Strange Politics

Germany has a big problem: pensions. We don't know who among the young ones will in old age be able to live off the pensions he or she gets.

The German system for pensions works like this (and I have to explain this first, because otherwise you won't get the point of the whole problem): Those who are still working give a certain amount of the money they earn to some kind of insurance company. This company pays the people already too old to work (the age at which most people start receiving a pension is between 60 and 65 currently) with this very money. This is called "Generationenvertrag" (Contract of the Generations) by the German politicians.

The first problem with this is that this "Generationenvertrag" is not a contract as a such. A contract is signed by both parties - and none of the young people today has signed the contract. We do not get asked "Do you want to contribute to the contract so someone in 40 years will contribute to it to pay your pension?" when we start working. The moment we have a job and make money (above a certain amount), we contribute to this contract. We don't have a choice. Sure, a lot of us would still do it, but then they'd be doing it out of their own free will, not because the laws force them to.

The second problem is that when the system was created a lot of people did not even reach the age of 65 or - if they did - did only live for a couple of more years. And there was a lot of work for the younger people, so hardly anybody was unemployed (except for those who really didn't want to work). Today people usually reach an age between 80 and 90 - and work is getting sparse. So even those who are still young don't have the chance to work continuously for 45 years or so (that's the span usually calculated for people to work before they get a pension - only very few people went to university then).

The pension system in Germany is at stake - it actually has been at stake for quite some time now, but finally politicians have realized they have to react (well, their pensions still are safe). There's less and less children around and the people get older and older. Sooner or later it won't be one old person being sustained by five or so young ones, it might end up with one young person sustaining two or more old ones.

The first reaction of the politicians has been to rise the age at which people receive a pension (from 65 to 67). The joke (in a very un-funny way) about this is that a lot of people in Germany above the age of 55 have problems in finding a new job. So instead of managing to make all people work till 65 (currently), we've got a lot of people who have to quit working early. Why do politicians expect it's going to change that much during the next thirty or so years?

Some politicians claim that the demand of older workers will increase simply because, with less children being born, the companies will need older workers to fill the gaps. That's all good and fine, but will they really? We already need a lot less workers to do the same amount of work than we did about twenty years ago. Machines have taken over whole production processes. Work is passed on to countries with less wealth, where people will work for a lot less. This won't stop, just because politicians want it to (unless, of course, they find a way to create laws against it).

I will have to work until 67 (at least) and due to the fact that I went to university and tried to work as a freelance editor for a while, I've been forced to build up reserves for old age anyway. As I'm currently learning how to be a web-master (and I'm quite good at it), I will have to go on learning about all the new things for the rest of my working life. But how many people are ready to change their profession at the age of 50 or 60 simply because they can't go on doing it (for example for reasons of health)?

Our whole society is going to change massively. Those who make good money can afford to stop working earlier (even though their jobs usually can be done until 67 or later). Those who really can't afford to stop working earlier on the other hand will often have to stop working at 60 or so, loosing part of their pension and being poor even after decades of hard work. Yes, I know there's a lot of countries out there where people fare worse when they don't have a lot money, but still, it's highly unfair. It's not impossible that this will lead to unrest and rebellion sooner or later - and that's what I'm really afraid of. I will probably have enough money to live modestly in old age - as long as nothing unsuspected happens to me (unless the unsuspected thing is me finally being published and landing some best-sellers, in this case: bring it on) -, but a lot of people won't. They're bound to be pissed off somehow.

And it's not the politicians who will suffer when they're getting pensions, because even after six months as a politician, you're getting a much higher pension than most people in this country. Maybe I should be looking for a political career already ... at least for around 50 or so. Then I can quit working early and will have a lot of money at my disposal.

Maybe that's the solution to this problem: every person in Germany serves as a politician for at least six months and we'll all get a good pension...

The Real Scooby Doo

I'm a fan of "Scooby Doo", always have been. When I was a kid I used to watch the animated series over and over, whenever it was shown on TV.

So when a couple of years ago a real-life movie was made, I was interested. But as it got very bad ratings, I didn't watch it at the movies. Later on, when it had been out on DVD, I bought it quite cheap (DVDs get quite cheap about 6 or 7 months after they've come out). I like the movie - and I like the second one as well.

Admittedly, the characters have been changed slightly, but that's to be expected. The movies don't deal with the young adults (about 17 to 19) as the series did (and the new series does now), they deal with a group that's already famous. So unlike the series that's mostly for kids (and I've already said more than once that I don't have a problem with watching series 'for kids'), the movies give the characters a new depth.

Maybe that's the reason why many fans (who, like me, probably have grown up with the series) don't like the movies. They show Fred, Daphne, Velma and Shaggy as rather different people (even though admittedly Shaggy and Scooby are more or less like they were in the series) than the ones we've seen. They're more ... human, you could say. They've got doubts, they've got their little vanities, they don't get on as well any more as they did when they were younger. That's only to be expected - and it happens to a lot of famous groups in the 'real life' as well. Yes, at first it is hard to watch this - the way the group breaks up at the beginning of the first movie and the way their name is demolished in the second. But in the end they always come out stronger, which is something good from my point of view.

I love the new animated series which shows the Scooby Gang just as the old ones did (and it's a lot better than some of the spin-offs in the eighties were). The only difference there is the new technology - which gives the 'ghosts' a lot of new abilities. But I also love the movies, because they give the characters a new depth.

Playing a man

This post is closely related to my last one, the one about the game "Oblivion". While writing about my first impressions of this game, I also stated that I created a male Dark Elf as my alter ego in this world. Now that I think about it - my characters in role-playing games and other games in which I can choose whom to play with quite often are male.

In "Oblivion" there's no real reason for this. Males and females of most races aren't that different, so playing a female character isn't any more difficult than playing a male one - or so I guess, I haven't tried it yet. Somehow I just quite often end up with a man, even though I'm a feminist normally.

It's not that I won't celebrate the fact that I'm a woman (though probably not during a 'certain time' of the month), it's just that I find it more relaxing to be a sword-wielding warrior while said warrior is male. If I could make myself play a mage for once, I would, maybe, create a female character for it. Has this been programmed into my very soul by society? I don't think so, because I've read about a lot of men who, in role-playing games, prefer female characters.

So, maybe creating a character of the opposite sex has nothing to do with society, but is a logical result of wanting to play such a game. In the fantasy world of a role-playing game I can be whomever I want and, as I'm a woman every day of my life, I find it fascinating to be a man at least in those fantasy worlds. Nevertheless I would answer "No, thank you" if my fairy godmother offered me to change my gender.

What I find most amusing about playing a man - apart from 'undressing' my character to the underwear while fighting some zombies and then watching from third-person perspective -, is that I can act as idiotic as I want without wondering whether I'm that much of an idiot in real life as well. After all, it's just a game and I'm playing a man...

Oblivion

Here's something new about my weakness for games. I started playing "Oblivion" a couple of days ago. I didn't get far yet - it's a complicated role-playing game with a vast, very picturesque world ... and I had a lot of other things to do. (See "I've got a new job!" for details.) Nevertheless I think I'll like it there.

Okay, the first thing I realized - and had heard about before, anyway - is that sometimes the translation, especially the sub-titles, does not work the way it should. That's bad, but I can live with it (and by now there are mods out there to fix it). The next thing I realized was just how realistic the surrounding was (that was while I was escaping the dungeons of Imperial City). I shot an arrow at a hanging bucket and it swung realistically. I'm more of a hands-on person in role-playing games, I like to go into close-quarter combat, but during the escape (which is the game's tutorial) I used the bow as well.

(Quite some time later I cursed the realism of the world when I climbed off my horse and the creature ran away because there were wolves around. I ran after it and - after a long and fruitless search and the demise of one of those wolves - loaded up the last save game, because I was sick of searching for the dumb animal and didn't have the money to buy a new one. Had anyone else seen me, they probably would have found it amusing, both in the game world and in the real one. I was sitting in front of the pc, my character sprinting up- and downhill through high grass and flowers with the sword drawn, and swearing under my breath. Had he been able to, my character would probably have sworn as well.)

I'm still fascinated by the mere freedom I have in the game. There's probably at least one hundred ruins around, each of them full of enemies to defeat (they are always adjusted to the player's current level). There's flowers you can pick (and use to create potions and poisons). There's loads of people around, each of them leading their own life. While I usually have at least one objective, I can decide when and mostly even how to accomplish it.

What else can I tell you? I'll start by telling you how the game starts. I was in a cell - I've still got no idea what kind of crime my character (a male Dark Elf called 'Cay') had committed, but while I was listening to the guy in the cell opposite to mine, I felt the deep desire to go over and shut him up forever. I've read that if I become a member of a secret brotherhood I'll actually be allowed to do it ... and it's tempting. Anyway, I was in one cell, he was in another, so he was safe from me. Then, suddenly, the emperor himself and his bodyguards entered the cosy cell I was in - because, as it turned out, it was the gateway to their secret escape tunnels. So, really, what do you think I would do after they'd passed through (and the emperor had stated he'd seen me in a dream before)? Of course I followed them.

A couple of fights later - most of the tutorial, which is very well done - I witnessed the emperor's death and had my first real mission: to take his amulet to a priory not far away. After I'd gone to the priory and spoken to a guy named Jauffre, I was on my way to another city, to find the last living son of the late emperor. A fast career, wouldn't you say? From a criminal waiting for execution to a man trusted to find the next emperor and help him to ascent to the throne. And I'd gotten my horse. Well, it wasn't my horse as a such, it was just led to me by one of the brothers there. But as he was dead when I came back with the emperor's son (whose name is Martin), I consider the animal my possession anyway.

By the time I came back, I had travelled to the demon realm called "Oblivion" for the first time, I'd killed my first demons and I had more or less freed the city of Kvatch. I was all set to become some sort of hero. A little while later I even became one of his bodyguards. Yes, I'm a blade now and it's not bad, either - they get a katana and I just love katanas.

The strange thing I've found out about myself while playing games in which I can decide whether to be good or bad is that I tend to be good. In "Jedi Knight", for example, I always took care of not killing innocent bystanders (even though I would have loved to gain the possibility to shoot those Dark Side of the Force Lightning Bolts from my hands, just like the Emperor). In role-playing games I usually create some sort of fighter - I don't like playing a pure mage, even though I learn a few spells, provided the game mechanics allow it for a fighter to use magic ("Oblivion" does) - and even though I'd like to, I've never played a thief or an assassin (except for the three parts of "Thief" in which, logically, you play a thief, because that's the point of the game; but even there I tried not to kill anybody). In "Oblivion" I will at least train my abilities in alchemy, because being able to create your own potions and poisons is quite useful.

I often wonder about this, because I surely can imagine to be a bad person. I'm sarcastic and sometimes have a very negative view of the world around me. But somewhere under this person I seem to like 'playing by the rules' and being nice to people. And, as you can see from the remark about the guy in the other cell, I'm very able to wish for somebody's death ... but only after the person has seriously pissed my off.

So I’ll go on playing warriors and going for close-quarter combat - with a little magic on the side - and I’ll go on being a good guy ... at least until I find out why I was in that cell anyway.

I've got a new job!

Good news fist, today ... I've got a new job, at least for a couple of weeks. It's more or less safe for three month. Afterwards? I can't say now.

But I don't mind this uncertainty, I'm more than prepared to go 'job-hopping' for the time I need to finish my education as a web-master. Afterwards I will search for a job that's safer on the long run.

Nevertheless I might have less time to write new posts now, after all I've got eight hours of work each day, plus one or two hours of learning. I start on Wednesday, so I'll have some more time left before the work-life has me back.

Thank God, I'm not alone!

I am not alone. This very happy realisation has dawned on me today. I was reading the blog of 'Girl with a one-track mind' and suddenly there was someone - a very sexy and sexual active someone - who hates shopping for clothes just as much as I do.

I know that most people expect women to be naturally tuned to shopping for clothes, shoes and accessories for as long as their money holds. And I probably won't lie if I tell you that most women (at least in the so called 'Industrial' countries) really are. Up till now I thought I was the only woman around who despised shopping for clothes. And I was willing to just blame it on the fact that I'm overweight and find it hard to find good-looking clothes for my size.

Today I realized that any women not the preferred shape of the fashion shops these days has a lot of problems with buying clothes - and considering how few women these days can wear Size 0 (oh, oh, here comes my crusade again) there's bound to be a lot of those around.

Fact is, not all women love shopping for clothes. Yes, we all need to wear something, we all want to look respectable - which more or less means wearing something that can loosely be defined as 'fashionable'. And as fashion for women changes faster than that for men, we are forced to 'update' our clothes more often.

But buying clothes you need is one thing, buying clothes just because you love the process of buying is something else entirely.

I know someone who loves shopping for clothes, but I do not. I basically wear the same clothes anyway (my style could be described as 'casual'), so I just pick up clothes when I really need to.

'Killerspiele' Update

Here's another update on the "Killerspiele"-discussion.

While surfing the web this Sunday, I found a pre-formulated letter of complaint with which adult gamers were asked to complain to their representative. After all the whole discussion about "Killerspiele" only means one thing: those who actually have the right to own and use those types of games usually described with the word get discriminated against. As we are not all adolescents or children - and thus have the right to vote as well as the right to play those games - why should we not exercise our rights as voters and write to our representative to show him we do not feel represented the way we should?

I'm going to sent this letter ... it's not insulting or anything, so the politicians can hardly complain - and if every representative in our Bundestag gets at least 10 or so of those letters, that'll be over 6.000, enough to show we mean business.