Travel Assistance: Some Tips For U.S. Citizens Trying to Procure a Visa for Travel to Turkey

1 Comment

slide-1.jpgNot So Easy Anymore, but Its Still Possible! Image Courtesy Of:


After having multiple Kafkaesque experiences at the Turkish consulate while trying to procure a Turkish visa for my father and brother during the bizarre visa spat between Turkey and the United States, I have decided to provide a few tips for U.S. citizens who want to travel to Turkey during these strange times. It is my hope that this information will be helpful not only to my fellow Americans, but also to the staff of Turkish consulates in the United States, since they have been working overtime to meet the demand of a new visa regime that hitherto has not existed between the two countries lucky (!) enough to call this marginal sociologist a citizen.

Before offering my tips, I will first offer my own analysis of this bizarre geopolitical spat. While waiting for my visas to be processed, one of the people waiting insinuated that this international issue could be blamed on the policies of U.S. President Donald Trump; given that this interpretation is frequently churned out by the mainstream media I was not entirely surprised to hear it. The only issue with this kind of surface level media analysis is that it has no bearing in reality. In fact, it is likely that the visa spat was created by the State Department without the direct knowledge of President Trump; the U.S. State Department—which Hillary Clinton used to head—is filled with holdovers from the previous presidency (regime?) of Barack Obama. As I have noted before, Hillary Clinton was also a known supporter of Fethullah Gulen, the shady Islamic cleric who the U.S. shelters and the Turkish government blames for the failed coup attempt of 15 July 2016.

Given these intrigues it is likely that this visa crisis was fabricated by a portion of the State Department, following the arrest of a Turkish national employed at the U.S. consulate in Istanbul who was suspected of having a role in the failed putsch, in order to create a roadblock for President Trump in international relations. Of course, the fact that the United States came out so strongly in support of a foreign national employed at a U.S. consulate amounts to a tacit admission that the Obama government may have had a hand in the events of 15 July 2016 (perhaps fomenting coups in democracies is part of what President Obama meant when he told his successor “American leadership in this world really is indispensable. It’s up to us, through action and example, to sustain the international order that’s expanded steadily since the end of the Cold War, and upon which our own wealth and safety depend”.  Meanwhile, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was all to willing to run with the visa spat in order to use it for his own gains: Mr. Erdogan is trying to re-fashion himself as a nationalist—not globalist—leader following the rise of populism and nationalism in both the United States and Great Britain. In responding to the United States’ halting of visa applications for Turkish citizens in kind, Mr. Erdogan is bolstering his nationalist credentials. There are, however, a few issues with this.

The first is that Turkey did not exactly respond to the United States’ move in kind; this was not a reciprocal move. Although the consulate stressed to me that the 160$ fee (the old e-visa on arrival was 20$, by contrast) is part of the reciprocity since that is the fee the U.S. charges Turks for visas, the visas offered are not in anyway similar. While the U.S. generally grants 10-year multiple-entry visas, the visas I got were single-entry, valid for just 15 days in a six-month period. In other words, in order for a U.S. citizen to get multiple-entry visas valid for 10 years they would have to pay 4,000$ (200$ x 2 for 12 months, x 10 for 10 years)! Additionally, the United States charges exorbitant fees because the visa process involves background checks and interviews; the Turkish process does not. Still—despite it all—Americans have to realize that citizens of most of the world’s countries need visas to enter the United States (or the European Union, for that matter).

The second issue is that President Erdogan is no less globalist than he was before. In fact, it is almost as if this visa spat was manufactured (by both the State Department and the Turkish state) in order to provide the world with an example of what the end of the “globalist” utopia—really a dystopia—would look like if bilateral visas were implemented worldwide. It is almost like Turkey is being used as an experimental “pilot” case, because this visa spat has been just that bizarre.

Despite all the oddities and diplomatic wrangling, the important thing to recognize from all of this is that draconian visa rules need not be the future in international relations; the only ones who will suffer from this game are normal citizens looking to travel and the consular employees who will have to work overtime to deliver visas. Therefore, it is essential that we separate “the government” from “the nation”. “Nationalism” as a concept does not mean agreeing with everything your government does; blind patriotism is not “nationalism”. It is our job to understand that and hold our leaders’ collective feet to the proverbial fire when they do things that do not reflect well on shared national values (like, for instance, fomenting a violent civil war in Syria without accomplishing anything, something both Turkey and the United States have been guilty of despite their anti-imperialist nationalist pasts). Government exists to provide a safe environment for all of its citizens with the least amount of regulation as possible. The government should not exist to provide handouts to all of its citizens, for instance, but it does exist to help those who are unable to help themselves—the disabled for instance who are not able to gain employment otherwise. Of course, this visa spat is not an example of less government regulation but, the way I see it, it is part of the effort to thwart the rising tide of nationalism against the globalist project.

Since I believe in nationalism as a global force—respect your country and others within a global system of equals and not the tiered system of unequals (divided into “first” world and the rest) that globalization has created—I will offer my advice to fellow travelers whose only goal is to see the world by helping them navigate the complicated Turkish visa process. Since Turkey was not prepared for this upsurge in visa applications from the United States, it is my hope that I can help both my fellow Americans looking to visit Turkey and my fellow Turks working hard in consulates across the United States. Although the visa spat is likely to be resolved soon since the U.S. finally ended funding to Kurdish forces in Syria—which had been a cynical attempt to further ethnic strife in the Middle East without decisively ending the ISIS/ISIL/DAESH threat—I still hope that whatever advice I can offer will be of help.

In order to combat the fake “tolerance” of different cultures and faux “diversity” pushed by progressive adherents of globalization, it is critical that we all travel (as I’ve written before, I believe that travel should be incorporated into all higher education in the United States). Travelling to cultures different from our own—and meeting those who speak languages different from our own—is a truly humbling experience. When one finds themselves pointing and grunting for food at local restaurants, from Abidjan to Vladivostok and everywhere in between, one will realize that we’re not all that different: we all have to eat, after all! And, whether one is sitting at a tea house in Istanbul, an ahwa in Cairo, a café in Vienna, a taverna in Thessaloniki, or a pub in London, one might get the opportunity to actually speak to someone—another human—and get a new perspective on life. For all of its technology and ability to “bring people together” digitally, globalized networks like Facebook and Instagram do little to actually bring people together on a human level. But travel does.

We are all human, we all have similar wants and desires no matter the language we speak, the culture we were raised in, or the country whose name is written on our passports. Travel allows us to see this first hand, it allows us to see our world for what it is for ourselves. What emerges through travel is a world much different than that which the globalist agenda tries to sell us: the image of the world as sold through globalization is one of rich countries and poor countries, a divided world where—for some reason—residents of richer countries are supposed to feel sorry for those in poorer countries while also being expected to feel guilt for their roles in the imperialism of the past. By this twisted logic, those in the richer countries are expected to open their borders to those from poorer countries, in order to provide them with “opportunity”. Of course, this structure is nothing more than a modern day “white man’s burden”; it is a modern justification for a modern imperialism no less exploitative and no less racist than that of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Just like in the imperialist world of the past, this modern day world is divided by “rich” and “poor” countries as globalization perpetuates the prosperity of the former and poverty of the latter.

In order to break away from this process it is first essential to travel. By traveling we will both be able to take a critical view of our own societies (in order to improve)—while America is a great place to live I have also learned that there are many positive aspects of Turkish society that I wish existed in the United States—while also understanding that, as people, we are not all that different. I can recall great experiences from my own travel laughing together with people whose languages I did not know about the absurdities of daily life—an angry shopper at a grocery store or the poor driving of a careless driver in traffic. That we share these similarities does not, however, meant that we are at all homogeneous. We have different cultures and nationalities which must be preserved as the resistance to a worldwide technocratic form of government which looks to make our shared values and morality no longer human, but tied to the consumerist logic of smartphones and shopping malls; it is a world where Cairo’s ahwas and Lisbon’s pastry shops would be replaced by Starbuck’s and its corporate logic. I shiver at the thought.

With that out of the way, here are my tips for procuring a Turkish visa. As I said, it is my hope that my advice will be helpful not only to Americans but also to Turks and any other travelers who wish to see the world for what it is: Not a homogeneous globalized world run by corporate interests but a heterogeneous world of many nations, cultures, and traditions.

  • The website where U.S. nationals can apply for a Turkish visa is: Please make sure to complete the online application and upload all necessary documents that are requested because, otherwise, the application will not let you move onto the next page. If you do not have a digital version of any of the necessary documents, just take a picture of the hard copy with your smartphone (I’m assuming that most people have one in today’s world) and upload that. For instance, if you do not have a digital version of your passport photos you can just take a picture of the hard copy and upload that.
  • In the “name” section of the application, it has boxes for the “first name” and “surname”. While Americans may not be used to acknowledging their middle names, often times passports will include them since—like a birth certificate—a passport is a citizenship document. This is why applicants must write their name EXACTLY as it appears on the passport. This means including what ever is written in the “name” section of the passport in the “first name” box of the application and what ever is written in the “surname” section of the passport in the “surname” box of the application. This is crucial since the name on the visa must match the name on the passport.
  • The Turkish visa application requires travel insurance. While this may be purchased from third party companies, most insurance policies provided by U.S. employers will cover care abroad through reimbursement (Just remember to save the receipts of any care overseas). Therefore, a photocopy of your insurance card should be enough for the purposes of the visa application. Bring whatever documents you have to the consulate; upload a picture of the documents (that you can snap with your smart phone) to the application in the proper space.
  • Provide a bank statement or a document to prove direct deposit information from your financial institution with your application. Again, bring whatever documents you have to the consulate; upload a picture of the documents (that you can snap with your smart phone) to the application in the proper space.
  • Bring photocopies of your passport, specifically the photo page which carries your personal information.
  • Children under 18, who are not travelling with both parents, will need permission (from the parent who is not traveling) to travel internationally. This can be obtained by writing a statement like “I, (name), (relation to child—mother, father, etc), give permission for (child’s name) to travel to Turkey on (dates of travel) with (name of travel companion)”. Remember to get this document notarized by a notary public and the country clerk of your place of residence. Please do not forget to bring this document with you when you go to your appointment at the consulate.
  • Most importantly bring cash, since credit cards and personal checks are not accepted. The fee, at the time of writing, was 160$ for a single entry visa and 200$ for a multiple-entry visa. If at all possible, bring exact change because the consulate did not seem to have change the day that I visited.

Hopefully, everything works out and you have a safe trip to Turkey. As I have already elaborated, I believe that things will be relaxed in the near future but—just in case they do not relax—treat this post as a small “how-to” guide. I myself have benefited from certain blogs like “biz evde yokuz” ( , ( and ( ; so here is my shout out to them.


Image Courtesy Of:


***DISCLAIMER: This Blog (Thisisfootballislife) and author (John Konuk Blasing) do not guarantee the accuracy of this information and do not bear responsibility for any mishaps occurring from adherence to any of the advice given. Travelers should always check the website of the Turkish consulate for the most up to date information (Information from the US Department of State can be found here: . Since this is not a travel blog, and rather a sociology blog, any information on this blog is designed to help—if at all possible—fellow world travelers in their adventures. ***


Recent Sports Related Tweets by U.S. President Donald Trump Reflect Deeper Moral and Economic Issues Within American Society

Leave a comment

On 22 November 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump continued his Tweeting, this time focusing on two sport-related topics: The release of 3 UCLA student athletes from jail in China and the National Anthem protests in the National Football League (NFL). It is important to note that these Tweets represent much more than just President Trump’s penchant to sometimes speak before thinking; rather, these Tweets reflect real issues in American society that go far beyond the President’s personality.


Screen Shot 2017-11-24 at 12.06.09 AM.pngScreen Shot 2017-11-24 at 12.06.47 AM.pngScreen Shot 2017-11-24 at 12.07.07 AM.png

Images Courtesy Of:


When the U.S. President personally goes after a private citizen it understandably makes the news. After securing the release of Lavar Ball’s son from Chinese prison, the outspoken father took to the news and refused to thank the President. It was this ungratefulness which led the President to Tweet:


Now that the three basketball players are out of China and saved from years in jail, LaVar Ball, the father of LiAngelo, is unaccepting of what I did for his son and that shoplifting is no big deal. I should have left them in jail! (19 November 2017) 

Shoplifting is a very big deal in China, as it should be (5-10 years in jail), but not to father LaVar. Should have gotten his son out during my next trip to China instead. China told them why they were released. Very ungrateful! (19 November 2017)

It wasn’t the White House, it wasn’t the State Department, it wasn’t father LaVar’s so-called people on the ground in China that got his son out of a long term prison sentence – IT WAS ME. Too bad! LaVar is just a poor man’s version of Don King, but without the hair. Just think…..LaVar, you could have spent the next 5 to 10 years during Thanksgiving with your son in China, but no NBA contract to support you. But remember LaVar, shoplifting is NOT a little thing. It’s a really big deal, especially in China. Ungrateful fool! (22 November 2017)



Mr. Trump (L) and Mr. Ball (R) Are Now Feuding Apparently. Image Courtesy Of:


While it is certainly odd that the President of the United States of America is personally addressing an oddball like LaVar Ball (who is basically using his own children as a vehicle for his own profit), the oddity of this event should not blind readers to its importance. The uber-individualistic nature of modern American society has resulted in a marked loss of societal morals. Instead of expressing outrage at shoplifting in a foreign country—which reflects poorly not only on wider American society but also on Mr. Ball’s ineffectual parenting skills—state media is busying itself by attacking the President.

CNN—one of the major shepherds of the sheep in American society—“analyzed” the Tweets in an article by Chris Cillizza; it shouldn’t be surprising that Mr. Cillizza missed the point entirely. That said, it is time for another example of why media literacy is important. At first, Mr. Cilizza provides his readers with a bit of armchair psychology: “At the root of Trump’s personality is grievance and a sense of victimhood”. I was not aware that CNN journalists are now moonlighting as psychologists, but I digress. Cillizza goes on to describe Trump’s Tweets as “racial dog-whistling” before closing his piece with this clincher: “Of all the ways Trump has changed politics and the presidency, his ‘me first, second and last’ view of the world is the most profound and troubling”. After reading the article, one would be forgiven for thinking that Mr. Cillizza lives on another planet.

After all, is he not aware that “me first, second and last” is the view that most Americans subscribe to? Are those not the same views that Mr. Ball has when he refuses to apologize, knowing that this publicity can only help him sell more of his third rate athletic shoes? (Indeed, the spat has garnered 13.2 million Dollars in free advertising). Are these not the views that his son had when he knowingly shoplifted in a foreign country? And are these not the views of many millennials, a generation of which twelve percent believe it is acceptable to speed in school zones? What is “most profound and troubling” (to borrow Mr. Cillizza’s words) for me, however, is a topic that is glossed over and lost in the rhetoric of racism. It is widely known that race paints over the inequalities of capitalist society, providing a false consciousness which divides the working classes. In Mr. Cillizza’s piece race is again used to blind readers; here it is employed by the writer to mask the fact that shoplifting is unacceptable and that being grateful is important. Yet, instead of outrage about three young African-American men disrespecting their country—and their own sense of morals—we have outrage about the alleged “racism” of the President of the United States.

Similarly, Mr. Trump’s second Tweet from 22 November 2017 is also warped by the interpretation of the news media; again the message—and signs of a failing society—are masked. The Tweet in question reads:


The NFL is now thinking about a new idea – keeping teams in the Locker Room during the National Anthem next season. That’s almost as bad as kneeling! When will the highly paid Commissioner finally get tough and smart? This issue is killing your league!…..


While readers know I have written about the National Anthem protests before, the issue here is about what can only be called extreme capitalism. The commissioner of the National Football League, Roger Goodell, has asked for a 50-million-dollar salary and a private plane and lifetime health insurance for entire family. Now, if Mr. Goodell were a pauper, this would be understandable (maybe); instead he currently makes . . . 30 million dollars a year. Thus, the figure he is requesting (demanding?) would be a near doubling of his salary! At a time when the average CEO in the United States earns 354 times what the average worker earns, Mr. Goodell’s desires are nauseating. For comparison, the gap in the United States can be compared to Switzerland, the country with the second largest CEO-to-average worker pay gap, where CEOs make only 148 times what the average worker makes. Unfortunately, however, there is little outrage at Mr. Goodell’s greed since—just like in the case with Mr. Ball’s ungratefulness—race is used to distract the public from the real issues.





The Wage Gap is Certainly Increasing. Images Courtesy Of:


Jerry Jones, the owner of the National Football League’s Dallas Cowboys who has been critical of Mr. Goodell before—specifically regarding the commissioner’s handling of the national anthem protests—threatened a lawsuit against Mr. Goodell before dropping it. Of course, Mr. Jones’ opposition is understandable since Mr. Goodell is using the protests to provide the public with a face of “tolerance” and “respect” for those protesting racial inequality while, at the same time, getting richer and richer off that same public! Despite the clear economic inequalities being perpetuated by Mr. Goodell, all anyone can talk about is race. Jemele Hill, an ESPN journalist who could be called a bigot herself (although mainstream media would never say it despite the fact that ESPN had to suspend her due to comments she made on social media), described Mr. Jones’ standoff with Mr. Goodell as “laughable”. Again, Ms. Hill ignores the economic inequalities due to her obsession with race.

Race was even brought in to bring down Mr. Jones after he opposed Mr. Goodell: A 2013 video of him allegedly making “a racially insensitive remark” surfaced a week ago. For the purposes of this piece it does not matter whether or not Mr. Jones made the comments or meant the comments to be “racially insensitive”; what does matter is that—in the digital age—scandals can be manufactured so that those who dare voice opinions that do not match those of the masses are vilified and, ultimately, eliminated. The world has seen this type of behavior before in the totalitarian states of mid 20th century central Europe, the only difference there was that those who were vilified and embarrassed were later murdered. Yet, just like in Stalin’s Russia, the masses will stand by as scandals erupt in the modern United States. Content with their own manufactured sense of moral superiority, the masses will shake their heads and scold those who are vilified; they will not speak up, content as they are with their own—fleeting as it may be—sense of safety. What the masses do not realize, however, is that the scandals will come for them as well the moment they dare oppose the masses. In such an environment one has two choices: Be silent or be destroyed.



“Wut?” Indeed. Image Courtesy Of:


Clearly it is a dangerous situation. In the digital age the walls quite literally have ears. Anything one says can—and likely will—be held against them by the morality police. In the mean time, race will continue to be used to mask the true inequalities facing everyone regardless of their race (or gender or sexual orientation, the other Sociological catchwords). In these two cases, President Trump’s Tweets on sport open a unique window from which we can view some of the issues in American society today; it is our job to interpret the issues in a balanced and unbiased manner. That is something that—sadly—mainstream media continually fails to do.

Football Fans Vs. The Bureaucratic Modern State: Debate Over Road Signs in Britain Both Geometrical and Sociological

1 Comment

Author’s Note: As a marginal Sociologist I will support Mathematician Matt Parker from the perspective of my own discipline. In the spirit of C. Wright Mills, it is a Sociologist’s job to point out the difference between “personal troubles” and wider “public/social issues”: One person’s unemployment is a personal trouble; but if that person can transcend their individuality and see that others are unemployed as well the personal trouble becomes a wider social issue, like an economic recession. In this case, what may at first seem like a small personal “trouble” (people upset at a minor detail on highway signage) could actually be part of a wider public/social issue (the inflexibility of the modern bureaucratic state or the dumbing down of modern society in the context of one-dimensional thought). This is why it is important to move away from our own individualism and start thinking outside of ourselves.

Yesterday, on 31 October 2017, the BBC ran a piece focused on the incorrect depiction of footballs on British roadways. The piece notes that “Currently, the image on the sign is made entirely of hexagons but a ball like that would be geometrically impossible to make. Instead, a real football has a mixture of hexagons and pentagons . . .”. Mathematician Matt Parker has started a petition—and gathered 20,000 signatures from football fans supporting him—to get the signs changed. Even though UK law stipulates that the hexagon pattern is the only one that can depict stadiums, Mr. Parker rightly points out that this incorrect depiction of footballs is “embarrassing” due to the UK’s national tradition in sport and “very proud” tradition in math and science.



Does This Really Look Like a Football Without the Iconic Pentagon? Image Courtesy Of:


Of course, the bureaucrats in the British government are not amused, and their argument is that traffic signs are merely a “general representation” of the activity they are supposed to depict. A spokesman for the Department of Transportation (DfT) claimed that since these signs have been in use since 1994, “drivers have become ‘accustomed’” to the design. The spokesman goes onto explain that any new details would not be visible from the distance drivers typically see them from while on the roadway, while adding that “the higher level of attention needed to understand the geometry could distract a driver’s view away from the road for longer than necessary which could therefore increase the risk of an incident.”

Mr. Parker’s response points out the odd contradictions in the DfT’s response:

I’m not sure what the DfT thinks a football looks like but they say both: the change would be too small to be noticed and that the correct geometry would be so distracting to drivers it would increase the risk of accidents. I’m not asking for angles and measurements on the sign, just for it to look more like a football.”

Mr. Parker does well to point out the contradictions inherent in the response, and while the signs should certainly be made to look more like a football there is also a worrying condescension that comes out of the DfT’s response: the bureaucratic state seems to be assuming that its citizens are morons. To say that a new design will not work since drivers have become “accustomed” to the current one suggests that British drivers suffer from a sort of mental atrophy. Has the modern world become so one-dimensional in its thought that the modern mind is no longer flexible enough to comprehend any changes to what it is accustomed to?

It is certainly ironic, since—in other areas of the modern world—it seems that the bureaucratic state is all too willing to force change on its citizens in the name of “progressive” politics: In the United States the name of the first President, George Washington, can be removed from the church he worshiped at while statues of prominent figures from American history can be removed to white-wash the history of slavery in the United States, yet British drivers cannot deal with a “change” to their highway signs? It would seem—to me at least—that this is an insult to the intelligence of British drivers.

Similarly, the argument that “the higher level of attention needed to understand the geometry could distract a driver’s view away from the road for longer than necessary” and thus increase the risk of an “incident” seems to ignore the fact that—in the modern world—we are already distracted by much more than the correct depiction of footballs on a highway sign. I—like anyone who has ever driven on a highway—am quite certain that the millions of people taking selfies in their cars, texting in their cars, stuffing their faces with fast food burgers in their cars, or even doing make up in their cars are much more likely to cause an “incident” on a roadway than someone “distracted” by a geometrically correct depiction of a football on a highway sign. To argue otherwise—as the DfT did—is merely to insult the intelligence of British citizens.

In fact, if modern society were not as dumbed down as it has become, it is likely that this incorrect depiction of a football would be more likely to cause an incident than a correct depiction would be! (Of course, that would hinge on people actually knowing what a football should actually look like…or knowing that “Bluetiful” is not a word, as I have argued before). The football sign row shows that the bureaucratic state in Britain is more willing to insult its national traditions and history—as well as the intelligence of its citizenry—than attempt to rectify an oversight in graphic design. We all make mistakes, and that’s ok—we are human after all (for now at least). But it is pretty embarrassing for the government to give excuses that are—for lack of a better word—just lame.



In Italy, Signs That Actually Look Like Footballs Are Not Causing Massive Pile-Ups On The Autostrada (At Least, Not As Far As I Know). So If They Can Do It In Italy, Why Not In Britain? Image Courtesy Of: