It’s the Law!

July 7, 2016 //
0

5eg5cq4_llox-4hqq6q6r-cwzhlmn9igl6ermaorfgy

For the last 3500 years humankind has been busy writing Laws.

Which can be grouped in two main categories.
Natural laws and man made (normative) laws.
According to this classification while all laws have been written by Man those belonging to the first category are active regardless of Man being aware of their existence and those who belong to the latter come to life only as long as Man chooses to enforce them.

Another classification could be ‘phusical’ laws – ‘phusis’ being an ancient Greek term for ‘grown naturally’, all things that came to be in a ‘natural’ manner – ‘statistical’ laws and, again, ‘normative’ laws.

Both these classifications depend on how much influence Man has over how the laws work, besides the obvious fact that the wording, in all cases, belong to Him. To Man, of course.

The difference between them being that while the first sees Man as an individual making decisions by himself the second takes into consideration the fact that Man cannot function properly outside of a community.

Before going back to discuss some more about both classifications I have to note that laws are important mainly because they define areas of opportunity.
People are, from a functionalist point of view, self aware decision makers. But since none of them has an infinite amount of knowledge at his disposal nor an infinite capacity to process what ever information he has on a subject, people find it very useful to have the reality around them partitioned into ‘safe’ and ‘enter at your own risk’ areas.
In this respect it doesn’t matter whether the law itself belongs to either of the 5 categories. The consequences of the law are the same. Those who are aware of its existence have a lot easier job at discerning the safe from the potentially dangerous places than the ignorant ones. What each of them does after finding that out is another matter.

Coming back to the first classification, ‘natural’ versus ‘normative’ laws, let me elaborate a little about what ‘natural’ means in this situation.
It is obvious that the law of gravity, the one formulated by Isaac Newton, belongs here.
It started to produce consequences as soon as ‘mass’ came into existence – regardless of who, if anyone, made the necessary ‘arrangements’ and regardless of anyone being aware of its very existence or not.
But how about the law against killing another human being?
Animals belonging to the same species occasionally do kill each-other so this doesn’t seem to be an all encompassing natural law.

On the other hand history has compellingly taught us that communities where individuals are treated fairly by their peers fare a lot better than communities where some of the members kill (some of) the others. In a Darwinian sense the communities who do protect the lives of their members have an evolutionary advantage over those who don’t.
In this sense the ‘do not kill’ law becomes ‘phusical’. It is both ‘man made’, hence ‘normative’, and acts regardless of people being aware of its existence.

And no, this is not the same thing as ‘ignorance of the law offers no excuse‘.
As I said before, the first classification, ‘natural’ versus ‘normative’ considers Man mainly as an individual – who cannot hide himself under the cloak of ignorance and who has to bear the consequences of his acts, if apprehended – while the second classification, ‘phusical’, ‘statistical’ and ‘normative’, considers Man as an individual member who both depends heavily on his community and contributes decisively to the well being of the place where he lives.

In this respect ‘do not kill’ becomes a ‘statistical’ law. If enough individuals refrain from killing other people and if the community successfully puts in place and operates a protection mechanism  to guard the lives of its members, without otherwise stifling the ingenuity of its people, that community will fare better than those who either fail to protect their members or protect them so jealously that transform them into hapless puppets unable to fend for themselves. Those who are interested to find out more about the equilibrium between protection and freedom of expression might want to check Crime and Deviance, Functionalist Perspective.

By now you must have noticed that ‘statistical’ laws are both ‘objective’ – in the sense that they will produce consequences even if people are not aware of/do not care about their existence, and ‘normative’ – in the sense that those consequences do depend, heavily, on how people act.

So. Does this make me a staunch defender of ‘normative’ laws?

Not at all. Just as Durkheim noticed long ago telling people what to do will only stifle their ability to adapt. To cope with change.

That’s why I strongly feel that ‘normative’ laws, the few that are really necessary, must be written in a ‘negative’ way. Do not kill, do not rape, do not discriminate, do not steal are quite different from ‘all of us have to be maintained alive’, ‘we must assign an armed guard to every nubile woman’, ‘we must write millions of pages of rules to cover every possible act of discrimination’, ‘we must arm ourselves to the teeth in order be able to defend our property against all odds’.

 

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories Choices we make, collective identity, cooperation, democracy, fail better, Frames of mind, freedom, limited rationality, Mindset, Mutual Respect, Psychology, religion, Rule of Law

Lack of trust

July 4, 2016 //
1

I recently read an excellent article about how the ever-growing lack of trust in public institutions, governments and experts included, is generating aberrations like Donald Trump becoming the darling of a sizable proportion of the American Republicans.

collapse of trust in institutions

I’m afraid that all of us have contributed to this.

People who get elected to power use it to fulfill  their own goals yet continue to get elected despite the fact that many of those goals do not add anything to – and too many times even subtract from – the general well being.
People who, for various reasons, vote for those mentioned above.
Media pundits who fill the airtime with their versions of the reality, purposefully crafted to fit their own goals instead of honestly trying to present to the public what they have seen/understood of what had happened.

What’s bothering me most is that all of them are behaving in an absolutely ‘rational’ manner.
In the sense that all of them are convinced they are following the current mantra.
“Make the best of the opportunities at hand”

Given the current ethos – that only the pussies do not grab everything within their reach – each of those in places where they might be given things would act foolishly not to accept those ‘gifts’. If they might find a ‘legal’ way to do it.
And the Supreme Court of the US concurs.

“In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out the corruption conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell.

“There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. “But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.””

What happened was that former Gov. Bob Mc Donnell had accepted various gifts from a certain business man called Williams and then (because of them?) ‘set up meetings, hosted parties and called Virginia officials to discuss  a series of meetings to discuss aspects   related to William’s businesses.

Now, is this an example of corrupt behavior or not?

According to the Government and to the lower courts that have sat on this matter, it is.
According to the Supreme Court, it is ‘distasteful and even possibly more than that’ but not yet corruption. Or, at least, not in the way the Government has presented its case.

“But conscientious public officials arrange meetings for constituents, contact other officials on their behalf, and include them in events all the time. The basic compact underlying representative government assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act appropriately on their concerns — whether it is the union official worried about a plant closing or the homeowners who wonder why it took five days to restore power to their neighborhood after a storm. The Government’s position could cast a pall of potential prosecution over these relationships if the union had given a campaign contribution in the past or the homeowners invited the official to join them on their annual outing to the ballgame. Officials might wonder whether they could respond to even the most commonplace requests for assistance, and citizens with legitimate concerns might shrink from participating in democratic discourse.” Chief Justice John Roberts writing on behalf of the court.

The way I see it this is nothing but ‘hiding behind technicalities’.
From a formal point of view the Supreme Court’s decision is absolutely correct.
On the other hand almost everybody speaks out, some very vehemently, against ‘pork barrel politics’.

Yet nobody does anything when occasion arises. Forgetting that this is exactly what we, humans, are supposed to do. Make decisions and assume responsibility for them. Otherwise, if we only look out for pretexts to do nothing when those around us keep making ‘good’ use of whatever opportunities they identify, the whole world will soon become, again, encased in the kind of straight jacket Hitler and Stalin were trying to put on us.

Here’s another example.

Less than a fortnight from now the Republican and the Democratic conventions will likely nominate Trump and Clinton as their respective presidential candidates. Each passionately defended by their followers and viciously attacked by their adversaries.
Yet both almost equally disdained by the general public.

“More time on the campaign trail isn’t improving the image of either major-party presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.
Some 60% of registered voters held a negative view of Mr. Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee, compared with 58% in May. Some 29% viewed Mr. Trump positively this month.
Mrs. Clinton, the former secretary of state and presumed Democratic nominee, fared somewhat better, with 55% viewing her in a negative light, compared with 54% in May. One-third of registered voters held a positive view of her.” (Peter Nicholas in Wall Street Journal, June 27 2016)

What’s going on here?
Why has any of them been picked up as candidate in the first place?

And why none of their detractors mentions the trait of character that both of them have in common?

The complete disrespect both of them have for ‘comme il faut’.
You see, ‘properly’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘being a stickler for the word of the law’ but certainly means following the ‘spirit of the law’.
You’d expect as much from the two contenders for the Oval Office, don’t you?

Yet Donald Trump has a history of trying to use the law in order to drive an old woman out of her house so that he could have build a parking lot for one of his casinos while Clinton is being currently investigated for the highly irregular manner in which she used to manage  her e-mails when she served as Secretary of State.

To me this is a pertinent enough explanation for why a majority of the people do not trust that any of them would have ‘the better interests of the country’ in mind if and when any of them will be elected to office.

Making a step further people might soon develop a distrust for the whole concept of democracy – simply because the system was unable to deliver better candidates/alternatives. Not only in America.

And since the idea of democracy starts with trusting your fellow citizen to be able to make pertinent decisions – even if they happen to be contrary to your own ideas on the matter – it is highly likely that we’ll soon live in a very untruthful world.

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories authoritarianism, Choices we make, collective identity, cooperation, corruption, democracy, limited rationality, Mutual Respect, Social justice, The kind of world we live in, Trust

De unde vine ‘prostia’ copiilor nostri

July 2, 2016 //
4

De cativa ani incoace finalul lunii iunie este marcat de controverse pe marginea “Examenului de Capacitate“.

Un timp discutiile s-au invartit in jurul examenului in sine iar mai apoi in fiecare an au fost gasite motive punctuale pentru alte controverse destul de aprinse.

‘Era mai bine pe vremea noastra. La sfarsitul scolii dadeai un examen de intrare la liceu si gata. Daca erai in stare sa intri la liceul pe care ti l-ai ales, bine. Daca nu, treaba ta… cine te-a pus sa incerci la liceul ala. Inseamna ca nu te-ai evaluat bine.
Acuma… vin dom-le unii de pe la tara cu niste medii… te doare mintea… si ocupa locurile de la liceele bune din orase… de parca nu stim si noi cum merge treaba acolo’.

Pe vremea cand am trecut eu prin experienta asta partidul sustinea sus si tare: “copiii sunt viitorul tarii”.
Si, in copilaria mea, chiar asa parea sa fie. Vaccinurile se faceau la timp, manualele nu lipseau la inceputurile fiecarui an scolar, parintii aveau unde muncii ca sa ne creasca, blocurile crestau ca din pamant si toata lumea avea un acoperis deasupra capului.
Iar noi, copiii, stiam foarte clar ca singura cale pentru a face ceva in viata era sa punem burta pe carte. Varianta PCR – pile, cunostinte, relatii – era luata in calcul doar de parintii nostri. Macar din punctul asta de vedere noi traiam intr-o naivitate totala.

Apoi lucrurile au inceput sa se imputa.

Mancarea a disparut treptat din magazine, hainele cat de cat aratoase se dadeau pe sub mana, sapunurile mai de soi devenisera atat de rare incat oamenii mai degraba isi parfumau rufele cu ele in loc sa le foloseasca la spalat.

La inceput oamenii spuneau ‘ai carte, ai parte’.
Pe la jumatatea anilor ’80 a inceput sa circule poanta cu ‘de ma, ce sa-ti fac eu daca ti-a placut cartea’. Pentru generatiile mai tinere era vorba despre doi colegi de liceu. Unul se dusese mai departe la facultate, ajunsese profesor de istorie, facea naveta la tara si traia inca in apartamentul primit de parintii lui cu chirie de la intreprinderea unde lucrau. Celalalt facuse scoala de macelari – carnea era la mare pret, nu se mai gasea in magazine – si la treizeci de ani avea deja casa lui, masina, etc, etc… Toate astea din spaga, bineinteles.

Imediat dupa revolutie scoala a devenit din nou la moda. Foarte multi dintre absolventii relativ tineri de facultate – in jur de 30 de ani – si-au gasit slujbe extrem de bune prin strainatate iar chestia asta a inceput sa-i remotiveze pe tineri. Cuplat cu faptul ca invatamantul superior din Romania era, in ciuda unor carcotasi, capabil sa dea absolventi de calitate, fenomenul a generat o noua efervescenta legata de educatie.

Din pacate ‘efervescenta’ asta era legata si de diplome in sine.
Ceea ce a dus, pe de o parte, la inflatia de doctori pe care o observam acum iar pe de alta la  aparitia unei intregi pletore de institutii de invatamant superior, private dar si de stat, unde era foarte usor de intrat. Ce invatai acolo… asta era alta problema…

Intre timp s-a mai intamplat ceva.
Parintii au inceput sa petreaca din ce in ce mai multe ore la servici si sa paseze din ce in ce mai multe asteptari si responsabilitati pe umerii scolii in ceea ce priveste educatia copiilor lor.
‘Eu ma spetesc sa-i asigur cele mai bune conditii, el (copilul) trebuie doar sa invete. Iar profesorii sa puna mana sa-i educe, ca doar de aia primesc leafa din impozitele platite de mine’.

Problema e ca niciodata scoala nu va putea sa le ofere copiilor cei 7 ani de-acasa. Anii aia in care inveti sa ai grija de tine si sa-i respecti pe cei din jurul tau.

Uite asa cele doua tabere au inceput sa se certe intre ele. Parintii dau vina pe profesori ca ‘nu se mai face scoala ca pe vremea mea’ iar profesorii sa le reproseze parintilor ca ‘nu sunt in stare sa-si tina copii in frau’.
Evident, toti uita ca si profesorii au copii – care nu se comporta deloc diferit de ceilalti – dar si ca toti profesorii, absolut toti, sunt si ei copiii cuiva.

Daca adaugam la asta si faptul ca prestigiul profesorilor a scazut foarte mult in ultima vreme… Ca sa nu mai vorbim de salariiile aproape derizorii, mai ales la nivelul debutantilor.
Ce chef de munca or avea acestia?
Sa plece daca nu le place?
Si copii nostrii sa fie educati doar de suplinitori?

Sa revenim la ceea ce s-a intamplat anul asta.

exercitiu-mate-diagrama

Se pare ca problema din diagrama a creat unele dificultati unora dintre copii.
Si suficienta emotie astfel incat 40000 dintre parinti sa faca o petitie pentru ca doua variante de raspuns, atat cea buna cat si una dintre cele gresite, sa fie luate in calcul.
Pe motivul ca formularea problemei nu a fost suficient de clara.

Ori tocmai asta este insusi scopul examenului de capacitate.
Sa determine daca cei care il dau, si in ce masura, sunt capabili sa jongleze cu informatia si sa o organizeze in mod eficient.

Cred ca inainte de a avea pretentii de la copii nostri, sau de la cei chemati sa ii invete, ar trebui sa ne uitam un pic in ochii nostri.

Ce vrem noi de la viata noastra si de la copiii carora le-am dat nastere?
Cum ne propunem sa ii ajutam si ce exemple le dam?

Ce inteleg copiii astia daca noi ne apucam sa injuram guvernul pentru ca unii dintre ei nu au inteles o problema?
Ce inteleg copiii astia daca noi facem petitii la nivel national pe tema ‘merge si asa’?
Cum adica
“Dlui ministru Adrian Curaj
La subiectul 6 cu diagrama, nu este menţionat că axa ox reprezintă notele şi axa oy elevii. Unii elevi au văzut invers, nu le poţi cere să fie subtili. Cel mai corect este să le acorde punctaj maxim indiferent cum au văzut.”

Cum ar fi trebuit sa fie formulata problema?
‘Nu-i asa ca din aceasta diagrama rezulta ca 3 elevi au luat nota 5 dar si ca ea ar putea fi interpretata in sensul ‘de fapt au fost 8 elevi care au luat 5′?’

Tags ,
Categories an electoral, cadre mentale, coruptie, identitate colectiva, Lumea descrisa prin bancuri, psihologie, rationalitate limitata, Respect Mutual., Tara lui Iohannis

Brexit

July 1, 2016 //
1

tainted vote

“It was a fair vote. They may not like the outcome but nobody’s saying that the vote was tainted. Maybe by the misinformation ahead of it … but the actual voting process…”

If there is something to be learned from the current debacle is that democracy is about way more than honestly counting the votes.

In fact, if we resume ourselves to that, we’ll end up tied down in a cage known as ‘mob rule’. Who ever succeeds to stir up more efficiently the public sentiment will rule the day and ‘apres nous, le deluge‘.

In order for the democratic process to be efficient – actually democratic, that is – the electorate must have at its disposal all the pertinent information that is available at that moment. If the electorate doesn’t really care and doesn’t mind that information… that’s it. But the information has to be readily available.

And there’s the catch.

If those ‘in charge’ use the media to spur up public sentiment instead of honestly informing the people about the  situation at hand then we’ll have a beauty pageant instead of a democratic election. Or referendum.

What we really need to remember, fast, is that for a democracy to maintain its function – weed up the really bad leaders/ideas proposed in the public square – we need to add two things to ‘honestly counting the votes’.

‘Mutual respect’ among all members of a given society and a keen enough interest of a majority of the members of that society in the well being of their community.

‘Democracy’ won’t work properly unless the voters respect each-others, and the government they had, themselves, elected. Simultaneously  the government has to treat ‘the people’ with utmost respect, not as if they were hapless children in dire need of close guidance.

At the same time no democracy ever successfully maintained its character unless the ‘leaders’ were constantly remembered of their ‘mortal’ status.

“And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”” Genesis, 3:22

The point being that those who think they can make the difference between good and evil need their feet constantly brought back to the Earth.

In Heaven it was God who did that. Here on Earth God works through the hands of Man. Hence we have to take good care of our own fate.
We won’t be able to do that efficiently unless we start respecting each-others, and each-others’ opinions – because none of us will ever be able to know the entire truth so we’ll be better off collectively if we share our knowledge.
For the very same reason – no one can master all the information that floats around us – all those who try to grab too much power must be treated with ‘extreme caution’. Again, this can be done more efficiently in a collaborative, and respectful, manner.

That’s why I’m convinced that the EU needs to be remodeled, not bulldozed.

Tags , , ,
Categories arrogance, authoritarianism, Choices we make, collective identity, cooperation, corruption, limited rationality, man induced fragility, manipulation, Mindset, Mutual Respect, The kind of world we live in, Trust

There’s no one else to blame but us

June 30, 2016 //
2

the brexit hero

“Isn’t it funny?
You know, when I came here 17 years ago and I said that I want to lead the campaign to get Britain to leave the EU, you all laughed at me.
Well, I have to say, you are not laughing now, are you?”

 

Now let me get something straight.

This guy has been going to work, as an elected official, with one goal in mind. And one goal only.

To undermine the very institution he was working for.

Not to improve it in any way but to simply dismantle it.

I’m not going to discuss here whether he is right about the shortcomings of the EU or not. (He is)

But I am going to question his modus operandi.

OK, he did point out, very astutely, which are the weak points of the European Union.
And then, instead of proposing ways to mend those problems, he did his ‘best’ to make matters even worse.

That was all that he could do in those circumstances. That’s it. Nobody’s perfect.

But why elect a guy like this, time and time again, into a position where he gets to be paid, handsomely, for making trouble?

And no, he wasn’t a ‘whistle-blower’. He never came forth with anything new.
He just kept milling around a few otherwise well known ideas – most of which are absolutely correct – and then turned them on their head, effectively morphing them into ‘seeds of doom’.

And yes, he was the guy “who has repeatedly criticised wasteful EU spending” and then used 58 000 pounds of EU money to cover a security bill “for just five events held in modest venues such as a darts arena in Essex where there was not a single demonstrator.“

Now go figure.
There are people out there who consider him to be “The Hero of Brexit”….

Tags , ,
Categories arrogance, Choices we make, collective identity, corruption, democracy, Frames of mind, limited rationality, manipulation, Mutual Respect, Psychology, The kind of world we live in

Sliding deeper, on the wrong slope

June 28, 2016 //
3
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.

Tags , , , ,
Categories Choices we make, collective identity, cooperation, corruption, Frames of mind, limited rationality, Politically induced fragility, The kind of world we live in

“Look from above”

June 18, 2016 //
0

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.

Tags , , , , ,
Categories arrogance, authoritarianism, Choices we make, cooperation, effective communication, Frames of mind, limited rationality, man induced fragility, Mutual Respect, Politically induced fragility, Psychology, Transparency, Trust

Peronul 13

June 13, 2016 //
0

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.

Tags ,
Categories aici sunt banii dumneavoastra, alegerile pe care le facem, banii ca scop, coruptie, identitate colectiva, Justitie, psihologie, respect mutual, Tara din care traim

‘My family rescued me’

June 13, 2016 //
0

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

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories altruism, Choices we make, collective identity, cooperation, Culture, effective communication, Mutual Respect, religion, The kind of world we live in

Sambata seara in Centrul Vechi

June 12, 2016 //
0

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

Tags , , , , ,
Categories ce alegeri facem, identitate colectiva, psihologie, respect reciproc, Tara din care traim
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »