Reduced tourism to the United States

This was written in reply to a comment post in Slashdot, but then I'd worked on the reply so much, that it merited its own blog post.

Disclaimer: This post is an opinion piece, and does not rely on hard data.

It's called the Trump Slump. Travel from quality origin countries has slumped, especially from friendly places like the European Union and Canada. Well, there's lots of anecdotal evidence, too. I can't say much about OZ and NZ, because I haven't seen the articles of topic mention them. Other origin countries are those under the Muslim Ban, but a reduction of trips from these falls within the statistical margin of error.

LatAm is strange. Wealthy Latin Americans are unlikely to traverse the U.S. border anyway, unless absolutely necessary — be it a major health-related procedure, friends/family dying, custody, possible inheritance, and better safety. Not-wealthy ones fleeing violence and persecution are more likely to arrive the "old-fashioned way".

The Trump Slump is mitigated by moves from China and Russia, where the rich of those states seek to park a share of their assets in America, should the two regimes' economies ever tank, or other conditions worsen. Both are also pregnant with the "anchor baby" practice.

Do keep in mind, that official travel data about the States are susceptible to being massaged by D.C. tourism lobbies in order to look politically appeasing; such, that visits 'to North America' are mentioned, and then with data involving increased arrivals to Mexico and Canada to offset the actual slump in the U.S.

Countries with large amounts of poor people cannot afford to issue travel warnings on America, because they find it expedient, when some people leave, in order to off-load some of the real or perceived weight on society that could otherwise not be eased.

A free country relying on historically good relations with the U.S. lets the news about things being terrible stateside do their own work. Because reasons.

Gay actors and coming out

Preface
This was first written as a reply to a witty post on IMDb about a possibly gay actor (no, not the usual suspects), whom I have decided not to name here.

First it came to be almost about justifying his coming out — if he is gay — and if he does that, then about the harshness of the film and tv industry towards gays. Then the post's idea moved to be about why some people choose to be closeted and that on one hand it's okay to rather concentrate on out gay actors, while bemusing the chances of coming out making a chage for the better in the future.

So I ended up making a long one instead: herein follows the post about the actor, without naming him (oh yes, names of out actors are featured).

The Post

If he is gay and chooses to come out to the world, then we would be very proud of him, and young gay people would have a great role model. There aren't many young gay actors right now ('cept for Zachary Quinto) who've hit it this big, and who play or have played not just the gays, but other interesting characters. This is what we have a deficiency of on screen: men and women who are not just gays, but who portray hereoes and role models of all good kinds.

The industry should change its tune for the better on gays, so LGBT people could play their roles as out actors, with pride and confidence. But alas, there are still lots of homophobic bigwigs calling the shots :/

I remember reading how Rupert Everett's career took a nosedive after he came out and he advised against actors coming out still in 2009. So, many entertainers and television personalities have come out when they've hit it big, and there are many who have come out very late in their careers (or life).

But otherwise, if he is gay and if he is not coming out, then it's his personal choice (disambiguation: Sexuality is not a choice, but coming out is). — There will be other great gay actors who will be out before he will, and there are many who aready have. We the gays just have to wait a little. I do admit the wait is sometimes difficult :\

On another note, there are many gay people who beyound industry fear may have personal reasons not to come out. If that's the case, then it's just as understandable. So, most gays clamoring for their favourite actor to come out might not realize that many closeted actors very possibly have personal (=family) reasons not to come out yet.

Nevertheless, young talented gay guys and gals aspiring to be actors should never be discouraged from pursuing their dream. The "It Gets Better" project and coming out are important, because then many gay youths who feel alone and desperate would see that there is reason for them to live. Oh, and yes, we just can't force anyone to come out against their will, unless they are flaming hypocrites.

My personal opinion is that Zachary Quinto's coming out has taken the heat off other actors who are suspected of being gay. The activism of Dan Choi, "It Gets Better", the coming out of many others (Jake Shears is out from the outset, for example) also means that there are many kids who because of these guys' courage have decided to spare their own life.

Revolution OS

Film review

Ahh, the good times :-)

This film was made during the dot-com boom, and, per release information on IMDb, first screened at the South by Southwest Film Festival in March 2001.

Only in its end titles does the film show the first casualties of the dot.com crash (a second release of the film was in 2002), so this documentary really well reflects the spirit of the times, just as the original series of "Star Trek" was the best science fiction in 1960's.

Despite its shortcomings of appearing propaganda-like (see some of the more balanced IMDb reviews) and not the most stellar music editing, I still kinda like the documentary, as it was filmed during a time when life seemed really nice: The dot com crash had yet to happen, and 9/11 hadn't happened yet... And so the times were quite a bit more hopeful than in the years that followed.

Alas, many of the companies mentioned aren't there anymore: VA Linux, Cygnus, Netscape, and many-many others. Not long after, Corel stopped making Linux. Sun Microsystems was purchased by Oracle. Red Hat is still here, but it's not exactly in the desktop business. Netscape itself was purchased by AOL, and subsumed into it, and then not much is left of it. Netscape's move to open-source its Communicator suite (which included the Navigator browser) was indeed pivotal, as it laid the ground for Mozilla and eventually Firefox.

Nobody at the time saw the emergence of Google. Or that the principles of this freedom would lead to Lawrence Lessing to found the Creative Commons movement, which gave additional impetus to found Wikipedia. Incredible.

I somehow failed to notice at the time how even the modern men's haircuts and hair styles were different back then, short of being less astute. I guess since these styles were ubiquitous, then nobody really noticed S:)

Women, kids, and Stargate Universe

To refer to a user on GateWorld Forums who contended that the most populous demographic watching Stargate Universe (SGU) were older (white) men who would watch any and all Stargate that was available. He asked if women and kids "killed" SGU — implying those Nielsen viewers who didn't watch Stargate Universe, thereby letting SyFy have low ratings as the official reason as to not renewing SGU.

I haven't seen the Nielsen statistics, but based on information presented here (that mostly men watched), then the conclusion is that not all [i]Nielsen[/i] women could watch the show — preferring "Dancing With The Star(let)s". — And those that could watch couldn't let their kids watch, effectively sacrificing watching it themselves.

Part of SyFy's favoured demographic wasn't adult enough: The young kids who couldn't see (under-14's), and older kids who wouldn't watch (the video game generation not interested in character drama). And assuming those were mostly male. The 'girl' demographic could have been turned off either by the very concept of science fiction, or other interests, such as Dancing With My Two Left Feet and a goth woman scientist secretly infatuated with her father-figure-boss.

There's been another thread over here questioning if any of the women characters could have been or could have become someone like Carter (I haven't read through all the thread yet, but I do have a draft reply for it), or very nearly as perfect as her. You know, these people are very few and far between anyway; the closest real-life examples are women astronauts or someone like Valerie Plame. — I have to admit I dropped my jaw when I first saw her on tv (IIRC :-).

This must probably be a cultural thing that women in nowadays' U.S.-based (or -targeted) television shows are very strong characters, possessing almost superwoman-like capabilities in each show, including NCIS, SG-1, and so on; as if that were something who young American women would strive to be, thereby failing to tolerate characters more fallible than your average superchick.

Truth of the matter is, that most people (including women) just are not as perfect as the 'hero'-type characters presented on popular tv shows. I have to contend that SGU was so realistic in its presentation that it perhaps turned viewers off to the collective dismay of us fans. I remember an unintentionally funny line by an SGU hater who wrote (on IMDb, I think) that tv shows weren't supposed to show real life...

Oh, and the kids that did watch SGU, didn't watch it from a Nielsen box, but I guess, very much on their own terms. I am also considering failures in marketing SGU, but I don't know where did the responsibilities lie as to who was supposed to do exactly what.

Going All the Way

Film review that was first a comment; in reply to a thread on IMDb.

I waited, too, to see if they'd discover one another further than what's in the movie, though New York's Greenwich Village alluded to as much.

The film felt open-ended and probably stayed true to the very letter of the novel it was based on, which, I assume, was just as vague, suggesting several possible outcomes, depending on the eye of the beholder.

I would have ended it differently and sweetly. Even if such a happy-end situation were there, then after they guys would meet in NYC, the most possible outcome would have by then been known in advance to any viewer with a brain.

Fortunately, the ending was not as tragic as the one in "The Locusts"...
Would I (have) cast a different actor to play Sonny, just for the sake of seeing Sonny and Gunner (as played by Affleck) discover one another and consummate a possible guy/guy relationship brewing underneath?

Well, I don't know if I would — Davies is just too unique an actor, and the original story shows an environment so devoid of substance that it would not want to suggest anything that would be gay; For example, sodomy laws in the U.S. were not repealed before 1970's, neither was homosexuality an acceptable topic in the kind of polite society shown in this film. The novel by the same title was published in 1970, which is when attitudes towards homosexuality in the U.S. somehow started to thaw, and then only really slowly.

I think I did notice some lines in the movie from which I could infer that there could have been guy/guy relationships, I think in the very inconspicous way Gunner formed words in his sentences. Oh well.

Yet, in conclusion, "Going All the Way" did suggest possible ways of how the Beat Generation sprung up.

Reflections on the Politico/NBC News Republican Presidential Candidates Debate at Reagan Library

What began as a quick write-up based on comments written during the debate, became a more lengthy post, due to my near-perfectionist efforts at design.

So, in the quickest order, I found the best stream of the chatter at Ronald Reagan Presidential Library was embedded at The Right Scoop website, courtesy of the-always-resourceful-MSNBC.

The candidates start and often continue with spewing rhetorical crap, mostly dodging difficult subjects and questions. Bachmann and Cain outshine everyone else in this.

The Republican candidates always mention the number of children they have and the number of adopted children they have. Lots of children for "old times' insurance", I suppose...
Jon Huntsman only has two and these are adopted, also, and legally brought over to the U.S. Why didn't he adopt American children??

• Michele Bachmann frets about "Obamacare", mentions Obama rather often, maybe just as Obama mentioned Bush-Cheney throughout his campaign. After that, other candidates are very much agreeable enough to fret about "Hillarycare". Otherwise lots of hot air. Bachmann criticizes Obama on Libya, thinks it was wrong to go there (Obama really didn't, but I don't understand where her allegiances lie). I infer her support for oil drilling in Everglades (talks about energy and responsibility). Confuses green job creation in Spain and its high unemployment, which was caused by a construction and property bust.

• Mitt Romney manages to mention renewable resources, too, where he proposes a mixed package, which I say, is a wise move. Mentions even oil shale (!).

Thinks that Obama has to go (which everyone else heartily agrees with), yet offers no solutions himself, except creating nebulous "jobs" — maybe in the fashion that Bachmann talked about getting gas prices to $2/gal.

Romney believes in the Tea Party movement. Foundlessly criticizes Obama. Talks about the middle class, only that the Republican middle class are the rich.

• Ron Paul is old, criticizes Reagan's policy (though loves his 'message'), and criticizes really everything, so remaining an eternal opposition figure. Wants to abolish TSA (maybe because of probably having been subject to a 'pat-down', given his frequent trips on airplanes, but we don't know that :).

• The Texas governor Rick Perry says stupid things, thinks Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Calls Texas education cuts 'thoughtful reductions', then claims that there's no dearth of educated people in Texas, because of Facebook and Toyota having opened base there — but that's because Texas has about the lowest taxes in all of the U.S.

Perry, though, likes a balanced budget by wanting an amendment passed to support it. Then somehow offers platitudes to Obama (I hear an attempt to woo conservative democrats). Wants clear entrance and exit strategies when invading another country, criticizes Obama on this, yet that was a burden bourne out of Obama's predecessors.

Gaffe: "Ozone levels down Xx%!"

As governor, has signed the most executions in a state to date (which means more than GWB), doesn't lose sleep if even one person executed is innocent, because he believes that there is a working (and 'just') system in place.

• Herman Cain (the only African-American Republican candidate, who's speech also has a nice twang :) wants to fix everything — this infers all things being broken, even in crisis, which everyone agrees with. Does not answer about GE getting huge profits, but legally not having to pay taxes in the U.S. The answer is iffy.

• Jon Huntsman (Idaho) is too slick in both speech and appearance and has a deep tan. Did he spend a vacation in Mexico? Thinks "we've lost our confidence as a country," wants to make his eyes misty — Is that for real? Has two adopted children. What about biological children? Wants to bring troops home (audience claps hands) and has good ideas about how to go on in Afghanistan. Does not cut down on hot fluff, though. Supports science (vis-a-vis creationism, climate change caused by human activity, I didn't hear anything about stem cells).

Everyone agrees with Homeland Security Dpt.

• Newt Gingrich is seasoned, agrees with Obama's programme of charter schools. Proposes humane treatment of illegal immigrants, not deporting them.

• Rick Santorum is a Roman Catholic candidate. Has the most balanced rhetoric, but is very uninformed and stutters — the latter not necessarily being a bad trait, given the popularity of "The King's Speech", all of which also reminds me about Lt. Reginald Barclay in "Star Trek: The Next Generation". Was positive about immigration.

Misc and Other gripes

Sarah Palin's noted absence has taken away some of the entertainment value from the debate.

For a long while Telemundo journo's face is not shown at the beginning.

To follow the debates further, see here.

Conclusion

Of most Republican candidates, each have at least one good idea — These are Romney, Paul, Perry, Huntsman, Gingrich, and Santorum (well, so-so). Perry even has two, Huntsman three, Gingrich is tied between the two. Santorum has said the least, so in many ways he's trying to cover his base.

My wish-list of Republican policies based on the debate
(In a somewhat increasing order of importance)

• Support science vis-a-vis creationism and climate change caused by human activity (Huntsman);
• Implement charter schools — this should circumvent stubborn teacher's unions (Gingrich);
• Abolish TSA (Paul) — then what?
• Diversify energy production and supply (Romney) — this would put a simmer on oil and gas prices;
• Balance the budget (Perry) — How? Only with cuts and no tax increases?
• Bring troops home, realign Afghanistan strategy and tactics to adapt to asymmetrical warfare (Huntsman);
• Have clear entry and exit strategies when invading a country, and then only under a U.N. mandate (Perry);

  See in-depth commentary in the sidebar —

  Necessary exceptions could be had with a budget surplus, as happened with the Bosnian War and Kosovo, which actions met stiff opposition from Russia and China.

  OTOH, the actions taken re Libya (before UN-mandated action) and Syria in the condition of a lack of money for any further U.S.-based adventures are cheap — just wait until the local people have protests, an uprising, and then a revolution. Maybe a civil war, if the dictator is a nasty d***head.

  Afghanistan notwithstanding, such a flow of events could have taken place in Iraq, and with a substantially lesser loss of lives, blood and treasure on either side, popular support guaranteed (see current events, like the Arab Spring). This could even have inspired more people in Iran.

  Furthermore, lots of friendly oil-rich countries post-Arab Spring should be happy to export to the West (potentially a mutual feeling), which should bring petrol prices well down from current levels. Suppose the U.S. were always like it now is during the Arab Spring, then countries of that region would have been even friendlier, but The Street over there is very suspicious because of heavy infractions past and current. Now it's not the U.S., but Facebook, Twitter and Google.

  Not so in North Korea, but we can wait ... :>

  A very unfortunate thing is that dictatorial states are fairly often supported and propped up by large authoritarian countries that are not particularly friendly towards the West. This is usually caused by a lack of Western friends because of various human rights infringements and other failures of state. Well, if there are no Western friends, odd and interesting Eastern players don't have the ethical qualms to be the new partners.

  Some would claim that Iraq was very much like that, stubbornly being in a situation that made inevitable an invasion on itself, but who knows. Suppose if the regime there fell in the fashion of an "Arab Spring", the corruption of the Oil for Food programme would eventually have been unveiled anyway. Look at all the uncovered wheeling and dealing done with Ghaddafi, Sons, & Co. prior to his regime's fall.

  Given the impetus for the Arab Spring, then maybe there's still good reason to have awkward friendships?
• Humane treatment and no deportations of illegal immigrants, the latter provided there is no criminal record (Gingrich and Santorum) — What to do with those who are still crossing over now?
  
  Then someone (Romney?) proposed fixing the legal immigration system — What really are the Republicans' good ideas as to how?
  
  

  Both legal and illegal immigrants that do get over, find work and live normal lives are some of the best people already. Here's why:
  
  • The legal immigrants, because they have the necessary skills and language abilities, and because they have persevered throughout the bureaucracy of the legal immigration system;
  
  • The illegal immigrants from Latin America, because they have persevered through a very taxing endeavour from whichever South American country over to the U.S.

  Do keep in mind that some of the immigrants don't survive the journey.

  Same with African immigrants to Europe. At least Al-Jazeera now has a whole programme devoted to warning about the pitfalls of life in the West.

"Super 8" movie review

Well, I hope this will be short enough
Warning: Here be spoilers

Ten, maybe fifteen years ago I would have liked this flick very much and just as much would have been very tempted to retell the story of the movie.
What a difference doubling my years of life then actually makes.

Over many years, I actually went to watch a movie in a movie theathre, over many years with a friend, and over many years with a friend whom I haven't been to pictures with since 2003.

Turned out that instead of a sci-fi action-drama which had kids in it, it was a kiddie-movie with sci-fi action and some drama, too. A very good kiddie-movie. If I were a kid, I am sure I would have really loved this film.

Cinematically, JJ Abrams has done very good work on "Super 8", echoing both of Spielberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and "E.T." After all, Spielberg's name was plastered all over the posters of "Super 8". Michael Giacchino does well with the score and his musical style is recognisable (see "Star Trek" (2009)).

The great stuff

• The train crash is the best train crash I've ever seen.
• SFX concepts of the alien ship are really out of this world. I mean, I've never had any idea a ship could be built like that.
• The late 1970's now refer to a time that eventually might be long forgotten well into our own future, but the film somehow manages to document a way of life and an America that back then was still a dreamable place to be in.

(One omission of the Summer 1979 events is the re-entry of Skylab, news of which was huge in America.)

The interesting and thought-provoking stuff

The most intriguing parts I found appeared to be the most insignificant ones.

• The Three Mile Island nuclear accident lent me to belive that the young protagonist Joe's mother died in that accident, and not in the steel mill, and Joe's young lady-friend Alice's (Elle Fanning) father was the one who failed to attend the shift at the time, which proved fatal to Joe's mother.
  
  The release of the movie in Summer of 2011 is somehow coincidental, after the Fukushima nuclear accidents in Japan, which began on March 11, 2011. Coincidentally, March 11 is a very loaded date for me since 2004 (the Madrid train bombings) and now even more since this year (2011). In 1979, the Chernobyl nuclear accident hadn't happened yet.
• Of course, 1979 wasn't exactly a crisis year in terms of the economy, despite the 1979 oil crisis, for example. It's also before the Savings and Loan crisis of early 1980's really came to be about. Maybe when one progresses into adulthood and reaches news-reading age, then in some ways, crises are always there, around the world; some are closer to home, some are less. So 1979 had its crises, but they weren't of the scale of now.
  
  In light of which is today (as of July 2011) regarded as the Great Recession, the film reminds well into its start for people to be compassionate, generous, and giving; sort of attempting to show that it's still a good thing™ to have these qualities, ways and means permitting. "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" also touches up on the recession.
  
  Breakdown (intentional or not) of the Nuclear Family and single parenting are referred to at least twice; My half-educated guess is that most actual series and films from around the era (1975-1985) wouldn't ever have any of that in the main cast line-up and storylines.
• The movie is good in tackling other difficult subjects, like imprisonment, maltreatment and mistreatment of foreigners (the alien being a substitute for the purposes of storytelling) who are regarded as low-lives, despite their sentience or even intelligence. Think Guantánamo. How would someone have to cope with the after-effects of gross mistreatment upon eventual release, what is the subsequent reaction and what should it ideally be (? — in the mind of a moviemaker and viewers who mostly tend to agree), or what can be the motives for aggressive behaviour and how to reduce chances of vengeance or any reoccurrence of it?
  
  This JJ Abrams film is the one where he very well manages in picture terms to explain all of the above to a young mind. Star Trek now seems like an 85% attempt at this, being a very engaging sci-fi action movie and all.
• The solution presented is not forgiveness, but departure and detachment. Current policy in world politics seems to desire this to be preferred behaviour, given that sincere forgiveness cannot be easy in the first place. The film suggests that perhaps it's expressions of compassion and dignity in the act of release that might prevent vengeance, or reoccurrence of it. Who knows. Has it been tested and proven already?
  
  Any political power wishes, and, in various degrees usually gets departure and separation of its prisoners from said power upon release, physically at least. Yet mental departure and detachment (letting go) is never easy. Most action flicks have not delved into this.
  
  In a "fish out of sea" situation, departure and detachment might be the first reactions anyway, especially if survival is the primary consideration. Sometimes, compassion and dignity are the first and best steps into repairing very bad relations, methinks, or at least help in stopping violence. A cease-fire, then: "...But you can live!". Well, the movie gets that right.
  
  Remembrance, on the other hand, is special:
  Would it be too difficult to explain all of that to adolescents?

• Kid acting kudos go to Joel Courtney (Joe) and Riley Griffiths ("Production value!!11!!!").
• Special kudos to Kyle Chandler and Elle Fanning.
• You won't notice David Gallagher from Seventh Heaven.

If you want to see what the times were back were then 30 years ago, or just reminisce of the times back then, then see all of this for yourself in the movie or from an optical disk once that comes out.

Yet, if a young mind might wish to ruminate over above topics in the bulleted list, I'd suggest watching a documentary or reading the Geneva conventions...

U.S. tax primer for foreigners and non-U.S. residents

A fine dude named Justin posted a comment at Giustino's blog, only that Justin's comment was lost there, but I still have it, because I subscribed to receive comments to some of Giustino's posts.

Giustino's advice is to consult with an accountant.
My own advice is to also consult the IRS homepage.

And don't forget to consider all of the other comments at Giustino's blog post where the tax topic came up; my favourite was by liimneliivlane, who suggested you register with your embassy and and ask around, if and when they hold an annual 'town hall' meeting.

Justin:

Argh I wrote a long comment and there was some error on Blogger when I tried to post it. Here's a quick summary:

1. File a 1040, not a 1040NR or W-8BEN.
2. Declare your income in Estonia, but also take a credit for income tax already paid (it's on page 2 of the 1040, callled Foreign Tax Credit).
3. No double taxation due to the tax treaty in place. Also because incomes tend to be lower in Estonia than in the US, you may not owe anything to the US since that will put you in a lower tax bracket.
4. Declare all your foreign bank accounts on form TD-F 90-22.1. Don't forget this, as they are really cracking down this year. Remember to mail this to a separate address from your normal tax filing.
5. Read Publication 54 from the IRS as it's specifically for expats.
6. Expats usually get an automatic 3-month extension of time to file (Pub 54 will explain this).
7. Be sure to file a tax return. If you don't this can come back to bite you later like if you need to apply for a green card for a relative -- they check tax filing status at that time.
8. If you own an Estonian business, file a Form 5471. This is the only form not built into Turbotax so just fill in the PDF on the IRS website and print it.
9. Don't forget to declare any substantial interest (I think it's more than $10/year) you earned on your Estonian bank accounts on Schedule B.

I do my taxes every year with Turbotax and it can handle things well. Just keep all your documentation on file in case of an inquiry from the IRS.

Two points: World's soundest banks and how forward-looking Estonians are

In July, a family member in Canada wondered if another depression is going to happen in the U.S. and how it will affect Canada.

Well, it may be somewhat early to think of a depression yet (I'm trying to be an optimist, or maybe is it, that my worrylessness may actually be complacency), but it's always best to be careful. "Better safe than sorry" sounds perhaps a bit too cliché. At least right now, people are bracing for the impact that this negative growth is (also called a recession, mostly after the fact).

I do have to add that Canada has soundest banking system in the world, with Sweden at #2 and most large Estonian banks belong to Nordic banking companies.

Of course, the latest Time article about Estonia is not so bloomy anymore about Estonia. After all, if you're exemplified all around the world for being great when times are good, remember to expect being reported on at difficult times (and how you're faring).

This Time piece by Andrew Purvis reflects on Estonians' reputation for "being practical, down-to-earth, and forward-looking." The latter notion being rather telling, because in "The Baltic Mourning After", the same author has noticed "Black banners for a lecture series [...] in Tallinn asking: IS THERE LIFE AFTER CAPITALISM?"

The lecture series happened in October (with the end of the month culminating with the screening of "The Corporation", a Canadian documentary) and still continues to happen in November.

Links and comments

• 21.10.: Canada rated world's soundest bank system
  You just have to love those oddball news sites that still keep their articles :-)
  
  Op-Eds:
• 31.10.: Strong, safe and open for business
• 03.11.: Mel Watkins . Still strong and free
• 10.11.: Why Canada's Banks Don't Need Help
  — With a link to a somewhat sardonic gallery of Top Ten Scared Traders at the end of the article. || I guess the guys and gals there will be remembered as really-really brave for having had the guts to yo-yo, swing and zigzag through the precarious financial mêlée that befell in their midst.
  
  Doubt has also been creeping in:
• 13.11.: Experts not sold on bank strength
  I'd say rather that a sound banking system allows a country to tough it out through the rough times with less pain than those rated to be in their forties. I remember a piece in The Economist which mentioned that wealthy countries will have it harder than poor countries, because the latter have a difficult life anyway.