Din când în când, realitatea de zi cu zi are prostul obicei să ne dea cu firma-n cap.

Atunci chiar și cei mai individualiști dintre noi realizează că nici măcar ‘jmecherii’ nu se pot apăra singuri în toate situațiile.

În momentele astea în ne aducem aminte, ‘jmecheri’ și oameni de rând, de ‘protecția statului’.

Astea sunt momentele in care începem să reproșăm.
Polițistului de la 112 că nu a fost profesionist. Și nici măcar empatic.
Celor de la putere faptul că un astfel de incapabil a fost angajat pe un post de o asemenea importanță.
Și tuturor celorlalți ‘intermediari’ că nu și-au făcut ‘datoria’.

Tot astea sunt și momentele în care realizăm că, totuși, în administrația de stat sigur mai sunt măcar câțiva care știu ce fac. Pentru că altfel ar fi chiar și mai rău!

Mai realizăm ceva. Măcar unii dintre noi. Că „Statul Român trebuie resetat!

Perfect de acord.
Numai că, înainte de a ne apuca de treabă, avem nevoie să înțelegem cum am ajuns aici.
Ca nu cumva să ne întoarcem înapoi…

Nu e vorba doar de vinovății individuale. Și nici măcar de grup.
Iliescu, Constantinescu, Băsescu, Iohannis… partide… toți aștia sunt, într-adevăr, parte din problemă. Fiecare dintre ei au făcut câte ceva… mai bine, mai rău… Fiecare dintre ei au fost, la rândul lor, factori de decizie. Au avut ocazia să facă. Să-și pună pecetea pe mersul lucrurilor. Să ‘facă diferența’

Acum am ajuns la concluzia că nici unul dintre ei nu a făcut destul.
Situația actuală sugerează, cu putere, același lucru.

Dar noi, aștialalți, ce-am făcut?

Când aud că ‘statul nu-și face datoria’ mi se aprind beculețele de alarmă.
Și încep să urlu… în sinea mea!

Da’ cine populează statul ăsta?!?

Niște omuleți verzi, veniți de pe Marte?

Când te duci la primărie, mai ales într-o localitate mai mică, nu constați, cu ‘stupoare’, că-l cunoști pe cel de la ‘ghișeu’? Că d-aia ți-e ușor să-i dai ‘atenția’….?
Știm, cu toții, care sunt mecanismele prin care ‘slugile numite politic’ ajung să ocupe prea multe dintre pozițiile de la stat.
Avem, cu toții, rude și prieteni printre profesioniștii care rezistă încă în structurile de stat. Care ne tot povestesc ce se întâmplă pe-acolo.

Și cu toate că știm atâtea, dormim în cizme.
Până când nepoatele noastre sunt omorâte.

Abia atunci întelegem, încă odată, că suntem la voia întâmplării.

O furtună din senin. I se pune vre-unui nebun pata noi. Vine molima. Sau războiul.

Ce bine-ar fi dacă statul ar funcționa cum trebuie… Dacă toate cunoștințele – și poate chiar rudele, noastre ar face ce trebuie și atunci când sunt angajate la stat. Așa cum ne place să credem că facem noi, aștia din ‘privat’.

Dacă n-am fi dormit… dacă n-am fi lăsat pe toți neisprăviții aștia să ni se urce-n cârcă… dacă am fi ascultat poveștile profesioniștilor…

… dacă n-am fi dat șpaga aia atunci …

In social nu se poate vorbi despre cauze directe. Doar despre circumstanțe. Și despre presiuni sociale, bineînțeles.

Au trecut aproape 4 ani de la demisia guvernului Ponta. Adică de la catastrofa din clubul Colectiv. Care a avut loc pe fondul unei atitudini cât se poate de ‘relaxată’ a autorităților competente cu privire la respectarea normelor de siguranță la incendiu. Care ‘relaxare’ face parte din atmosfera de ‘merge și așa’ pe care o respirăm de la naștere.

Atunci, Ponta și-a dat demisia. Să fi fost vorba despre un calcul politic… al lui, al celor care ‘dirijau’ partidul… în orice caz, gestul a avut o aparență de normalitate.

‘Astăzi’ avem de a face cu o crimă dublă. Una dintre acuzațiile aduse suspectului este aceea de „trafic de persoane în vederea exploatării sexuale”.
Aici e o problemă. Că un individ o ia razna și omoară pe cineva… e o nenorocire. Care ține de psihologie. Că un număr de indivizi fac apel la serviciile unor prostituate… iarăși ține tot de psihologie. Că un număr suficient de mare de indivizi cumpără atâta ‘carne vie’ de la ‘distribuitori’ încât fenomenul să devină o ‘afacere’… asta deja ține de sociolgie. Chiar dacă fiecare dintre indivizii implicați – clienți, furnizori și, eventual, un anumit număr dintre victime, au probleme de natura psihologică faptul ca fenomenul are loc în ‘mijlocul’ societății îi conferă acestuia o nouă dimensiune.
Dimensiune care pune pe același palier cele două tragedii.

Nepăsarea este acea dimensiune a psihicului nostru social care a dat naștere atât circumstanțelor pentru incendiul din clubul Colectiv cât și relativei indiferențe cu care tratăm cazurile de ‘trafic de persoane în vederea exploatării sexuale’.

Problemele de genul ăsta nu pot fi rezolvate doar prin schimbarea ‘formei’. ‘Vrem o țară ca afară’ nu este suficient.
Adoptarea celui mai ‘progresist’ cod legislativ poate fi un pas înainte doar cu condiția internalizării normelor conținute acolo. Degeaba introducem noi ‘castrarea chimică’ atâta vreme cât prea mulți dintre bărbați se consideră superiori femeilor și prea multe dintre femei sunt învățate – direct sau indirect, prin exemplul familial, să lase capul jos.

„Îmi povestea cineva de la o corporație din București, din “bula care respectă femeia”, despre un teambuilding la care s-a pus următoarea întrebare: “O femeie care venea noaptea de la amantul ei este omorâtă, pe stradă. Cine e vinovat? Femeia, amantul sau criminalul?”. Ei bine, răspunsul vehement al uneia dintre participantele la teambuilding a fost “Femeia, evident. Ce căuta noaptea, pe stradă, ce-i trebuia amant? Trebuia să fie acasă, lângă soț și copii”.”

Ce educație – și ce exemplu personal, ofera ‘participanta’ de mai sus eventualilor săi copii?

 

În “bula care respectă femeia”, tot femeia e vinovată” Simona Tache, 18 Ianuarie 2019

Cum batjocorește justiția fetele de 10 ani violate. Procuror și judecător: «Victima s-a îmbrăcat sumar și a consimțit actele sexuale»!” Mirela Neag, Adriana Oprea, Cătălin Tolontan și Răzvan Luțac, 17 Ianuarie 2019

„Apar detalii halucinante din dosarul “minore și droguri pentru polițiști”, în care un comisar de la Serviciul de Acțiuni Speciale din IPJ Bacău a fost arestat preventiv.

Dosarul instrumentat de DIICOT ar putea să zdruncine nume importante din poliția băcăuană, în condiţiile în care clubul clandestin, mascat într-un depozit de bulion, se afla chiar lângă sediul Poliţiei – transmite corespondenta Europa FM, Claudia Toader.”

BACĂU: Detalii halucinante din dosarul “droguri şi minore pentru polițiști””, Europa FM, 2 Aprilie 2019

 

 

Ieri. Treceam cu mașina pe lângă un spațiu verde în curs de amenajare.
O piațetă care avea vreo doi copacei și un tufiș amărât înghesuiți pe un petic de iarbă.
Copăceii fuseseră smulși din rădăcină, trotuarul și o jumătate de bandă din carosabil erau ocupate de un morman de panânt proaspăt basculat iar un bobcat se străduia să facă ceva ordine pe acolo.
N-am ce face și mă întreb cu voce tare: „N-ar trebui ca banii aștia să fie folosiți mai degrabă pentru astupatul gropilor din pavaj? Sau pentru canalizarea străzilor de la periferie?”
Persoana care era cu mine, 80 și ceva de ani, : „Voi, haștaghiștii, n-ați spus nimic când Băsescu construia stadioane în pantă și pârtii de schi pe versantul sudic. Din banii pe care încerca să-i economisească din pensiile noastre! Aștia măcar fac orașul frumos. După ce ne-au mărit veniturile.”

Ce înseamnă puterea precedentului… dacă cineva a făcut deja o prostie, aceasta va fi imediat folosită pentru justificarea următoarei… iar dacă acum prostia este făcută de „omul nostru” aceasta devine chiar acceptabilă…

La fel a fost și cu sistemul de justiție. Care dă din ce în ce mai multe rateuri după ce a fost folosit prea multă vreme pe post de vătrai. Vătrai cu care cei aflați la putere și-au tot tras spuza pe turtele lor, de pe turtele ‘celorlați’.
Procese întoarse la CEDO, inconsecvență în jurisprudență, oameni sastisiți…

Înțelegem și noi odată? Înainte de a ne cădea cerul de sub picioare?
De câte ori mai trebuie să sune Alexandra la 112 ca să ne vină mintea la cap?

„Ies la iveală tot mai multe amănunte revoltătoare despre modul în care ar fi acționat poliția în cazul de la Caracal. O vecină a principalului suspect susține că a sunat de două ori la 112 în noaptea de 24 spre 25 iulie, pentru a raporta o activitate suspectă în fața porții acestuia. Ea a raportat că acolo erau parcate două mașini portbagaj în portbagaj și că crede că ar putea avea legătură cu dispariția fetei. Polițistul de serviciu i-a spus să stea liniștită și a trimis-o la culcare.”

 

 

Trial an error (motor, muscular, directly related to actions)

Emotional

Discursive

All three depend, evidently, on memory. Different kinds – evidently, again.

This is a stub.

Reading this excellent article by James Poulter, BBC Three, I was reminded of Marx. Karl, not Groucho.

“The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.”

 Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, 1848.

The XX-th century had been torn apart by two totalitarian lines of thought. Communism and fascism/nazism.
The communists had backed their claims on Marx’s class struggle while the fascists/nazists had used a plethora of other authors as pretexts. Despite the differences, the results had been the same. Callous spin doctors had used popular discontent to get uncontested possession of the political levers. And kept playing with them until entire countries crumbled under their own weight.

But what was it that made some nations destroy themselves on the left side of the authoritarian spectrum while others have done the same thing but on the right side?

The nature of the popular discontent!

At any given point, the majority of the people living in a country might see itself as being in one of the following three situations:
– Leading a relatively comfortable life and having a decent perspective to improve its lot or at least to maintain its present status.
– Having always led a bad life and finding absolutely no perspective of improvement.
– Having led a relatively good life for a while, lost that status and finding no way to resume it.

According to Marx, the first situation would have necessarily led to the third and, eventually, to communism.
According to history, people living in the second situation had always been manipulated into communism while people struggling in the third have been led into fascism/nazism.

Meanwhile, people living in the first situation have remained there for as long as they maintained their social cohesion. But that will be the subject of another post.

 

Science is, above all, a state of mind.
One that posits the world can be understood, one fact at a time.
Science also says that The (complete) Truth will never be fully acquired, only people tend to forget that part.

Some history, first.
Science, as an attitude, had appeared on the shores of the Medieval Mediterranean Sea. The Arabs had just discovered Ancient Greek writings about the ‘natural order of things’ while the Catholics were trying to figure out what God had in mind for the future of the mankind.

We have seen that the laws of nature depend on other laws of nature, which ultimately depend on God’s will.

Put all these together – the wish to understand God’s will, the belief that God’s will is expressed through the natural order of things and the systematic observation of nature, and, Eureka, you have ‘science’.

Which attitude had made Europe what it is today. Both the good and the bad of it.

Europeans have initiated the orderly study of everything around them.
As I said before, the initial intent wasn’t any technological improvement. Technicians and scientists were two completely different breed of people. As in ‘tinkerers’ and ‘philosophers’. Tinkering was sometimes confused with witchcraft while ‘philosophy’ was almost synonym with theology.
Well, both ‘professions’ could lead those to practiced them to a ‘funeral pyre’… whenever either of them ‘trespassed’… Many of those who are able to read are familiar with what ultimately happened to Giordano Bruno but very few of us know the fact that the ‘un-certified healers’ were seen with ‘suspicion’.

“Questioned whether she heals sick persons, answered yes Sir.
Questioned with what kind of medicines, answered by picking betony up and washing it like salad and crushing it into a mortar to get its juice and to give it to her patients for 3, 4 and 5 days, telling them that the more they drunk it, the better it was.
With these words the healer Gostanza da Libbiano, tried for witchcraft in 1594,….”
“The difference between them (healers) and physicians was the specific kind of tasks assigned to doctors: physicians, who rarely touched impurities and who regularly graduated from the university, were believed to be able to make the pain cease, whereas the healer, due to the fact that she actually touched her patients, was able both to make pain cease and to cause it”

Donatella Lippi, Witchcraft, Medicine and Society in Early Modern Europe, 2012

On the face of it, ‘science’ was, and continues to be, declared to depend exclusively on facts. Regardless of those facts being the expression of God’s will or, ultimately, of a serendipitous nature.
In fact, science is about what we, ‘scientists’, have been taught to accept as facts by our teachers and peers.

Another interesting thing.
When most scientists were still believing in God, their natural arrogance was kept in check by their belief that there was somebody who knew more than them. He.
As soon as God was declared dead, all hell broke loose.

‘Practical’ sciences continue to be kept in check by … well… practice! For any engineer, biologist, chemist, physician and all other related scientists and practitioners of science  it is obvious that Karl Popper and Werner Heisenberg were, and continue to be, right. No matter how much we will ever learn, we’ll never be able to know everything. Hence, we should proceed with utmost care.
Those who practice ‘secondary degree’ sciences – sci-Po being the most obvious example, share the belief that the world can be learned but are enjoying a far longer ‘leash’. Simply because the consequences of their actions come a lot later than those experienced by the ‘practical sciences’ practitioners. Add the fact that the ‘effects’ are harder  pinpoint to one specific cause/action…
And since God has become, at most, a personal matter… he no longer exerts the taming influence it used to…
Science has become independent. It is practiced for/in its own right, not as the only available manner of ‘divining’ God’s Will.
In fact, we use science as a manner to design our future. Independently. As each of us see fit and as allowed by those around us.
Which is good. Attempting to learn before proceeding is commendable, of course.
But proceeding with the unshakeable belief that we already know everything about what lies ahead of us is… foolish. Even more so when we speed up…  with total disregard about what other people, our colleagues/peers/fellow human beings, have to say and/or feel about the whole thing. Because we momentarily can.

 

Three things have grabbed my attention this week.

Carrie Lam, the Cambridge educated Hong Kong’s top civil servant, whose career spans more than 40 years, who happens to be a devout Catholic, had tried to fast track legislation allowing the Hong Kong authorities to extradite people to mainland China.

More than a million of the 7.4 million inhabitants of Hong Kong have taken to the streets, in protest.

Across the Pacific Ocean, in Venezuela, a pregnant mother accompanied by her two small children, had joined other 31 people who attempted to flee their impoverished country. They had climbed aboard Ana Maria, a fishing boat which was supposed to take them to Trinidad but never made it across the 20 km wide stretch of treacherous water.

Maroly Bastardo, the Venezuelan mother, was trying to survive. Since it is harder and harder to find food in Venezuela – for themselves and for their children, more and more people attempt to leave the country. Which, despite having an immense natural wealth, is being led to disaster by a group of ultimately incompetent people.

The one million people protesting in Hong Kong have adopted another strategy. They attempt not only to survive, physically, but also to preserve their way of life. Their cherished way of life.

These two are relatively easy to figure out. It’s easy to understand the need to survive. Equally easy to understand is the determination of those who want to continue a lifestyle they enjoy.

But what drives the Carrie Lam’s and the Nicholas Maduro’s of this world?
OK, I might accept the idea that, somehow, each of them might have ‘lost it’.
But what about those around them? How come so many people still consider they can, somehow, contradict the entire human history?
‘This time will be different!” ” ‘This Reich’ will rule for one thousand years!”

Yeah, right…

This rule of thumb is also known as ‘Gresham’s Law’

At the core of Gresham’s law is the concept of good money versus bad money. The law holds that bad money drives out good money in circulation. Bad money is then the currency that is considered to have equal or less value compared to its face value. Meanwhile, good money is currency that is believed to have greater value or more potential for greater value than its face value. One basic assumption for the concept is that both currencies are equally liquid and available for use simultaneously. Logically, consumers will choose to use bad money over good money because good money has the potential to be worth more than its face value.”

‘Concept’, ‘the law holds’, ‘is considered’, ‘value’, ‘compared’, ‘is believed’, ‘assumption’, ‘logically’…
So. The way I see it, ‘Gresham’s Law’ is about people interacting according to their own ‘impressions’, ‘drives’ and ‘internal logic’.

But wait. Things are far more interesting than ‘commoners’ hoarding the potentially more valuable coins, when having the ‘opportunity’ to choose between good and bad money.

“The minting of coins provides the most basic example of Gresham’s law applied. In fact, Gresham’s law itself was built around the minting of coins and Gresham’s service to Queen Elizabeth I of England. Sir Thomas Gresham lived from 1519 to 1579, working as a financier serving the Queen and later founding the Royal Exchange of the City of London. Henry VIII had changed the composition of the English shilling, replacing a substantial portion of the silver with base metals. Gresham’s consultations with the Queen explained that consumers were aware of the change and began separating the English shilling coins based on their production dates to hoard the coins with more silver which, when melted down, were worth more than their face value.”

In fact, Gresham’s Law is about ‘commoners’ reacting in a logical manner whenever the powerful had tried to ‘trick’ the less powerful into accepting less valuable coinage.

Let’s examine the situation from another angle.

Gold and silver had been used to make coins for a number of reasons.
Both were rare enough to maintain their perceived value no matter how much of them might have been ‘suddenly’ discovered. For example, the Spaniards had brought shiploads of precious metals into Europe from South America without creating much ‘inflation’.
They, individually and or alloyed, were soft enough to be minted using primitive technology. The oldest coins made of precious metals go back almost 3000 years
Both gold and silver are impervious to the passage of time. That being the motive for those coins having survived for so long.

For these three reasons gold and silver had been the obvious choices when people had realized they needed a ‘technology’ for making payments and for preserving and transporting value.

In reality, this is the intrinsic logic for which gold and silver had been valuable for us. They had represented the most convenient manner of making payments and for transporting/preserving value. As metals, gold was basically useless until the advent of microelectronics while silver had become really useful only after Daguerre started using it to make primitive photographs.

So. Ancient people had discovered that by using gold and silver coins they could vastly accelerate their economies. The most interested being, of course, the powerful of the day.
The rulers. Those who had the means and the authority to mint.
Some of whom also had the gumption to mess with the whole process. For their own profit, of course. Why do you think Hieron, the King of Syracuse, had hired Archimedes to determine whether a piece of metal – a crown, but the shape had no real meaning, was made of pure gold – as the goldsmiths pretended, or not?

Instead of a conclusion.
Since the start of time, some people have tried to swindle the others. No matter how high their position on the social ladder. And the rest have tried to protect themselves. Or, sometimes, even to emulate the ‘bad’ behavior.

This being the beauty of the free market.
Whenever a market is truly free, the reasonable people naturally weed out the swindlers.
Whenever the swindlers happen to have the upper hand, the rest have no other option but to follow suit. To hoard the ‘good’ money.
The consequence being the slowing down of the economic cycle. To the ultimate ‘bad’ of everybody. The swindlers included. And their children/suitors!

 

We live.
Hard to deny that, no matter what we may think about it.
The very fact that there are so many of us who do live simultaneously makes it a near certainty.

Since we do live, then there must be a place where this whole charade unfolds.

That place is called, by us, ‘Reality’.
Which reality had started to exist only after we, the living things, have become aware of its existence.

‘Hey, wait a minute!  a short moment ago you were arguing that our mere existence was absolute proof for the existence of ‘reality’ and now you pretend that ‘reality’ has appeared only after we’ve  noticed it… We’d been alive for way longer than that, dude!’

Of course. Our very existence does depend on the presence of a certain place where we may exist. Only there’s no need for us to know that. Nor for us to be able to name that place. The ants don’t ‘know’ there’s a whole world around them. Nor have a word to describe it!

What we call reality and the ‘place’ where we live are two separate things.
There is an intersection, of course. What is correct of what we think we know about the ‘reality’ and the collection of things that really exist. Only we don’t exactly know what is correct of what we think we know…

And it is here that things become really interesting.
We not only think that we have meaningful information about the thing we call reality. We also act based on that information, with the deliberate purpose of fulfilling our intentions. And in so doing, we decisively change the place. In ways we fail to understand comprehensively.

My point being that we change the place we depend on, for our lives, without having a clear understanding of how the place itself really works. Nor of the changes we implement – willingly and/or unknowingly.

At least, let’s have some respect. For the place itself.
And for us, as an important component of that place.

“A person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

This was how the United States’ Supreme Court was reading the US Constitution in 1973.

Pro-lifers oppose this view. Their main argument being that life is sacred and needs to be protected. Period. For them, abortion equals infanticide. Plain murder.

What we have here is a clash of absolutes.
The absolute right to life and the absolute right to dispose of your own body.

The United States Supreme Court has solved the conundrum by setting a time frame. “until the fetus becomes viable”.
Pro-lifers propose another solution: “make abortion and attempted abortion felony offenses except in cases where abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child’s mother“. (Alabama’s HB314/2019)

Let’s see where lie the differences between Pro-Choice and Pro-Life.

Pro-Choice say that agency must be reserved for those who 1. are alive and 2. are directly implied in the matter.
Pro-Life extend the definition of ‘alive’ to cover everything they consider to be ‘living matter’ and thus take the final decision from those who are directly implied into the mater. And give it to those who have to decide the seriousness of the “health risk to the unborn child’s mother”.

In both cases the absolute becomes relative.
In the first case, the absolute becomes relative to the person directly involved in the matter.
In the second case, the absolute becomes relative to those powerful enough to insert themselves, and others, into the equation.

And both sides clamor they are acting in the name of individual liberty…