DM's Beatles forums

Other forums => Current Affairs => Topic started by: alexis on December 29, 2009, 01:06:26 AM

Title: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: alexis on December 29, 2009, 01:06:26 AM
What with all the new security measures instituted after this latest bombing attempt?

As of now, I heard that you can't get out of your seat for the last hour of a flight, can't have a laptop open during that last hour, and have to listen to Oasis for the last hour also. OK, I made that last one up, but only the last one. It seems that only people who really really need to travel are going to put up with all that hassle.

What do you folks think?
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on December 29, 2009, 01:24:39 AM
Well, there's always the train!

Arlo Guthrie /City of New Orleans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfxoM6trtZE#normal)
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: JimmyMcCullochFan on December 29, 2009, 04:12:05 AM
or you could be cool and take the bus like I did this past holiday season.
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: emmi_luvs_beatles on December 29, 2009, 05:22:27 AM
We just flew from Minneapolis Minnesota to Clearwater Florida and it really wasn't that terrible of security. Now international flying might be a different story :P
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on December 29, 2009, 05:44:18 AM
Now international flying might be a different story :P

That it will! 

Air Canada announced today that passengers are limited to one carry-on item, all electronics are banned, they must remain in their seats and not access their carry-on luggage during the final hour of flight, and passengers may not hold any item in their lap during this period.


Flew in from Miami Beach BOAC
Didn't get to bed last night
On the way the paper bag was on my knee
Man, I had a dreadful flight



Just throw up on the passenger next to you.
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on December 29, 2009, 05:57:13 AM
Air Canada Travel Advisory: 

http://www.aircanada.com/en/news/trav_adv/091226.html (http://www.aircanada.com/en/news/trav_adv/091226.html)
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: Bobber on December 29, 2009, 08:56:22 AM
It seems that only people who really really need to travel are going to put up with all that hassle.

This may solve some environment issues.
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: Joost on December 29, 2009, 03:40:58 PM
This year I flew from the national airport in Amman, Jordan and there was hardly any security at all. You know you have to put your suitcases in that x-ray machine? It was unmanned for a few minutes and nobody was watching the screen while they just kept the suitcases coming. The guy that checked the passports? He only stamped them and didn't even bother to check the names or photos. And I saw a guy board a plane while he was holding an unsealed bottle of water in his hand.
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: Hello Goodbye on December 30, 2009, 03:37:58 AM
We already have to take off our shoes and put them in the bin.  Will we now have to take off our underpants and put them in too? 
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: alexis on December 30, 2009, 03:52:35 AM
We already have to take off our shoes and put them in the bin.  Will we now have to take off our underpants and put them in too? 

There's a joke in there about "hot pants" somewhere, but I'm too tired to figure it out ...  ha2ha
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: tkitna on December 31, 2009, 06:35:34 AM
Plane crashes and being killed by terrorists seems to be a bigger hassle to me so i'll gladly accept the pat down before boarding.
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: Joost on January 03, 2010, 04:31:56 PM
Plane crashes and being killed by terrorists seems to be a bigger hassle to me so i'll gladly accept the pat down before boarding.

I agree. When I was flying from Jordan I was more nervous that I usually am on a plane because security was a joke. But everyone I know that has flown to the US complains that it's just gotten out of hand at the US airports, and that they're all completely paranoid. A friend of mine was interrogated for half an hour in San Francisco because he didn't know how much money he had on his bank account.
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: Kevin on January 04, 2010, 04:05:20 PM
The lowest estimates in the War on Terror have 100,000 dead civilian Iraqis, 15,000 civilian Afghans and still counting. If the best they can do back to us is inconvenience our travel plans then it seems to me we're in credit.
War is hell.
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: alexis on January 04, 2010, 06:53:31 PM
The lowest estimates in the War on Terror have 100,000 dead civilian Iraqis, 15,000 civilian Afghans and still counting. If the best they can do back to us is inconvenience our travel plans then it seems to me we're in credit.
War is hell.

Yes it is. Don't forget roughly 3,000 civilians who died on 9-11. It's not all just travel inconvenience.
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: Joost on January 04, 2010, 09:16:18 PM
Yes it is. Don't forget roughly 3,000 civilians who died on 9-11. It's not all just travel inconvenience.

First of all: I don't want to downsize how horrible the 9-11 attacks were the slightest bit. They were horrible. No discussion there. And any reasonable actions that can be taken to prevent that from happening again should obviously be taken.

But you've got to put things in perspective.

Every year, about 435,000 Americans die because of smoking. 111,909 because of overweight and obesity. 85,000 because of alcohol abuse. 75,000 because of infectious diseases. 55,000 because of toxins. 43,000 in motor vehicle collisions. 16,586 commit suicide. 10,801 people get murdered with firearms. 776 die in accidents with firearms. 20,000 die because of sexually transmitted infections. 17,000 die of drug abuse every year. And 90 get hit by lightning. And how many people got killed by foreign attacks on American soil? 3,000 in the last 68 years (since Pearl Harbor). So that's an average of less than 50 a year in the last 68 years. So purely statistically speaking, your chances of getting killed by a foreign terrorist in the USA are extremely low. Not even half as high as getting killed by lightning.

Which, once again, doesn't mean that America doesn't have has the right to do whatever they can to prevent something like 9-11 from happening again.

But how are things going with the "War on tobacco"? Any progress yet in "The war on obesity"? How about the "The war on alcohol"? Any news on "The war on firearms"? Or that "War on lightning"?

And yet, the "War on terror" was important enough to invade two countries and pretty much abolish the right to personal privacy. It's mostly mass hysteria and stimulated paranoia that's shamelessly being exploited. And you can never have any guarantees anyway. The attacks in London and Madrid weren't even on airplanes or airports.
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: alexis on January 05, 2010, 03:08:23 AM
First of all: I don't want to downsize how horrible the 9-11 attacks were the slightest bit. They were horrible. No discussion there. And any reasonable actions that can be taken to prevent that from happening again should obviously be taken.

But you've got to put things in perspective.

Every year, about 435,000 Americans die because of smoking. 111,909 because of overweight and obesity. 85,000 because of alcohol abuse. 75,000 because of infectious diseases. 55,000 because of toxins. 43,000 in motor vehicle collisions. 16,586 commit suicide. 10,801 people get murdered with firearms. 776 die in accidents with firearms. 20,000 die because of sexually transmitted infections. 17,000 die of drug abuse every year. And 90 get hit by lightning. And how many people got killed by foreign attacks on American soil? 3,000 in the last 68 years (since Pearl Harbor). So that's an average of less than 50 a year in the last 68 years. So purely statistically speaking, your chances of getting killed by a foreign terrorist in the USA are extremely low. Not even half as high as getting killed by lightning.

Which, once again, doesn't mean that America doesn't have has the right to do whatever they can to prevent something like 9-11 from happening again.


But how are things going with the "War on tobacco"? Any progress yet in "The war on obesity"? How about the "The war on alcohol"? Any news on "The war on firearms"? Or that "War on lightning"?

And yet, the "War on terror" was important enough to invade two countries and pretty much abolish the right to personal privacy. It's mostly mass hysteria and stimulated paranoia that's shamelessly being exploited. And you can never have any guarantees anyway. The attacks in London and Madrid weren't even on airplanes or airports.


I think the problem is that governments (plural, it's not just the US, is it?) don't know how to prevent this from happening again. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When you're a big government, and you're attacked militarily, everything looks like a military target. I don't think it's "exploitation", I think it's generally not having a clue as to what else to do.

If you ask me (didn't you?), we're doing nothing but creating 2 martyrs for every one we actually capture or kill; many more for every new set of villagers we drone-kill. The only way out of this I see is to give the potential bombers an alternative that looks more attractive than martyrdom. If they had a course of action open to them that involved bringing security and freedom from want to their loved ones, and if martyrdom put that at risk, wouldn't they choose another option? iPods for peace? Maybe not quite, but I think the only way out of this is to convince these people to educate their kids in something besides "theological studies". How about some engineering, or medicine, or construction skills?

People aren't stupid, and it's rare that they act against what they perceive to be in their best interest - IMO, even bizarre behavior can usually be explained by examining the incentives and penalties as understood by those involved. As long as martyrdom looks better than the alternatives (hey, the way it stands now, their families are often elevated socially for having raised such a "hero"), that's what people are going to do.

http://www.threecupsoftea.com/ (http://www.threecupsoftea.com/)

Just my two shekels. How do you see an end to the madness  :)
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: Joost on January 05, 2010, 08:32:03 AM
If you ask me (didn't you?)
It's an open forum, so I'm asking anyone who feels like answering. :)

we're doing nothing but creating 2 martyrs for every one we actually capture or kill; many more for every new set of villagers we drone-kill. The only way out of this I see is to give the potential bombers an alternative that looks more attractive than martyrdom. If they had a course of action open to them that involved bringing security and freedom from want to their loved ones, and if martyrdom put that at risk, wouldn't they choose another option? iPods for peace? Maybe not quite, but I think the only way out of this is to convince these people to educate their kids in something besides "theological studies". How about some engineering, or medicine, or construction skills?
Amen! :)

I think that the biggest mistake that the Western countries made is that they underestimated the cultural differences between the West and the Middle East.
1. They assumed that they would be welcomed as liberators in the Middle East once they'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. What I think they failed to realize is that people will never feel free as long as they're controled by people who don't understand their religion, their traditional values and their culture. And if given the choice, I think anyone would rather be oppressed by their own people than by foreign forces.
2. They underestimated the decisiveness of their enemies. I don't think there are many Americans or Europeans who'd be willing to blow themselves up for their homeland. But if you don't have much to live for anyway and you firmly believe that you will be rewarded in the afterlife if you die a martyr, it's an entirely different issue. So you're never going to solve anything here by simply killing more people or blowing stuff op. Cause like you said, for every person you kill there's a family, a tribe, a village that's going to be pretty p*ssed off. And if you can't kill your enemy, you'd better try to give it less of a reason to be your enemy. That might seem like "chickening out" or something, but realistically, I think it's really the only sollution. We're all stuck on the same planet so we'll have to learn to live with each other.
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: Kevin on January 06, 2010, 10:12:11 AM
Sorry Alexis - my post was a bit crude and I didn't mean to diminish the loss of life in New York (or Bali, Kenya, Istanbul, Madrid, London.) Just sometimes people (not your good self) don't seem tio make connections with what is happening and the actions of our governments (and, being in the democracies we so so noisily tout to the rest of the world, for which we each as individulas bare (bear?) a share of the responsibility for.)
Love watching the Rocky movie set in Afghanistan, when the muhjahadin (sp) are the good guys and the Soviets the baddies. 1984 and newsspeak is alive and well.
Britain solved the Northern Ireland problem by talking to the enemy.
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: alexis on January 07, 2010, 04:05:49 AM
Sorry Alexis - my post was a bit crude and I didn't mean to diminish the loss of life in New York (or Bali, Kenya, Istanbul, Madrid, London.) Just sometimes people (not your good self) don't seem tio make connections with what is happening and the actions of our governments (and, being in the democracies we so so noisily tout to the rest of the world, for which we each as individulas bare (bear?) a share of the responsibility for.)
Love watching the Rocky movie set in Afghanistan, when the muhjahadin (sp) are the good guys and the Soviets the baddies. 1984 and newsspeak is alive and well.
Britain solved the Northern Ireland problem by talking to the enemy.


No problem at this end, Kevin thanks!

I saw this movie, or at least the end of it, a few weeks ago. It was a dramatization of the last days of arpatheid in South Africa. Apparently nothing got done until the two sides sat down and spoke, imagine that. Seems the one guy that was able to get these two sides in the same room was a mid-level manager at one of the diamond firms. Though his company's sympathies might at first glance seem to be with support of the apartheid regime, they were farsighted enough to see that change was going to come either in a controlled fashion or through catastrophic revolution, and they wanted to control the direction (I wonder if Rhodesia had started it's chaotic downward spiral by then?).

Anyway, in the epilogue to the movie they interviewed the actual guy. Very unassuming, unprepossessing sort of guy, hard to believe he had the cojones of steel to force these two groups together. Made me wonder who else I see every day and don't think much about, who might be just as strong inside ...

Anyway (again!), in the epilogue, they said that when Northern Ireland and England started their peace process, they sent folks down to South Africa to see how it was done.

I can see that approach ("talking"  :o ) working for Palestine and Israel. I have a harder time imagining it when not all parties are nation states, as in the case of Islamic extremist/terrorists vs the West. Who would do the talking?

Just my two cents,  ;sorry for the rambling, it's late/I'm exhausted!
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: Kevin on January 07, 2010, 12:49:32 PM
I can see that approach ("talking"  :o ) working for Palestine and Israel. I have a harder time imagining it when not all parties are nation states, as in the case of Islamic extremist/terrorists vs the West. Who would do the talking?

Just my two cents,  ;sorry for the rambling, it's late/I'm exhausted!

Cheers Alexis. Always enjoy our chats.

We would have to talk to the Taleban. Get the Shia's talking to the Sunni's. Israel must talk to Hammas.
We solved Northern Ireland by power sharing - guys that would have killed each other ten years ago sit together in power now. (though bare in mind that many terrorists/freedom fighters walked free. Think of our reaction to the Lockerbie release.)

I think we managed to convince them that they had more to gain by peace than war. God bless Game Theory. And they were people divided by culture, ethnicity, allegance, religion, in some cases language,with a history of violence and animosity going back centuries. I can't see any obvious reason why it can't work in those other places.
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: alexis on January 08, 2010, 04:18:55 AM
Cheers Alexis. Always enjoy our chats.

We would have to talk to the Taleban. Get the Shia's talking to the Sunni's. Israel must talk to Hammas.
We solved Northern Ireland by power sharing - guys that would have killed each other ten years ago sit together in power now. (though bare in mind that many terrorists/freedom fighters walked free. Think of our reaction to the Lockerbie release.)

I think we managed to convince them that they had more to gain by peace than war. God bless Game Theory. And they were people divided by culture, ethnicity, allegance, religion, in some cases language,with a history of violence and animosity going back centuries. I can't see any obvious reason why it can't work in those other places.

Game Theory - perfect when both sides are rationale. When that's not the case though ... gee, I wonder if scientists have developed a behavioral model for that? Can it even be done? I know,  maybe it can, by combining Game Theory prinicples with Chaos Theory? "The Fractal Analysis of the Al Qaeda Problem ("Eyes Only!)  :D
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: Kevin on January 08, 2010, 09:41:18 AM
Game Theory - perfect when both sides are rationale. When that's not the case though ... gee, I wonder if scientists have developed a behavioral model for that? Can it even be done? I know,  maybe it can, by combining Game Theory prinicples with Chaos Theory? "The Fractal Analysis of the Al Qaeda Problem ("Eyes Only!)  :D
I think we are all too easily convinced that our enemies are innocent populations led by irrational nutters. But that's only from our point of view.
Most of these countries, North Korea, Iran, Iraq (before), Serbia (before), Lybia, Cuba etc have all been portrayed as such.
Yet all these nations, like The Taleban now who (as they did against the Soviets) face an enemy with an economic and military power vastly superior to their own. And most have played very clever games of brinkmanship with the US, who has only been able to remove them by actually invading. They play the game most advantageous to them. (of course, sometimes they make mistakes (as do we). Game Theory doesn't mean everyone always wins.)
I don't believe any of these nations or organisations are run by (or all the important decisions are made by) irrational people, and it is dangerous to dismiss them as so. They are heads of regimes, part of huge military complexes.
Nth Korea is portrayed as a nutter state. Yet it is a poor country faced by the US, South Korea and Japan. It maintains a huge miliary machine, has developed nuclear weapons (we have them , does that make us nutters?) , with many people in the regime with huge vested interests in it's survival and frequently forces the issue with daring bits of diplomatic brinkmanship while avoiding actual conflict (which it knows it would ultimately loose.)
I think to always dismiss your enemy as irrational because he acts in a manner or of a motive alien to you is wrong, and dangerous. If game Theory is true (and it seems to be) you are automatically at a disadvantage. He is more likely to calculate your next move (because he believes you will act rationally) than you will his (because you believe him to be acting irrationally, therefore unpredictably.)
An oppenent will always tend to do the thing they see as the most advantageous to themselves. The trick is to figure out what that is.
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: alexis on January 09, 2010, 04:39:06 AM
I think we are all too easily convinced that our enemies are innocent populations led by irrational nutters. But that's only from our point of view.
Most of these countries, North Korea, Iran, Iraq (before), Serbia (before), Lybia, Cuba etc have all been portrayed as such.
Yet all these nations, like The Taleban now who (as they did against the Soviets) face an enemy with an economic and military power vastly superior to their own. And most have played very clever games of brinkmanship with the US, who has only been able to remove them by actually invading. They play the game most advantageous to them. (of course, sometimes they make mistakes (as do we). Game Theory doesn't mean everyone always wins.)
I don't believe any of these nations or organisations are run by (or all the important decisions are made by) irrational people, and it is dangerous to dismiss them as so. They are heads of regimes, part of huge military complexes.
Nth Korea is portrayed as a nutter state. Yet it is a poor country faced by the US, South Korea and Japan. It maintains a huge miliary machine, has developed nuclear weapons (we have them , does that make us nutters?) , with many people in the regime with huge vested interests in it's survival and frequently forces the issue with daring bits of diplomatic brinkmanship while avoiding actual conflict (which it knows it would ultimately loose.)
I think to always dismiss your enemy as irrational because he acts in a manner or of a motive alien to you is wrong, and dangerous. If game Theory is true (and it seems to be) you are automatically at a disadvantage. He is more likely to calculate your next move (because he believes you will act rationally) than you will his (because you believe him to be acting irrationally, therefore unpredictably.)
An oppenent will always tend to do the thing they see as the most advantageous to themselves. The trick is to figure out what that is.

Very interesting and thought provoking as always, Kevin!  :D

Considering this idea of yours for the moment: "...An oppenent will always tend to do the thing they see as the most advantageous to themselves. The trick is to figure out what that is.". The implication here and in the rest of your post seems to be that negotiation is always possible, even desirable.

Though I like the sound of that, and tend to agree offhand ...  thinking about it some more makes me question whether that is always true. What if the "other" organization is very rational, but truly their only goal is - oh, let's say just for the sake of discussion - to rid the planet every one who doesn't agree with them?

Now it may be that Al Qaeda and/or the "militant Islamists" who claim this as their raison d'etre are actually just using this as a foil for other more "negotiable" goals. But for the sake of discussion here, imagine if that were true - that there was a large, well-organized, well-financed group whose entire reason for forming themselves and existing was to kill all people of a certain characteristic - Christian, Jew, Black, etc. ... and they were very successful at maintaining a steady supply of "soldiers" ready to commit suicide to get this done.

Rational? ... possibly. But does Game Theory have value here in finding a mutually acceptable outcome? Is there anything "negotiable"? I'm not so sure there.


Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: I_Will on January 21, 2010, 07:07:15 PM
I know this thread has evolved into a political discussion, but I just wanted to add that recently I've flown in/out of Philly and Orlando airports and the security was not any different than it has been for the past couple of years.
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: Jane on January 21, 2010, 09:22:28 PM
I know this thread has evolved into a political discussion, but I just wanted to add that recently I've flown in/out of Philly and Orlando airports and the security was not any different than it has been for the past couple of years.

I also think so. The only difference is that the British are more strict about the luggage.You can`t have two bags as handluggage with you, even if one bag is your not so large lady`s bag. You have to push it into your other bag. And this other bag is not to be large, it is to fit the size demonstrated at the airport. However sometimes they forget to check it all, but to be on the safe side it is recommended to follow the instructions.
Some British customs officials are also too demanding, they can even ask you some questions, like what do you know about Shakespeare? This is beyond me...
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: alexis on January 21, 2010, 11:47:03 PM
I also think so. The only difference is that the British are more strict about the luggage.You can`t have two bags as handluggage with you, even if one bag is your not so large lady`s bag. You have to push it into your other bag. And this other bag is not to be large, it is to fit the size demonstrated at the airport. However sometimes they forget to check it all, but to be on the safe side it is recommended to follow the instructions.
Some British customs officials are also too demanding, they can even ask you some questions, like what do you know about Shakespeare? This is beyond me...

I think this is a page out of the Israeli Ben Gurion airport book. I've heard that they use human interaction much more extensively than other western countries to intercept bad guys trying to get on a plane. They're trained to spot facial expressions, mannerisms, inconsitencies, etc. that correlate with people who may have more than a safe trip on their mind. I've heard/read where they will do things like ask to look at the photos you took "on vacation" and describe the people, what you ate at the restaurant, etc.

They do seem to be less protective of privacy and "civil rights" as we call them here, but on the other hand, not too many bad things have happened on planes leaving that airport.

I wouldn't do well if asked about Shakespear, I would hope they would ask me about Beatles!!
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: Jane on January 22, 2010, 10:11:17 PM
I didn`t know about such things, Alexis. Now I see why they do it.
I mentioned the case which I witnessed. It was my friend. So when she was asked about Shakespear, she immediately started reciting TO BE OR NOT TO BE THAT IS THE QUESTION... and she went on and on. It even was funny. But how could one laugh in such circumstances? I went after her and was spared the experience. But certainly one is not supposed to speak English if one goes to Britain. Why should he or she? It is not obligatory. By no means.
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: Jane on January 22, 2010, 10:25:37 PM
I have received the Schengen visa and I am going to Western Europe next week.
First to Belgium. Do you know any specific rules for Belgium customs? Any advice for my stay in Belgium, what would you recommend me to see there or where to go?
I am certain to travel to The Netherlands, to Amsterdam. Any recommendations concerning Amsterdam? I would appreciate it if Bobber could help me in this respect. Thank you in advance. And, yes, what is the weather like as a rule in late January- early February?  :)
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: alexis on January 23, 2010, 03:27:50 AM
I have received the Schengen visa and I am going to Western Europe next week.
First to Belgium. Do you know any specific rules for Belgium customs? Any advice for my stay in Belgium, what would you recommend me to see there or where to go?
I am certain to travel to The Netherlands, to Amsterdam. Any recommendations concerning Amsterdam? I would appreciate it if Bobber could help me in this respect. Thank you in advance. And, yes, what is the weather like as a rule in late January- early February?  :)


Hi Jane - When I was younger I visited Amsterdam, but I would not recommend you go to the parts of the city I did, because ...



Good Girls Don't by THE KNACK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc3KXwd8ZWQ#normal)
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: Kevin on January 23, 2010, 10:34:38 AM
Hi Jane. Amsterdam is nice. Get a hotel away from the centre on a nice Rent a bike. Visit the red light area in daytime/evening for a laugh (it's seedy at night), have the best chips you'll ever have on The Dam. Book an excursion ticket and use the canal boats to visit all the musuems - especially The Van Gogh. Visit Anne Franks house. It's a great city just for walking and getting lost. It'll be wet and cold.
Brugge is the place to go in Belgium - again canals etc. No offence to Belgians, but in Britain Belgium is seen as a place that Britain made to fight its wars with Germany in, and is now seen as a convenient place for a pee on the way to Holland.
Belgian customs don't really exist (the border is a flag.)
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: Jane on January 23, 2010, 07:45:02 PM
Hi Jane - When I was younger I visited Amsterdam, but I would not recommend you go to the parts of the city I did, because ...

I see Alexis what you mean, the parts are scary, though I thought that I would try something   ::)  , you know, when in Amsterdam... but now I realize that good girls don`t, if only with a good guy around...
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: Jane on January 23, 2010, 08:09:28 PM
Hi Jane. Amsterdam is nice. Get a hotel away from the centre on a nice Rent a bike. Visit the red light area in daytime/evening for a laugh (it's seedy at night), have the best chips you'll ever have on The Dam. Book an excursion ticket and use the canal boats to visit all the musuems - especially The Van Gogh. Visit Anne Franks house. It's a great city just for walking and getting lost. It'll be wet and cold.
Brugge is the place to go in Belgium - again canals etc. No offence to Belgians, but in Britain Belgium is seen as a place that Britain made to fight its wars with Germany in, and is now seen as a convenient place for a pee on the way to Holland.
Belgian customs don't really exist (the border is a flag.)

Thank you for advice, Kevin! I won`t visit the red light street at night, no way! (I am scared) I like the idea of going by boat in order to visit the museums, this is unusual.  :)
Hope the temperature won`t fall to -23C as it did last year, I remember our Dutch friends writing about it.
Brugge is the town I am going to stay in for the first 5 days, then Brussels for the next 5 days and the last 5 days - Amsterdam. Actually in Belgium I am going to attend a European law seminar on the Lisbon Treaty and European Union Law. So the trip won`t be all fun. It is quite serious and for my career too. The fun will start in Holland...  8)
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: Joost on January 23, 2010, 09:52:46 PM
Hope the temperature won`t fall to -23C as it did last year

-23C? I don't think it's ever been that cold here in my lifetime... This time of year it's usually between 0 and 5 degrees.
Title: Re: Is flying just going to be too much of a hassle?
Post by: Jane on January 24, 2010, 08:13:00 PM
-23C? I don't think it's ever been that cold here in my lifetime... This time of year it's usually between 0 and 5 degrees.

Then I must have mixed it all up. I wonder who wrote about it last winter? I definitely remember it was somebody from those parts... But it`s good I am wrong because I prefer warmer weather when I stay in the Netherlands. Thanks Joost! A souvenir from me to you!  :)