under trump's skin

‘I just love how she gets under Donald Trump’s skin.’

Supposedly the democratic process was about presenting your program – as reasonably as you possibly can, so that people would start to trust you – and then letting the electorate decide.

Unfortunately things have become anything but.

People belonging to both sides of the political divides, on both sides of the Atlantic, are acting more like spoiled brats than like the responsible politicians they are supposed to be. Instead of presenting their ideas using a rational discourse they ‘energize’ their followers using all kinds of tricks developed by ‘political marketeers’ until reason is completely numbed.

And the worst thing is that by repeated mutual validation individuals generate social norms. That’s why so many of us don’t find anything odd in the way politicians are currently pandering to their ‘special needs’.

Because of our lassitude and at our own expense.

“The fourth lesson is that voters don’t seem to care about the hypocrisy and inconsistency of the anti-elite politicians. Never mind that Oxbridge-educated politicians were railing against the elites and the EU. Never mind that Trump loves outsourcing and immigrant labor in his struggling businesses, while campaigning against, um, outsourcing businesses and immigrant labor.

The sense of betrayal by and distrust of the elites is so rampant, it doesn’t matter who says it. “I think people in this country have had enough of experts,” said Michael Gove, the Oxford-educated justice secretary, who also compared pro-EU economists to Nazi scientists.”

It was by meeting their ideologically blind ‘hypocrisy and inconsistency’ with despondency that we, ‘the people’, have allowed this to happen.
Pretending that our side is nevertheless better than the other one will only prolong the agony.
We must imperatively ask that both sides mend their ways. Comprehensively.

And for that to happen we must stop pretending that any of the naked emperors have any clothes left on their backs.

they keep telling us.

As if it would always be obvious where ‘up’ and ‘down’ are…

In his efforts to figure up how society works Max Weber has introduced the concept of “ideal type”:

Ideal type, a common mental construct in the social sciences derived from observable reality although not conforming to it in detail because of deliberate simplification and exaggeration. It is not ideal in the sense that it is excellent, nor is it an average; it is, rather, a constructed ideal used to approximate reality by selecting and accentuating certain elements.”

In other words, Weber proposed that in order to better understand social interactions we should first divest everything we consider unimportant from whatever we are studying and then concentrate our attention on what, in our opinion,  ‘makes the world go round’.

Key words here, in my opinion, being “our opinion”.

Common lore, somewhat older than organized ‘science’, used to speak about ‘put yourself in his shoes’.

To me this way of putting it shows two different things.
Commoners are more humble than scientists – none of them pretends to know which are the aspects that have to be taken into account and which are those that should be discarded –  and, maybe even more important, a lot more ‘democratically minded’ – ‘put yourself in his shoes’ plainly states that both opinions, ‘his’ and ‘yours’, have equal value.

In this sense ‘look from above’ seems a rather ‘scientific’ attitude, don’t you think?
By telling somebody that he should search a vantage point and then examine the situation from there actually suggests him to construct one of Weber’s ideal types.

Now, please, don’t get me wrong.
Of course this is exactly how human minds work.
Whenever we look at something – no matter how open minded we believe ourselves to be about it – we do it from a personal point of view. There’s no way that we can reasonably pretend otherwise.

The real problem is what we do next.

When ever we try to put ourselves in somebody else’s shoes we have to make a choice.

We can either try to understand/feel what we would have understood/felt if those things would have happened to us or we can try to imagine what the original owner of the shoes understood/felt then, when things were actually happening to him, in ‘real time’.

I’m sure you all see the difference.

This is why, whenever I’m asked ‘please look at this situation from above and tell me your conclusion’, I always start with ‘all I can do is offer my opinion on this, accompanied by a stern warning: My opinion is just that, an opinion. It can happen to be more accurate than yours but it can also be wrong. If you still want it I’ll gladly put it on the table and let us all discuss it.’

On the practical level Nicholas Nassim Taleb proposes that we should shift our focus from trying to determine which is the best option in a given situation to doing our best to avoid choosing the obviously wrong ones.

‘Obvious’ to those who do not allow themselves to become mesmerized by the illusion that ‘best’ can be identified, o course.

WP_20160613_12_03_45_Pro

Mi-am dus nevasta la gara.
Nu va bucurati degeaba, se intoarce. A plecat in delegatie.

Trebuie sa ajunga la Miercurea Ciuc.
Trenul catre acea destinatie pleaca, cel putin cel de la 12:15, de la peronul 13.
Vagonul 7 era oprit in dreptul gaurii pe care o aveti in fata.

De unde si intrebarile care urmeaza.

Toata Gara de Nord e in halul asta sau peronul 13 e pastrat special pentru unguri?

Si care o fi fost desteptul care a pus genul asta de paviment acolo unde fiecare al doilea trecator taraste dupa el o valiza pe roti?

WP_20160613_12_04_00_Pro

Sa nu uit. Daca vi se face sete in Gara de Nord duceti-va la supermarketul de langa casele de bilete. E singurul loc unde au mai multe feluri de apa – la chioscuri exista doar Dorna – si unde flaconul de juma de litru costa 2 lei, ca in restul orasului. La chioscuri e cu 50% mai scump.

About 8 years ago a girl meets a guy and they get married.

After four months her family intervenes and helps her get out of a dysfunctional relationship.

He starts another one, has a son, and later kills 50 people in a gay bar some time after a gay couple kissed each-other in front of his child.
“They were kissing each other and touching each other and he said, ‘Look at that. In front of my son they are doing that.”

Isn’t this whole thing very descriptive of the situation we are facing now?

Her family noticed something was wrong – he was abusing her – and helped her out.

Eight years later – after having another relationship, after being investigated by the FBI and issued a gun permit – he snaps and kills 50 people.

Where was his family? His friends? His neighbors? His co-workers?

“In other words, Mateen who according to preliminary reports, had been on a terrorist watchlist, and who still managed to obtain weapons thanks to his various licenses and permits just last week, was employed by one of the world’s largest security companies”.

More than 100 years ago, Emile Durkheim, a French sociologist, discovered that suicide, while being a very personal decision, is heavily influenced by the strength and quality of  the social relations that connect the concerned individual to the rest of the society.

I’m not going to argue now that most acts of terrorism, specially the ones perpetrated in the last 20 or 30 years, are of a suicidal nature. They are but this is a somewhat different problem from what I have in mind right now.

What I’m afraid of is that we, in the West, are killing ourselves.

As a society.

We have stopped caring about the guy next door to the tune of no longer being able to notice that he has become crazy and is about to start shooting.

Left and right.

Us.

Let’s wake up, before there will be no one left to answer the phones.

phones ringing

Nu stiu daca asa o fi de obicei.
Tot ce pot sa va spun este ca asa a fost ieri seara.

Am iesit sa ne intalnim cu niste prieteni.
In piateta din fata Hanului Manuc ne-am bucurat ca niste copii urmarind un spectacol de acrobatie oferit cu extrema dezinvoltura de o trupa din Kenya. Click aici pentru fotografii.

Doua ore de discutii extrem de interesante la o carciuma. Curtea Berarilor Timisoreana.
Mancare banala, serviciu tern, prietenii la inaltime.

Incepe al doilea meci. Nici habar n-am avut ca fusese deja unul.
Din motive pe care n-am reusit sa le intelegem, atunci cand a inceput Anglia-Rusia cineva a dat sonorul atat de tare incat nu ne mai puteam auzi gandurile din cap. L-am intrebat pe chelner, a spus ceva despre management si si-a cerut scuze, in nume propriu.

Plecam, evident.

Ne mutam la Hanul lui Manuc sa bem o cafea.

La usa, maitre d’, o domnisoara, ne spune ca toate mesele sunt rezervate… ca ar avea o masa de 2 (noi eram 6)… ca daca mai asteptam un pic…
Era deja 10 jumate iar cel putin o treime din mesele din curtea interioara erau goale. Dupa vreo doua minute de ‘parlamentari’ descopera ca ar mai fi o masa la care ar putea sa ne ‘plaseze’. Abia cand ajungem acolo incep sa ma intreb daca nu cumva o fi asteptat ceva de la noi… Eu stiam ca se lasa ceva chelnerului, daca esti multumit de serviciu… si ca doar la curve e cu plata inainte… poate ma insel si atribui motivatii care exista doar in capul meu… sper din tot sufletul sa fie asa.
Stam vreo ora, timp in care terasa se goleste vazand cu ochii. Cand iesim uitam sa o intrebam pe maitre d’ unde e aglomeratia promisa.

Hai la taxi.
Cand sa ne urcam: “unde mergeti?”
Ne uitam in jur. O multime de oameni umbla printre taxiurile parcate in fata si in jurul Magazinului Unirea.
Toate cu lampa verde aprinsa pe tavan, semn ca sunt libere. Marea majoritate a soferilor vorbesc la telefon si toti intreaba: ‘unde mergeti’?
Cei mai multi dintre potentialii clienti ii injura si fac comanda pe telefoanele mobile. Strainii se urca, neavand alta optiune.
Cineva din apropiere ii spune unui prieten: ‘Un taximetrist mi-a cerut 30 de lei pana in Dorobanti’. Cam de trei ori mai mult decat pe ceas.

Mergem la autobuz, daca tot au introdus liniile de noapte.

In doua minute vine N104. Nu ne credem ochilor ce noroc avem. 104, cel de zi, trece foarte aproape de unde locuim noi.
Incercam sa ne urcam. Singura usa deschisa e cea de la sofer. Aglomeratie. Unii vor sa urce, altii vor sa coboare ‘la prima’. Asa ca stau un usa si nu ai cum sa te urci. Cineva il intreaba pe sofer de ce nu deschide si celelalte usi. ‘Asa e regula pe cursele de noapte!’. N-ai cum sa-l contrazici, cu toate ca celelalte doua autobuze din statie au toate trei usile deschise.
Reusim sa ne urcam, vreo 4 oameni raman pe din=afara cu toate ca autobuzul era gol in spate.
La prima statie: ‘Faceti-ne va rog loc, vrem sa coboram’. Vreo 4 dintre noi coboara, doar pentru a face loc. Ii intreb pe cei care coboara: ‘Ce ar fi fost daca faceam si noi ca dumneavoastra? Daca nu ne-ati lasat sa urcam, de ce sa va facem loc sa coborati?’
Evident ca mai raman cativa in statie, din fericire nu dintre cei 4 care coborasem.
Se incinge discutia cu soferul. Acesta o tine tare pe a lui – ‘Asa e regula si pe mine ma da seful afara daca nu o respect’ – iar calatorii mai au putin si sar la bataie.
Cu toate astea multi prefera sa se inghesuie la usa din fata in loc sa se duca toti in spate si sa se apropie de usa doar cand vor cu adevarat sa coboare. Loc ar fi fost berechet, chiar daca s-ar fi urcat si cei care ramasesera pe jos.
La un moment dat autobuzul iese din traseul lui 104. De, era N104, nu 104 normal. De ce or fi folosit un indicativ care sa produca confuzie? De ce nu i-r fi spus N-IJGBTZ in loc de N104 daca traseul e comun doar in prima treime iar destinatia cu totul si cu totul alta?
Spiritele se incing din nou intre sofer si calatori, noroc ca intre timp acesta primise ‘intariri’ – in ‘ghereta’ din fata autobuzului aparuse un ghertoi de cel putin 100 de kile. Chiar daca avea mai mult de 50 de ani era suficient de malac incat sa mai domoleasca furia calatorilor.

Coboram.

Trecem strada si ne speriem ingrozitor.

Nu, nu era nici un spectru. Doar o reprezentare post modernista a lui Cajal.

Noapte buna.

WP_20160612_00_34_55_Pro 2

PS. Intr-adevar regulile RATB prevad ca pe liniile de noapte “Accesul publicului călător se realizează numai pe la uşa 1” dar si ca “Abonamentul eliberat pe o linie/două linii RATB este valabil şi pe liniile de noapte care au traseu comun cu aceasta/acestea, dar numai pe porţiunile de traseu comun.” iar “Controlul titlurilor de călătorie se efectuează de către conducatorii de vehicule”.
Acum ati inteles de ce se deschide doar usa din fata?

http://www.ratb.ro/v_noapte.php

Shortly after becoming aware of his own awareness Man figured out that, from then on, his real job will be to attach meaning to everything that was, is and will be happening around him.

The very same moment He freaked out – because of the enormous responsibility that had just fallen upon his head – and invented god to help Him.

There is, of course, no way of knowing for certain whether a real God had interfered, in any way, shape or form, in our evolution.
The fact that so many of us think the world can be explained ‘through itself’ – that there is enough information available to construct a plausible narrative about what went on since the Big Bang – is the real proof of nothing more but the huge cockiness harbored by our inflated egos.
OK, nothing more but a long held tradition suggests that God exists for real only this is no factual demonstration about the nonexistence of God.

On the contrary. The very fact that the tradition held for so long means that God had a real contribution to our life.

It doesn’t really matter whether that God was real or contrived by us.

And the fact that so many of us use their respective gods as pretexts to commit heinous acts sends no other message than that those who commit such crimes have no real understanding about what God really means.

In 2014 electoratul roman s-a dus la vot insufletit, in mare masura, de nevoia de a scapa de coruptie. Si uite asa a fost ales Iohannis. Ca sa nu iasa Ponta – despre care se vehiculau tot felul de informatii, inclusiv cea despre teza sa de doctorat – si nu atat pentru ca lumea ar fi avut vreo parere extraordinar de buna despre Iohannis.

In 2015 o multime furioasa l-a alungat  din Palatul Victoriei pe acelasi Ponta – ramas prim ministru cu toate ca pierduse alegerile,  sub sloganul “Coruptia Ucide!”. Nemultumirea populara, care ajunsese la un nivel greu de gestionat, daduse in foc din cauza tragediei de la Colectiv. De fapt aceasta tragedie fusese un fel de pretext, daca ea nu ar fi avut loc nemultumirea generalizata si-ar fi gasit alt motiv pentru a rabufni.

In iunie 2016 alegerile locale consemneaza patru premiere pentru Romania:

O femeie este aleasa ca primar al capitalei.
PSD-ul castiga toate primariile din Bucuresti.
Interesul alegatorilor scade dramatic, mai ales in randul tinerilor si in special in capitala.
Mai multi candidati condamnati sau anchetati pentru coruptie sunt realesi in functii. Printre ei se numara Catalin Chereches, aflat in arest preventiv, care a fost votat de 70.28% dintre baimarenii care au iesit la urne.

Mircea Toplean concluzioneaza (avant la lettre), in Blogary.ro, ca Romania sufera de o prea mare toleranta la coruptie.
Cred ca familiarizarea cu practica indelungata a coruptiei ne-a facut pe noi romanii extrem de toleranti la ideea de coruptie. Suntem aproape incapabili sa ne indignam sincer in fata coruptilor (dosare penale ale politicienilor, doctorate plagiate ale unor oameni iubiti si votati de tot poporul etc.). Cand mergem la spital sau avem de-a face cu vreun hop administrativ, dam noi insine spaga.
Adrian Papahagi, si mai realist (?!?), ne spune verde-n-fata: “Prefer ca România să fie condusă de pişicheri corupţi. Vanghelie e de o mie de ori preferabil lui Mungiu: incultura lor esentiala este aceeasi, doar gradul de alfabetizare difera. Vanghelie macar e mai tolerant si mai simpatic.

Acuma, daca e s-o spunem pe-a dreapta, toate astea au fost prevestite de excelentul eseu “Istoria si Mitologia Exceptionalismului Coruptiei Romanesti”, prezentat de Adrian Severin la conferinta organizata de Fundatia Europeana Nicolae Titulescu pe 26 noiembrie 2011:

“Sancţionată atât de regula morală cât şi de drept, corupţia nu are o definiţie legală ci numai aplicaţii legale (mită, trafic de influenţă, abuz în serviciu, înşelăciune etc.). Cum dreptul (în special cel penal) necesită precizie, lipsa unei definiţii legale a corupţiei ca atare, pune problema relaţiei între drept şi morală.”

Pai?

Intelectualii, in afara ca nu se inteleg cu privire la ‘relatia intre drept si morala’, se gratuleaza intre ei folosind termeni de tipul “monstru de aroganta, intoleranta si ideologie tampa“.
O parte dintre politicieni fura iar alta parte declara sus si tare ca ‘nu se mai poate cu coruptia asta’: ”Bucureştenii au vorbit şi au vorbit clar ! Noi, PNL, suntem de vină, nu alţii! Una am spus şi alta am făcut! Noi am iniţiat criteriile de integritate şi am sfârşit prin a defila cu persoane «penale», noi am susţinut cotele de gen şi am fost primii care am renunţat la ele, noi am stabilit reguli pentru desemnarea candidaţilor, dar am luat deciziile în funcţie de interesele şi sforile trase de unii şi de alţii. NOI nu am fost consecvenţi!
La randul ei, o mare parte din presa trateaza fenomenul in termeni de ‘coruptia lor’, ca si cum rolul ei ar fi mai degraba sa apere/promoveze interese de partid si nu sa informeze, cat se poate de onest, pe Maria Sa Cetateanul. Ba, mai mult, atunci cand este anchetat cineva din tabara ‘proprie’, de multe ori anchetatorii insisi ajung sa fie acuzati ca ar avea motivatii politice.

Nu ca nu ar fi si unii care or avea.

Dar asa cum in cazul acuzatilor functioneaza, sau mai bine spus ar trebui sa functioneze, prezumtia de nevinovatie, tot asa ar trebui sa functioneze si avertismentul “Fiat justitia, ruat caelum”.

In sensul sau mai larg.
‘Aveti grija sa se faca cu adevarat dreptate pentru ca altfel vi se va prabusi cerul in cap’.

Iar asta e valabil pentru noi toti. Cata vreme coruptia ‘noastra’ va fi socotita acceptabila/scuzabila si doar coruptia ‘lor’ va fi aratata vehement cu degetul nu vom reusi sa urnim carul din loc.

8d99cf9b636a698e5bb1d4c6644dcc84

The moment we try to appraise the value of human life, in monetary terms or in any other way, is the threshold to man made hell.
By simply accepting the notion of collateral damage – that the ‘ultimate goal’ might be considered important enough to justify damage suffered by innocents – we enter the realm of ‘fantasy world’.
The place where wishes trump reality and where desires are considered – by those who entertain them, of course – more important than anything else.
In this realm people cannot get along with each-other, simply because they cannot find any common ground. Whenever a group of people accepts the notion that one life can be considered more important than any another – that individual human lives can be ‘filed’ according to their individual values, sooner or later its members will start fighting each others for preeminence.
‘Top dog’ position becomes not only desirable but also the only thing a ‘rational’ individual will ever pursue. Simply because no other position comes even close and because, by agreeing that human life can be appraised, the members of that group have proclaimed that ‘social life’ is more about competition than about cooperation.
The problem with ‘no holds barred’ competitions being that some of the spectators think they are fun to watch while those in the pit discover very quickly that survival is almost impossible but for the briefest lengths of time.
zahar ulei

Cineva a pus clipul de mai sus pe Youtube.

Chestia asta îmi aduce aminte de bancul ăla cu ferma de porci. Cică Ceașcă, în vizită la o fermă de scroafe gestante, vede una deosebit de ‘umflată’. Și, pentru că ăsta-i era stilul, ‘rostește’: ‘asta sigur face doisprezece purcei’.
Evident, toată asistența își notează scrupulos: ‘scroafa din ‘celula’ F19 trebuie sa fete macar 12 pui’. Peste cateva zile ii vine sorocul. Și, ce să vezi, ies doar 2.
Îngrijitorul – îngrijorat, evident – raportează șefului de hală: ‘A fătat. 4.’
Acesta, îngrijorat la rândul lui, către directorul fermei: ‘Tovarașe director, avem o problemă. Scroafa aia, știți dumneavoastră care, a fătat. Doar 7!’.
Directorul fermei către secretarul de partid pe județ: ‘Toa’r’șe secretar, avem o problema. Scroafa ‘aia’ a făcut doar 9 pui.’
Secretarul de partid către ministrul agriculturii: ’10’.
Ministrul agriculturii către secretarul cu agricultura din CC al PCR: ’11’.
La partid se adună o celulă de criză. ‘Ce dracu facem cu nebunu’? Dacă îi spunem ăstuia că scroafa aia despre care a spus el că o să fete 12 purcei a facut doar 11 o să ne reproșeze că ne batem joc de el!’.
Ion Dincă, zis Teleagă, ia problema în mână și își asumă responsabilitatea: ‘Las că rezolv eu!’
Intra la cabinetul 1 și: ‘Tovarășe Secretar General, permiteți să raportez!’
‘Zi bă!’
‘În urmă cu două săptamâni, în cursul vizitei de lucru pe care ați efectuat-o la ferma de scroafe gestante din județul… ați pronosticat că scroafa din celula F19 va da naștere la 12 purcei. Raportez cu mândrie patriotică că a facut 13.’
‘Bine, foarte bine. Doi să fie trimiși la export iar restul să fie alocați pentru consumul intern.’

donald-trump-short-fingered-vulgarian-fingers-bruce-handy-ss13
When trying to understand a rather complicated phenomenon one has two options.
Amass as much pertinent information as possible and then try to put it together or watch out for questions posed and opinions offered by others on the same subject. And, then again, put them together in your own way, of course.
A friend of mine posted this on FB:
“Trump’s trick is that he has never run on substance, yet his opponents and detractors attempt to attack the substance of how he is wrong. Because there is no substance, they cannot help but miss.”
See what I mean? Why strain your own head when there are people who already have the answer to your question?
All that is left for me to do is elaborate a little.
Well, as the man said, it is hard to be a ‘Trump detractor’ since there is nothing there to detract in the first place!
As for the ‘Trump’s opponents’… here again it’s a matter of understanding the mechanics of human interaction.
This whole thing started when Trump, the ‘perfect opportunist’, noticed that the ‘anti-Establishment’ sentiment was strong enough to present a ‘workable opportunity’.
Which he gleefully grabbed. And started to position himself as the ‘quintessential anti-Establishment candidate’.
As a matter of fact this is also the explanation for why he joined the Republican camp… after lavishing so much money on Clinton, for instance.

Among the Republicans the anti-Establishment feeling is stronger than among the Democrats – Sanders doesn’t seem able to uproot Clinton.
Now I have to remind you what most Trump supporters were saying a year ago:
‘I don’t like him, as a person, but by supporting him I’m sending a strong message to the Establishment’.
What happened during the last 10 months or so – that so many people have started to ‘like him as a person’ – is very simple to understand. Trump was skillful enough to position himself effectively while those who disliked him started to ‘oppose’ him. And, by doing so, gave him ‘substance’.
You see, engaging a conversation – no matter how ‘heated’ – with somebody means acknowledging his presence. Speaking to somebody means lending him some of your own legitimacy.
The second mistake made by Trump’s opponents was ‘calling names’ to those who spoke in his favor. And, just by doing so, transformed those who at first only wanted to vent their frustration into full-fledged supporters.
What we have now is a perfect example of a man made ‘perfect storm’.
A ‘loose cannon’ candidate whose supporters are experiencing a double layered frustration. A basic one fueled by the bleak economic perspectives faced by the entire middle class which is exacerbated by the disdain so oftenly felt by Trump’s supporters whenever they express their political opinion.
Hopefully Trump will eventually loose. But the ‘perfect storm’ will remain and it will have to be treated with utmost care.
The point being that we should not forget who brought us here.
The Establishment.
Reason tells us that in its own interest the Establishment – who has the most to loose – would be the first to look for a solution.
As we’ve just seen, the Republican half has failed miserably and the Democratic one is following in their footsteps. Judging by the quality of the candidates, of course.
Could this be the reason behind Kim’s endorsement for Trump?

trump, far sighted politician

North Korea supports Trump over “Dull” Hillary