Here in the West we have a ‘healthy’ mistrust in almost everything, including the press.

Yes, some of the media outlets have indeed became manipulative or basically empty of meaning.
We shouldn’t forget though that we, the public, have contributed to this situation. We are the ones who buy/follow this kind of media. And, above all, we allowed them to condition us into following ‘our’ media outlets. When was the last time any of you watched a show or read an article coming from a media outlet which doesn’t belong to ‘your political affiliation’?

Meanwhile out there some brave journalists operate in less than ideal conditions:


Hürriyet’s editor-in-chief Sedat Ergin

“You raided our home at midnight with stones and sticks. You stayed there for hours. You chanted, “You dog Doğan, do not test our patience.” You chanted “Re-cep Tayyip Er-do-ğan” slogans and “God is great.”
There are some people who push a button. There are groups who are ready to act when the button is pushed. How did this happen? Let’s track it step by step.”

To me this just another proof that what is going on in the world right now has very little to do with ‘religion’ per se and almost everything to do with the individuals who manipulate our religious sentiments for their own benefits.

And we let them get away with it. Includingly by pretending that the media is not to be trusted and then believing, indiscriminately, everything that comes out of ‘our’ media outlet (loudspeaker).

Could it be that the raiders were pissed off not only by Hurriyet’s constant criticism towards Erdogan but also by this article?

Why do we bash the West but not Saudi Arabia?

Recentele intamplari ale caror protagonist a fost Sorin Oprescu, edilul sef al Bucurestiului, i-au cam mirat pe comentatorii vietii politice si sociale romanesti.

‘Cum sa mai faci asa ceva in situatia in care DNA-ul deja a ‘saltat’ oameni din primarie?’
‘Ies la iveala din ce in ce mai multe acte de coruptie in ciuda campaniei intense de combatere a acestui fenomen!’

Prima fraza este cat se poate de rezonabila, mai ales daca este luata separat.

Cea de a doua pare de-a dreptul ciudata. Din punct de vedere logic. Tot mai multe cazuri de coruptie ajung sa iasa la iveala tocmai datorita campaniei de combatere si in nici un caz in ciuda ei….

Indiferent de ‘ciudatenia’ ei, merita atentie
Genul asta de fraze sunt rostite de oameni de oameni care practica un stil de gandire extrem de rational, care elimina la rece orice urma de sentiment din procesul cognitiv. Analisti, nu? Din pacate acest mod de a percepe lumea nu este nici pe departe atat de infailibil pe cat se pretinde a fi.
In primul rand pacatuieste prin a atribui si celor analizati un mod similar de a vedea lumea – cum de au putut sa continue avand in vedere ce se intampla in jurul lor? – iar in al doilea rand ca nu tine cont de faptul ca nu prea poti sa intelegi ce se intampla in capul cuiva daca nu esti familiarizat, in mod real, cu modul sau de gandire si cu situatia in care se afla.

Pai nu?
Daca esti rational iti adaptezi instantaneu actiunile la reactiile pe care le-ai produs. Imediat ce s-au prins gaborii de cioaca bagi capul la cutie – te opresti din ce faceai – si strangi randurile – nimeni nu mai vorbeste nimic astfel incat totul sa ramana ingropat.
Abia acum intelegem cum adica ‘ies la iveala tot mai multe acte de coruptie in ciuda campaniei intense de combatere a acestui fenomen’. In viziunea celor care se mira de chestia asta atitudinea rationala ar fi fost ca nimeni sa nu mai spuna nimic.

Ei bine, in primul rand ca o atitudine cu adevarat rationala ar fi fost ca nimeni sa nu calce pe bec. De loc. Sau daca s-a intamplat si au auzit ca le trosnesc cioburile sub talpi sa se fi oprit de la primul sau de la al doilea. Faptul ca i-au dat inainte prin balarii nu denota prea multa rationalitate.
In al doilea rand coruptia asta nu se practica de unul singur.
Si daca in prima faza apartenenta la un grup de genul asta – chiar daca nu e organizat in mod mafiot – iti ofera un sentiment de siguranta, macar prin numar, descoperi foarte repede ca nu esti de capul tau. Adica nu poti sa te opresti atunci cand ti se pare tie ca ai ‘agonisit’ destul. Ceilalti au si ei pretentiile lor.

Si  uite asa, chiar daca intamplator ai inceput ca dirijor, ajungi sa joci dupa cum iti canta orchestra.

Solutia? Foarte simpla. Atata vreme cat functiile de decizie, indiferent care, vor fi platite prost, ele vor atrage doar pe acei oameni care stiu bine de la inceput ce ii asteapta. Iar daca cei din executie vor fi platiti si ei mizerabil atunci ii vor ajuta pe primii.
Varianta ar fi ca decidentii sa fie platiti bine iar cei din executie decent. In felul acesta vor fi atrasi si oameni cu adevarat capabili, care ii vor scoate din sistem pe cei nu doar coruptibili ci, mai ales, care isi ascund incapacitatea in spatele unei rigiditati de care nu poti trece – ca om care ai de rezolvat o problema – pana cand nu dai ‘o atentie’.

Iar pana nu vom intelege acest lucru situatia actuala se va mentine, indiferent de intensitatea cu care va lucra DNA-ul. Cei cu adevarat capabili vor ocoli genul acesta de slujbe iar noi vom avea de infruntat un hatis din ce in ce mai impenetrabil.
Si nu, cei cu adevarat capabili nu vor accepta sa se manjeasca, tocmai pentru ca isi cunosc valoarea si nu vor sa ‘plece’ in concedii obligatorii si extrem de prost platite.
Cu alte cuvinte salariile decente sunt doar o conditie, nu un panaceu. DNA-ul trebuie sa ramana vigilent. Ca si noi toti de altfel.

A young Syrian boy, who drowned in his family’s attempt to reach Greece from Turkey, lies in the surf near Bodrum, Turkey

OK, I’m cool with this idea.
I’m convinced that all media outlets have their own agenda and that sometimes some of them publish a lot of bogus.

But where from do we get our information about what is going on in the world? If we don’t watch TV and we don’t listen to the radio? Does any of you still buy anything that was printed?
From the web? As in what our friends share on FB? Or Instagram? Or wherever?
And where do they get their facts from?

What we get is a ‘double selection’.

First of all each of the media outlets does make a selection from what they have at their disposal and publish only what fits their respective policies. Then come our ‘friends’. What we get is what our friends share from what the media thinks that we might be interested in.

The ideal situation would be for the media to do its job – present something with real meaning – and for our friends to conquer their biases and gouge things reasonably.

Is any of us in this ideal situation?

I’m not. Hence I watch the news. Not on a single channel, of course,
And I strive to make good use of my brain, each time.

” “After it capsized, the family clung to the boat. Mr Abdullah tried to hold his two children and wife with his arm, but one by one they were washed away by waves.” “

Was all of this made up? Was it inflated to grab our attention?
I cannot possibly know for sure.
Fact is that a lot of people are trying to flee from the Middle East.

And that’s the real news. Some of us need to see pictures like the one above in order to get it.
Could this possibly be the reason for which the media sometimes ‘jumps the gun’?

I’ve just found this joke in my e-mail, in Romanian. Had a laugh and thought about sharing it with you so I searched for a translation. Thanks Gaudeaugroup.com.

“A wealthy man decides to take a hunting safari in Africa and takes his faithful dog with him so he doesn’t feel so lonely out in the middle of the bush. The first day out on the expedition the dog starts  absent-mindedly chasing butterflies.  Before long, the dog discovers that he has become separated from the safari group. He starts wandering around in the wilderness, lost, when he suddenly notices a leopard a little way off, heading rapidly in his direction, with the obvious intention of making a meal out of him.

dog w-bone“Now I’m in deep doo doo!” thinks the dog, and starts racking his brain to figure a way out of his dire situation. He notices some bones nearby, and an idea hits him: He settles down comfortably to chew on the bones, with his back to the leopard. Just as the leopard is about to pounce, the dog exclaims loudly: “Man, that was one delicious leopard I just ate! I wonder if there’s any more around here?

Hearing this, the leopard halts his attack in mid stride, a look of terror on his face, and quietly slinks off into the bush again, thinking: “Whew! That was close! That demon dog almost got me!”.

Meanwhile, a monkey had been watching the whole scene from the top of a nearby tree.  The monkey figures he can put his information to good use and trade it with the leopard for protection. So off he scuttles, but the dog sees him heading after the leopard at great speed, and figures something is going on.

The monkey soon catches up with the leopard, cuts a deal, and tells him the whole story. The leopard, furious at being fooled so easily, exclaims: “That dog! I’m gonna get him for that! So the stupid dog thinks he can make a fool of me, lord of the wilderness, does he? We’ll show him who eats who around here! Come on, monkey: jump on my back, and we’ll go get him!”  The monkey jumps on, and the two of them head off in search of the dog.

The dog sees the leopard coming from a long way off, this time with the monkey on his back. “What a sneaky little monkey!”, thinks the dog to himself. “Now what am I going to do?” Instead of running, the dog sits down on the ground, his back to the attackers, pretending he hasn’t seen them yet, and waits for them to get close enough to hear him. “Where’s that rascal monkey!” exclaims the dog, loudly.  “Never can trust him! I sent him off half an hour ago to bring me another leopard, and he’s still not back!””

While putting this post together something else crossed my mind.
How come such a ‘genius’ got lost in the wilderness, ‘absent-mindedly chasing butterflies’?!?
That’s more likely for a careless brat than for a seasoned ‘old hand’…

PS.
I somehow feel this fits well in here:

SECOND OPINION
Ever since I was a child, I’ve always had a fear that someone was hiding under my bed at night, so I finally went to a shrink and told him “I’ve got problems. Every time I go to bed I think there’s somebody under my bed!! I’m scared. I think I’m going crazy.”
“Just put yourself in my hands for one year”, said the shrink. “Come talk to me three times a week and we should be able to get rid of those fears.”

“How much do you charge?”, I asked.
“Eighty dollars per visit”, replied the doctor.

“I’ll sleep on it”, I said.
Six months later the doctor met me on the street. “Why didn’t you come to see me about those fears you were having?”, he asked.
“Well, eighty bucks a visit, three times a week for a year, is $12,480.00. A bartender cured me for $10.00. I was so happy to have saved all that money that I went and bought me a new pickup truck.”

“Is that so?” With a bit of an attitude the shrink said, “And how, may I ask, did a Bartender cure you?”

“He told me to cut the legs off the bed……..Ain’t nobody under there now.”

I thought the modern mantra was ‘make as much money as you can, in a legal way – if possible’….
Meanwhile the likes of Trump are lionized for their exploits yet those who are happy to nibble some crumbs from Uncle Sam’s table are treated with scorn!
Is there any real difference between Trump using eminent domain to rob people of their homes and the guys depicted above scamming the federal budget?

You may also want to check what Snopes.com has to say about the matter.

Taking the mic. Varoufakis. Yves Herman/Reuters Varoufakis in conversation with leading academics as Syriza splinters and election beckons in Greece

The strangest thing of all that happened in Greece is not that ‘the emperor has been naked for sometime already’ but the fact that this has been public knowledge.
Yet everybody still pretends everything is OK.

Click on the picture and read the article in The Conversation.
You can also check my previous post on this subject here.

The automobile has been both a huge opportunity for the humankind and a sort of a turning point in its history.

Humans have been faced with an extremely interesting provocation during their entire evolution. In order for the community to become stronger its individual members had to become simultaneously more autonomous and more involved in the communal life.

At first the automobile helped with both. It offered the individual the means to travel faster and further – hence it increased individual autonomy – and it drove people to ‘band together’ – to form the corporations that build automobiles, to build roads and bridges, etc., etc.

After some time the automobile had become a mixed blessing. Not only that a lot of people were dying in car accidents but because in his search for increased efficiency man had invented the ‘assembly line’, thus heavily limiting the erstwhile huge autonomy of the very skilled laborers who used to build the first automobiles. Skills, which usually come with an independent mind, were no longer in such high demand and have been replaced by ‘hard work’. And later by sheer automation.

But at least we were still responsible for driving the damned cars. And, for many of us, that was the only really autonomous thing that we were allowed to do without outside supervision. Except for when the missus was in the co-pilot seat, of course. Just kidding, the husbands are the more obnoxious critics when it comes to driving skills, not the wifes. But the fact remains.

Not for long. In a short while not only that we will be transported by our future self driving cars but they, the cars, will have to obey the police first and only then take us where we told them to go.

And all of this in the name of progress…

The two sides are fighting this tooth and nail.

But what are they really fighting for?

With the pro-choicers things are relatively clear. They want the mother to have the ultimate say about the fate of the pregnancy, at least during the first three months. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are condoning abortions. All reasonable human beings finds this is not a commendable method for birth control and most pro-choicers agree that it should be used only as a last resort escape out of an untenable situation.

With the pro-lifers things are a lot more nuanced. They insist that the life of the fetus is sacrosanct and must be preserved at all costs. Only those costs are going to be supported almost exclusively by the mother and/or by the child itself.

Let’s see some facts about the abortions that take place in the US

“• Half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about four in 10 of these end in abortion.[1]

• About half of American women will have an unintended pregnancy, [2] and nearly 3 in 10 will have an abortion, by age 45.[3]

• The overall U.S. unintended pregnancy rate increased slightly between 1994 and 2008, but unintended pregnancy increased 55% among poor women, while decreasing 24% among higher-income women.[1,6]

• Overall, the abortion rate decreased 8% between 2000 and 2008, but abortion increased 18% among poor women, while decreasing 28% among higher-income women.[3]

• Some 1.06 million abortions were performed in 2011, down from 1.21 million abortions in 2008, a decline of 13%.[4]

• The number of U.S. abortion providers declined 4% between 2008 (1,793) and 2011 (1,720). The number of clinics providing abortion services declined 1%, from 851 to 839. Eighty-nine percent of all U.S. counties lacked an abortion clinic in 2011; 38% of women live in those counties.[4]

• Nine in 10 abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.[5]

• A broad cross section of U.S. women have abortions:[3]

First of all 1 million abortions is a huge number but it is decreasing. A 13% decrease in 4 years is no small thing, right? How about concentrating the efforts towards the prevention of unwanted pregnancies instead of trying to outrightly ban the abortions?

What would happen if abortions were to stop tomorrow? Besides some of the women traveling abroad and others attempting empiric, and very dangerous, measures to ‘obtain’ a miscarriage?

How many of the women in their 20’s will be able to go on with their lives, even assuming they will give up for adoption their ‘unwanted’ children? How many of those who already have children will be able to afford another one? Specially those that are unmarried/not cohabiting AND economically disadvantaged? What will be the fate of these children? And of their brethren?

I find it rather strange that those who insist on saving the lives of the unborn don’t realize that at the same time they insist on ruining the lives of people who are already living.
Hence my question.
What makes one life more precious than the other and how come the pro-lifers are so sure about their beliefs that they would empower the government most of them distrust with imposing a certain belief, theirs, on somebody else?
While all the costs will be supported by, you guessed it, that very ‘somebody else’, not at all by the proponents of the imposition.

“A top GOP pollster tried to find out why people love Donald Trump – and left with his legs ‘shaking’ “.

His conclusion? Republican Leadership “need to wake up. They don’t realize how the grassroots have abandoned them. Donald Trump is punishment to a Republican elite that wasn’t listening to their grassroots.”

I can agree with that but this is only the tip of the iceberg. According to Lowell Weicker, former Republican Senator and independent Governor, there is a “total disconnect…between reality and Republican Party”.
Most civilized people believe that democracy is ‘good for you’ but only a few of them are able to differentiate between bona fide democracy – a political space where all things are discussed openly and which is dominated by a hefty dose of mutual respect among those involved – and ‘mob rule’ – where a portion of the electorate is manipulated into voting for one party/candidate or another.
Mob rule sucks. It divides the society into barricaded compounds that hardly exchange any information. Business slowly grinds to a halt because of mutual distrust and the nation dissolves itself into a collection of individuals too concerned about their private interests to notice what is going on around them.
Real democracy works. Not because more brains think better than one  – that is not necessarily true – but because all ‘brains’ make mistakes. And if the brain at the top goes around unchallenged those mistakes might have huge repercussions for the entire society. During the negotiation phase of a democratic process (otherwise known as the electoral campaign) there are huge chances that most of the potential mistakes will be pointed out and eventually purged. But that happens only if the process is really free. If not, if the public discourse is hijacked by special interests or if the public itself suffers from (temporary?) blindness  things do not go as smoothly as they are supposed to happen.
And here comes Donald Trump.
It’s very hard to say on which side of the things he really is.
Until recently he was saying that he funds his campaign with his own money so that nobody will be able to ask anything from him ‘afterwards’. Now he says he’ll accept donations, big and small.
OK, people can have second thoughts. I have no problem with that. Not even when somebody flips a lot.
I have a big problem though with the con artists who say what the people want to hear instead of honestly speaking up their minds.
In this sense both Lowell Weicker and Frank Luntz, the GOP pollster, are right. The Republican elite has primed their grass roots so hard against the ‘liberals’ that no dialogue seems possible between the two sides. And when dialogue dies out, misunderstanding promptly catches up from behind.
I’m afraid that people who are happy that Trump voices, very loudly, some topics that have either been neglected and/or mismanaged, don’t understand that he doesn’t do it with the intention of solving any of them but because he knows that this is the sure way of mesmerizing the public.
Maybe all this is for the better. The neglected subjects are out in the open and must now be addressed.
Just as important, the pundits, on both sides of the political divide, should have understood by now that it’s high time for them to clean up their act.
Or get replaced by the Trumps of this world.

Bashing ‘religion’ has become a pastime…

But did you know that it was a catholic priest that came up with the Big Bang Theory

and that Darwin was at least as interested in religion as he was in the theory of evolution? OK, in time he had become agnostic, like I am, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t religious.

A real scientist knows that knowledge is infinite and that he has no chance of mastering it all.
A truly religious person believes that there is something ‘above’ him and that his partaking in that something produces a strong bond between those who share that belief.
The person who barely reads one book, or more, and thinks that he knows it all is a fundamentalist, not at all a religious person.
A scientist can be a religious person and a religious person can be a scientist but neither a scientist nor a truly religious person can ever become a fundamentalist.
Religion is, above all, about respecting the others. So much so as to be able to cooperate with them.
Being convinced that you are in possession of the whole truth and that (most of) the rest of the world is wrong is the dead opposite of being religious.