allowed to return to power, as some now urge, there is reason to believe that it would be a blow for the country’s democracy and a victory for Hugo Chavez, who sees Honduras as a key piece in his plan to create a socialist bloc opposed to the United States in Latin America.
Zelaya was democratically elected in 2006, but that does not necessarily mean he is a democrat. Indeed, Zelaya gave every indication that he intended to hold on to power beyond the one term that he is allowed under the Honduran constitution. To that end, Zelaya had called for a national referendum on whether a vote should be held in November to establish an assembly to rewrite the country’s constitution to allow for presidents to run for re-election. This referendum was opposed by the Congress, Zelaya’s own political party, and most important, by the Supreme Court, which ruled it illegal, as did the other legal authorities in the country. Zelaya ordered the military to distribute the ballots anyway. When they refused, he fired the head of the armed forces, military chief Gen. Romeo Vasquez.
This firing was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court, which required that Vasquez be reinstated. Zelaya refused to comply. The Attorney General then asked Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against Zelaya due to his blatant disregard for the country’s democratic laws. Undeterred, Zelaya assembled his supporters, who marched on the military base where the ballots were being stored. The military handed them over rather than risk a violent confrontation. Zelaya and his supporters then distributed the ballots, and local authorities were ordered to assemble polling stations nationwide. Against this background, there was every reason to think that Zelaya intended to install himself as a president-for-life in the mold of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.
It was to avert that possibility that the coup took place. But even if strategically unwise, the coup cannot be called undemocratic – as it has been by many so world leaders, including President Obama. It was ordered by Congress and the Supreme Court, who felt Zelaya had to be removed for unconstitutionally acting in defiance of the other branches of power. In deposing Zelaya and exiling him to Costa Rica, the military merely enforced the law. Rather than form an undemocratic military regime, the President of the National Congress, Roberto Micheletti, was sworn in as the country’s leader, as constitutionally required, and the presidential elections for November 29 are still planned to be held. In contrast to the country’s political direction under Zelaya, Honduras has not become a dictatorship.
All of this seems lost on President Obama. “We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras,” Obama has said, insisting that it “would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections.” Ironically, Obama has attacked the legitimacy of the new government in far harsher terms than he has challenged the legitimacy of the Iranian government. Never mind that one bases its legitimacy on a democratic coup and the other on a fraudulent election and the brutal repression of democratic protestors.
Obama is likely concerned about enflaming anti-Americanism in the region, but he should consider that his support for Zelaya plays into the wrong hands. Zelaya has been no friend of the United States or of democracy. He is an ally of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, and under his rule, Honduras joined the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, a socialist alliance of countries in Latin America that oppose the United States. He signed a declaration with Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia and Dominica calling the creation of “an alternative to the capitalist system,” blaming it for everything from famine, to disease, to global warming. “Capitalism is leading humanity and the planet to extinction,” the document read. He also lamented the “decades-long relationship of dominance by the United States.”
This latest crisis is not the only time Zelaya has been accused of undermining democracy. In a blatant attempt at censorship, he ordered television networks to broadcast government-produced news programs in response to alleged “misinformation” to which the public was being exposed.
One should not discount the possibility that the coup was a strategic mistake. Although their intentions were noble, the government and the military may have chosen the wrong way to deprive Zelaya of power. In particular, it may have been wiser to try to impeach Zelaya or to see how the presidential elections turned out, before taking more forceful action.
Still, the fact that the government may have erred in launching the coup without exhausting all other options does not justify the international reaction. Those critics who hail Zelaya as a pillar of democracy and the rule of law, and his opponents as vigilantes illegally seeking to suppress freedom, are making a grave mistake.
By: Ryan Mauro
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
It was the coup heard around the world.
No sooner had the Honduran military overthrown the country’s leftist president, Manuel Zelaya, than the international community erupted in outrage. The United Nations General Assembly condemned the military’s intervention, and called for Zelaya to return to power. The World Bank is temporarily suspending loans to Honduras. Venezuela and Ecuador have threatened military retaliation if their embassies or staff members are harmed. Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez has even threatened war, warning that “I’ll do everything possible to overthrow” the transition government. Even President Obama has joined the international chorus denouncing the coup as a subversion of democracy and the rule of law.
But is such censure justified? Although the coup may not have been the best course of action, in removing Zelaya the Honduran military was acting to preserve the checks and balances required for a democracy to function. Moreover, if Zelaya were allowed to return to power, as some now urge, there is reason to believe that it would be a blow for the country’s democracy and a victory for Hugo Chavez, who sees Honduras as a key piece in his plan to create a socialist bloc opposed to the United States in Latin America.
Zelaya was democratically elected in 2006, but that does not necessarily mean he is a democrat. Indeed, Zelaya gave every indication that he intended to hold on to power beyond the one term that he is allowed under the Honduran constitution. To that end, Zelaya had called for a national referendum on whether a vote should be held in November to establish an assembly to rewrite the country’s constitution to allow for presidents to run for re-election. This referendum was opposed by the Congress, Zelaya’s own political party, and most important, by the Supreme Court, which ruled it illegal, as did the other legal authorities in the country. Zelaya ordered the military to distribute the ballots anyway. When they refused, he fired the head of the armed forces, military chief Gen. Romeo Vasquez.
This firing was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court, which required that Vasquez be reinstated. Zelaya refused to comply. The Attorney General then asked Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against Zelaya due to his blatant disregard for the country’s democratic laws. Undeterred, Zelaya assembled his supporters, who marched on the military base where the ballots were being stored. The military handed them over rather than risk a violent confrontation. Zelaya and his supporters then distributed the ballots, and local authorities were ordered to assemble polling stations nationwide. Against this background, there was every reason to think that Zelaya intended to install himself as a president-for-life in the mold of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.
It was to avert that possibility that the coup took place. But even if strategically unwise, the coup cannot be called undemocratic – as it has been by many so world leaders, including President Obama. It was ordered by Congress and the Supreme Court, who felt Zelaya had to be removed for unconstitutionally acting in defiance of the other branches of power. In deposing Zelaya and exiling him to Costa Rica, the military merely enforced the law. Rather than form an undemocratic military regime, the President of the National Congress, Roberto Micheletti, was sworn in as the country’s leader, as constitutionally required, and the presidential elections for November 29 are still planned to be held. In contrast to the country’s political direction under Zelaya, Honduras has not become a dictatorship.
All of this seems lost on President Obama. “We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras,” Obama has said, insisting that it “would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections.” Ironically, Obama has attacked the legitimacy of the new government in far harsher terms than he has challenged the legitimacy of the Iranian government. Never mind that one bases its legitimacy on a democratic coup and the other on a fraudulent election and the brutal repression of democratic protestors.
Obama is likely concerned about enflaming anti-Americanism in the region, but he should consider that his support for Zelaya plays into the wrong hands. Zelaya has been no friend of the United States or of democracy. He is an ally of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, and under his rule, Honduras joined the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, a socialist alliance of countries in Latin America that oppose the United States. He signed a declaration with Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia and Dominica calling the creation of “an alternative to the capitalist system,” blaming it for everything from famine, to disease, to global warming. “Capitalism is leading humanity and the planet to extinction,” the document read. He also lamented the “decades-long relationship of dominance by the United States.”
This latest crisis is not the only time Zelaya has been accused of undermining democracy. In a blatant attempt at censorship, he ordered television networks to broadcast government-produced news programs in response to alleged “misinformation” to which the public was being exposed.
One should not discount the possibility that the coup was a strategic mistake. Although their intentions were noble, the government and the military may have chosen the wrong way to deprive Zelaya of power. In particular, it may have been wiser to try to impeach Zelaya or to see how the presidential elections turned out, before taking more forceful action.
Still, the fact that the government may have erred in launching the coup without exhausting all other options does not justify the international reaction. Those critics who hail Zelaya as a pillar of democracy and the rule of law, and his opponents as vigilantes illegally seeking to suppress freedom, are making a grave mistake.
14 June 2009
Revealed: How the Kinnocks have enjoyed an
astonishing £10m ride on the EU gravy train
Source: Daily Mail
By Simon Mcgee
14th June 2009
Neil and Glenys Kinnock received more than £10million in pay, allowances and pension entitlements during their time working at the European Union in Brussels.
The astonishing figure can be revealed after a Mail on Sunday investigation into the couple’s lavish lifestyle funded from the public purse.
Lady Kinnock, who was appointed Europe Minister by Gordon Brown this month, was an MEP for 15 years. Her husband, who failed to win a General Election as Labour leader, was an EU Commissioner for ten years until 2004.
Their generous package of salary and perks included:
* A total of £775,000 in wages for Lady Kinnock and £1.85 million for her husband, adding up to £2,625,000.
* Allowances for Lady Kinnock’s staff and office costs of £2.9million.
* A £64,564 ‘entertainment allowance’ for Lord Kinnock.
* A total of five publicly-funded pensions, worth £4.4million, allowing them to retire on £183,000 a year.
* A housing allowance that allowed them both to claim accommodation costs although, as a married couple, they lived in the same house in the Belgian capital between 1995 and 2004.
Now back at the centre of British politics, Lady Kinnock has been elevated to the House of Lords while her husband played a key role in quelling last weekend’s rebellion against Mr Brown.
The Mail on Sunday questioned a spokeswoman for the Kinnocks in detail about the figures, calculated by the think-tank Open Europe. It campaigns for greater transparency in Brussels.
She disputed only one figure – a ‘transition allowance’ Lord Kinnock received on his departure from Brussels, worth £355,143 at today’s exchange rate. She said the true figure was lower, but refused to reveal it.
The European Parliament does not publish a breakdown of expenses that MEPs have to claim, rather than receive automatically, so Open Europe has estimated Lady Kinnock’s travel costs based on the average for MEPs.
These are in addition to her wages and the allowances she was eligible to receive automatically. The estimates are £1,179,482 for travel between Britain and the Continent over 15 years, and £45,777 for travel outside the EU.
Lady Kinnock is entitled to a transition allowance running into tens of thousands of pounds, designed to keep ex-MEPs going until they find new employment, but her ministerial appointment means she will forgo it.
Glenys Kinnock has been elevated to the House of Lords
However, questions were being asked last night about claims for the Kinnocks’ three-bedroom Brussels home, where they lived together between 1995 and 2004.
They bought it after Lady Kinnock’s election in 1994, and sold it after Lord Kinnock stood down from the Commission in 2004.
A Brussels estate agent said the house would probably have cost about £120,000 in 1994, and would have doubled in value by the time it was sold.
During his ten years in Brussels, Lord Kinnock automatically received residential allowances totalling £276,962.
And his wife has been claiming the controversial daily attendance allowance, designed to cover the cost of accommodation and subsistence when MEPs are in Brussels and Strasbourg for meetings. But she refused to say how many days she claimed for.
Asked if she claimed the attendance allowance while her husband received his residential allowance, a spokeswoman for the Kinnocks said: ‘Glenys Kinnock claimed the per diem attendance allowance to which she was entitled for each parliamentary day attended. European Commissioners’ residential allowance is paid at 15 per cent of a Commissioner’s salary.’
The European Parliament’s secrecy over expenses means it will not disclose how much Lady Kinnock claimed in daily allowances, although Open Europe estimates it to be £500,000. The Mail on Sunday has not included this in the £10million of salary, automatic allowances and pension.
At present MEPs receive €298 (£270) each day they sign a register at the European Parliament. However, it is open to abuse and in 2004 Austrian MEP Hans-Peter Martin filmed MEPs turning up to sign in early in the morning, only to head straight to the airport without doing any work.
Dr Martin, a former investigative journalist, recorded Lady Kinnock leaving the Parliament building within an hour of signing in on 26 occasions during his two-year investigation.
A Kinnock family spokeswoman said: ‘All payments to Glenys Kinnock, including the salary to which she was entitled as an MEP, were exactly the same as made to all UK MEPs. Staff and office expenses were exactly the same as for all other MEPs.’
The couple have profited by £120,000 on their property in Brussels, and they also own a home in North London
On Lord Kinnock’s income and perks, she said: ‘All of these details are a matter of public record.’
Based on Open Europe’s calculations of the pensions due to the Kinnocks for their work in the EU – shown to the couple and not disputed – they will get a combined annual pension of around £183,000, from five separate pensions.
The think-tank said Lady Kinnock can expect £67,835 a year from two pensions as an MEP: one a £19,370 basic pension and the other £48,465 from the European Parliament’s Additional Voluntary Pension Scheme which sees the taxpayer paying £2 for every £1 put into the pot by MEPs.
Her new ministerial pay package will be used to top up contributions to the basic MEP pension. She is also already claiming a teachers’ pension.
Mr Kinnock is receiving one pension as a former MP of 25 years’ service, thought to amount to £32,000 a year.
He has a second pension for his EU job in Brussels, worth more than £80,000.
Tom McPhail, head of pensions research at financial consultants Hargreaves Lansdown, calculated that Lady Kinnock’s two MEP pensions and Lord Kinnock’s Commission pension would alone cost an ordinary taxpayer £4.4million to buy in cash.
Three homes Kinnocks: The pair also own a home in South Wales
Mr McPhail said: ‘Wow. Not bad for a failed party leader and his wife. But people will find this scale of indulgence on the part of politicians nauseating, especially at a time when British workers are having their pensions cut.’
The Kinnocks have also built up a valuable property portfolio, with homes in London and Wales.
In 1992, they bought a house in Ealing, West London, for £445,000. They sold it in January 2007 for £1,515,000 and bought a smart three-storey property in Islington, North London, for £815,000. They also own a house in Peterston-super-Ely, a village outside Cardiff, thought to be worth £700,000.
Other members of the Kinnock family have also benefited from the Brussels gravy train. Son Stephen’s first job after Cambridge University was as a research assistant to an MEP.
His Danish wife Helle – tipped as a future prime minister of Denmark – sat as an MEP from 1999 to 2004, while the Kinnocks’ daughter Rachel was her mother’s research assistant at the European Parliament. Rachel now works for Gordon Brown in the political unit at No10, paid by the Labour Party.
By Simon Mcgee
14th June 2009
Neil and Glenys Kinnock received more than £10million in pay, allowances and pension entitlements during their time working at the European Union in Brussels.
The astonishing figure can be revealed after a Mail on Sunday investigation into the couple’s lavish lifestyle funded from the public purse.
Lady Kinnock, who was appointed Europe Minister by Gordon Brown this month, was an MEP for 15 years. Her husband, who failed to win a General Election as Labour leader, was an EU Commissioner for ten years until 2004.
Their generous package of salary and perks included:
* A total of £775,000 in wages for Lady Kinnock and £1.85 million for her husband, adding up to £2,625,000.
* Allowances for Lady Kinnock’s staff and office costs of £2.9million.
* A £64,564 ‘entertainment allowance’ for Lord Kinnock.
* A total of five publicly-funded pensions, worth £4.4million, allowing them to retire on £183,000 a year.
* A housing allowance that allowed them both to claim accommodation costs although, as a married couple, they lived in the same house in the Belgian capital between 1995 and 2004.
Now back at the centre of British politics, Lady Kinnock has been elevated to the House of Lords while her husband played a key role in quelling last weekend’s rebellion against Mr Brown.
The Mail on Sunday questioned a spokeswoman for the Kinnocks in detail about the figures, calculated by the think-tank Open Europe. It campaigns for greater transparency in Brussels.
She disputed only one figure – a ‘transition allowance’ Lord Kinnock received on his departure from Brussels, worth £355,143 at today’s exchange rate. She said the true figure was lower, but refused to reveal it.
The European Parliament does not publish a breakdown of expenses that MEPs have to claim, rather than receive automatically, so Open Europe has estimated Lady Kinnock’s travel costs based on the average for MEPs.
These are in addition to her wages and the allowances she was eligible to receive automatically. The estimates are £1,179,482 for travel between Britain and the Continent over 15 years, and £45,777 for travel outside the EU.
Lady Kinnock is entitled to a transition allowance running into tens of thousands of pounds, designed to keep ex-MEPs going until they find new employment, but her ministerial appointment means she will forgo it.
Glenys Kinnock has been elevated to the House of Lords
However, questions were being asked last night about claims for the Kinnocks’ three-bedroom Brussels home, where they lived together between 1995 and 2004.
They bought it after Lady Kinnock’s election in 1994, and sold it after Lord Kinnock stood down from the Commission in 2004.
A Brussels estate agent said the house would probably have cost about £120,000 in 1994, and would have doubled in value by the time it was sold.
During his ten years in Brussels, Lord Kinnock automatically received residential allowances totalling £276,962.
And his wife has been claiming the controversial daily attendance allowance, designed to cover the cost of accommodation and subsistence when MEPs are in Brussels and Strasbourg for meetings. But she refused to say how many days she claimed for.
Asked if she claimed the attendance allowance while her husband received his residential allowance, a spokeswoman for the Kinnocks said: ‘Glenys Kinnock claimed the per diem attendance allowance to which she was entitled for each parliamentary day attended. European Commissioners’ residential allowance is paid at 15 per cent of a Commissioner’s salary.’
The European Parliament’s secrecy over expenses means it will not disclose how much Lady Kinnock claimed in daily allowances, although Open Europe estimates it to be £500,000. The Mail on Sunday has not included this in the £10million of salary, automatic allowances and pension.
At present MEPs receive €298 (£270) each day they sign a register at the European Parliament. However, it is open to abuse and in 2004 Austrian MEP Hans-Peter Martin filmed MEPs turning up to sign in early in the morning, only to head straight to the airport without doing any work.
Dr Martin, a former investigative journalist, recorded Lady Kinnock leaving the Parliament building within an hour of signing in on 26 occasions during his two-year investigation.
A Kinnock family spokeswoman said: ‘All payments to Glenys Kinnock, including the salary to which she was entitled as an MEP, were exactly the same as made to all UK MEPs. Staff and office expenses were exactly the same as for all other MEPs.’
The couple have profited by £120,000 on their property in Brussels, and they also own a home in North London
On Lord Kinnock’s income and perks, she said: ‘All of these details are a matter of public record.’
Based on Open Europe’s calculations of the pensions due to the Kinnocks for their work in the EU – shown to the couple and not disputed – they will get a combined annual pension of around £183,000, from five separate pensions.
The think-tank said Lady Kinnock can expect £67,835 a year from two pensions as an MEP: one a £19,370 basic pension and the other £48,465 from the European Parliament’s Additional Voluntary Pension Scheme which sees the taxpayer paying £2 for every £1 put into the pot by MEPs.
Her new ministerial pay package will be used to top up contributions to the basic MEP pension. She is also already claiming a teachers’ pension.
Mr Kinnock is receiving one pension as a former MP of 25 years’ service, thought to amount to £32,000 a year.
He has a second pension for his EU job in Brussels, worth more than £80,000.
Tom McPhail, head of pensions research at financial consultants Hargreaves Lansdown, calculated that Lady Kinnock’s two MEP pensions and Lord Kinnock’s Commission pension would alone cost an ordinary taxpayer £4.4million to buy in cash.
Three homes Kinnocks: The pair also own a home in South Wales
Mr McPhail said: ‘Wow. Not bad for a failed party leader and his wife. But people will find this scale of indulgence on the part of politicians nauseating, especially at a time when British workers are having their pensions cut.’
The Kinnocks have also built up a valuable property portfolio, with homes in London and Wales.
In 1992, they bought a house in Ealing, West London, for £445,000. They sold it in January 2007 for £1,515,000 and bought a smart three-storey property in Islington, North London, for £815,000. They also own a house in Peterston-super-Ely, a village outside Cardiff, thought to be worth £700,000.
Other members of the Kinnock family have also benefited from the Brussels gravy train. Son Stephen’s first job after Cambridge University was as a research assistant to an MEP.
His Danish wife Helle – tipped as a future prime minister of Denmark – sat as an MEP from 1999 to 2004, while the Kinnocks’ daughter Rachel was her mother’s research assistant at the European Parliament. Rachel now works for Gordon Brown in the political unit at No10, paid by the Labour Party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
