As an engineer, raised in a communist country by rather atheist parents and heavily influenced by an agnostic grandmother, I am more than skeptic about the mystic side of the religious phenomenon and deeply suspicious whenever people pretend to be able to ‘see’ things – irrespective of whatever method they claim to be using.

However.

When in college I used to read way more than what I was supposed to and to follow, unofficially, some subjects in no way connected with my major.
That’s how I came across a very interesting idea promoted by a literary critic – whose name I unfortunately cannot remember:
Whenever trying to asses the value of a text stay focused exclusively on the written word. Do not let other information influence your judgement, for instance those about the life-style of the author‘.

For an engineer this makes a lot of sense, isn’t it?
What do I care if the guy who produced an elegant blue-print was a womanizer, a drunkard or a whore, as long as the machinery depicted there worked as advertised?

Or I can make a step further and ask myself ‘what do I care about the reason behind someone publishing a text which contains something that makes a lot of sense?’

Is he trying to manipulate me (into doing/believing something)?
OK, I’ll figure that out independently, after I’m done evaluating the text itself.
Should I do my best to ascertain if what is said there makes as much sense as it seemed to do when I first glanced at it?
Of course, but shouldn’t that be my standing policy, regardless of who ever wrote it?

After this rather lengthy ‘overture’ I’d like you to read this excerpt:

“Yesterday when I pastored church, I addressed how to curtail our need to demonize that which frightens us. Fear begets fear. For many right now, that fear is Islam. For those confused by the concept of Islam, or who believe that all Muslims are terrorists, this guy being interviewed on the video below hits the nail on the head in spite of the leading questions by CNN, who didn’t enjoy his honest factual answers that couldn’t be manipulated and don’t support the American vitriol towards this religion.

Before we become part of the extremist problem by pushing *extreme* ideals that we claim are the “god’s honest truth” because we read it online so we’re passing around propaganda that supports our freak-out and subsequently causing others to freak out, let’s get our heads in the game. Let’s get our facts straight rather than purporting fan-fiction authored in fear. We can’t address a terror problem if we’re insisting on creating a war with every Muslim on earth. That’s not addressing a problem. That’s starting one. That’s ignorance and it’s dangerous ignorance at that — just as dangerous as extremist Muslims who want to war after every other religion.”

Does it make sense?

Yes, particularly where it says that “We can’t address a terror problem if we’re insisting on creating a war with every Muslim on earth. That’s not addressing a problem. That’s starting one.

Is it manipulative in any way?
Click on the link and decide for yourself.

Then should I care about the author, Danielle Egnew, being “an internationally renowned Psychic and Medium”?
Well, I’m sharing her words, don’t I?

After all, who am I to say that ‘something like this cannot exist’ if it’s right here, in front of my very own eyes?
How, and why, did it get there?
That’s something else, but I cannot question it’s existence simply because I’m not sure about, or I don’t agree with, how it came to my attention.

 

 

I published yesterday a post on this subject. In Romanian.

Today I stumbled upon another article which uses almost the very same manipulative tools. In English this time.

legal public urination

“Of all the things one could think of that New York City needs more of, public urination doesn’t immediately come to mind. But New York’s City Council, which is so far left it almost collides with the right, is about to make it happen thanks to it’s Speaker, a Puerto Rican nationalist who supports terrorists and rejects the Pledge of Allegiance.”

 Now can someone explain to me how can decriminalizing something be interpreted as an encouragement towards that something?
And what’s the use of making it a crime to urinate or to drink in public? A crime? Something that will be written into your rap sheet and follow you all your life?
Let’s imagine for a moment that you are a 19 year old who had one too many beers. And had to take a leak. A cop happens to be in the area. Now tell me what are the chances that he’ll look the other way if you’re white? And if you’re black?
Do you understand, at least now, what the ‘liberal official who sponsored this change’ meant by ‘helping the minorities reach their full potential’?
Who’s going to give a real chance to a ‘minority’ with a criminal record? Who has the time to check that his only crime was ‘public urination’? Or that he had a beer in front of his porch? Not exactly in front of his porch, because he used to live in a ‘public housing facility’ but you get the general idea…
Reality check no 1.
How about providing some places where people can relieve themselves? Porta-johns for instance? Or functional public rest-rooms in all New York subway stations?
Now I’m wondering what the author meant by “But New York’s City Council, which is so far left it almost collides with the right, is about to make it happen thanks to it’s Speaker, a Puerto Rican nationalist who supports terrorists and rejects the Pledge of Allegiance.“?
What has the Pledge of Allegiance have to do with anything? What’s the relevance of the Speaker’s ethnicity, beyond the fact that belonging to a minority increased her awareness of the way the minorities are treated by some of the law enforcement officers?
And how come a ‘supporter of terrorism’ has been elected Speaker in the first place?
What’s going on here?

deveselu

La prima vedere sunt niste traiectorii ale unor rachete care lovesc teritoriul Rusiei.

Nu e chiar asa. In realitate este vorba despre modul in care ar urma sa functioneze, daca ar fi vreodata cazul, sistemul de aparare impotriva eventualelor rachete Iraniene Shabab.

Imi cer scuze pentru rezolutia proasta – care adanceste impresia despre care vorbeam. Am incercat sa gasesc imaginea si in alta parte dar nu am reusit. In consecinta am fost nevoit sa o copiez pe cea din articolul care mi-a oferit ‘materialul didactic’. Pentru a intelege mai bine despre ce este vorba dati un click pe poza si cititi-l inante de a merge mai departe.

Avem de a face, pentru a nu stiu cata oara, cu o subtila manevra de intoxicare. Mi-e greu sa spun, dupa ce am citit doar un singur articol, care sunt scopurile intreprinderii dar mijloacele folosite sunt limpezi ca apa de izvor.

Autorul articolului se face ca incurca doua planuri ale aceleiasi probleme.
Comportamentul americanilor si comportamentul nostru.
Americanii ne-au cerut voie sa faca o baza aici, in anumite conditii, si acum folosesc acea baza in conditiile agreate.
Noi ne-am lasat sa ajungem in starea deplorabila in care suntem astazi.
Din scrisele autorului rezulta, indirect, ca americanii ar fi de vina pentru situatia in care suntem noi acum.
Acestia sunt mentionati, nefavorabil, de nu stiu cate ori. In schimb ‘preocuparile’ “liderilor tarii” (noastre) sunt amintite doar o singura data si tot doar o data vine vorba si despre ‘sovietici’ – si asta abia atunci cand este discutata provenienta bateriilor de rachete antiaeriene.
Intrebarea e ‘ce facem de-acum incolo?’
Ne hotaram si noi odata cu cine votam?
Si mai ales ne asumam, odata si odata, raspunderea pentru propria soarta?
In mod real, nu doar sa ne obraznicim in stanga si-n dreapta.
Nu asta e sensul cuvintelor lui Horea.
“Ce e rau în robie nu e atîta robia, rau îi ca daca trece prea multa vreme omu se învata cu ea; cu robia, cu frica, cu supunerea, cu saru`mâna, sa fie BATJOCORIT si sa nu-i mai pese, se învata ca pasarea cea proasta cu colivia, care uita c-o si stiut zbura oarecândva, sau se teme sa nu afle stapânul ca n-o uitat sa zboare. Numai ca amu cu voie de la împarat ori ba, AM ÎNVATAT CA SE POATE!”

I recently shared this meme on my FB wall:

when_i_was_poor_and_i_complained_about_inequality_they_said_i_was_bitter_2014-07-23

This is what happened next:
No two people are the same.“”That’s why I prefer equal opportunities instead of equality.
No two opportunities are the same. What you might consider an opportunity I might pass up. It’s a very diverse world we live in, a wide one in which hopefully everyone can be accommodated.

‘Can be’ or ‘will be’?

And who is the real looser here?

Let’s see what the broad picture looks like:

The world’s super-rich have taken advantage of lax tax rules to siphon off at least $21 trillion, and possibly as much as $32tn, from their home countries and hide it abroad – a sum larger than the entire American economy.”

Meanwhile

education debt

And what’s wrong with that?!?
Everyone has the right to do what ever he wants with his money and why should anyone expect to be educated for free?!?

OK, let me put it differently.

Every society is like a big community, even if its members do not share an intimate knowledge of each-other.
At least theoretically an overwhelming majority of any nation share the same set of values and the same goal – the long term survival of both the population and the afore mentioned set of values.

Now please consider which society would be better at the game of survival:

One which would make it easier for as many of its members to develop as much of their individual potential as possible or one that would make it easier for a small number of its members to spirit away so much wealth that the rest would remain crippled?

One which would use the very concept of a ‘free market’ as broadly as possible – make sure that as many as possible of its members enjoy the widest possible autonomy – or one that would allow the ‘never as free as advertised’ market to degenerate into the ‘winner takes it all‘ situation we are bound to reach if we continue on our present course?

How could enough people afford to ‘wander around’ for long enough to find the opportunities that would fit them if they are saddled at birth with a huge burden – the ever burgeoning national debt?
Would enough people risk to take on any additional debt (in order to prepare themselves to make better use of the opportunities they might find) if too many of those opportunities, even if met diligently, do not pay enough to ‘eat’ AND pay back the debt?

How is a society going to survive, let alone thrive, if a lot of ‘opportunities’ (social needs) end up being ‘plugged’ by unfitting/under-skilled/’less than enthusiastic’ individuals? Or not at all?

On the ‘supply side’, what do you think of those who choose to dodge paying taxes?
On the ‘demand side’, what do you think of those who squander public money as if there is no tomorrow?

So what should we be talking about? Equality or Equal Breadth of Opportunity?
About the Bed of Procrustes or about a ‘Free Market’ where all participants are simultaneously autonomous and fully aware of their responsibility for their children’s future?

CSIROParkesradiotelescope

“…they are extinct.” says an article just published in Astronomy.com.
Here’s another plausible explanation.
We have ourselves evolved to such an attitude that we leave the natives of the Amazonian forest alone – unless we covet their land, of course. We no longer impose our (technological) civilization on everybody who is unable to resist us – like we did to the Incas, for example.
How about the ‘surviving aliens’ keeping mum while waiting for us to grow up some more?
The next step being for us to stop killing each-other…
lp
“A day after Leela moved in, she came home visibly upset. I asked what happened. Apparently, the doorman had blocked her from entering the building, refusing to believe that the keys she was carrying were legitimately hers. She had to convince him to check the approved tenants list before he allowed her to go to her own home.The incidents piled up. Things that may seem small to someone who doesn’t endure these experiences, but that in aggregate soured her daily life. The cabs that wouldn’t stop when she tried to hail them but hit the brakes and backed up when they saw she was with me. The clerks asking her to verify her ID every time she presented a credit card. The smiles at me from neighbors and barely concealed scowls at her when I turned away. The usual catcalls and crude comments when she walked alone. It quickly became clear that although we shared the same day to day life, her existence was profoundly different from mine.

The event that brought it to a head was when she pressed ‘PH’ in the elevator and the other occupant, a white male, asked which penthouse apartment she was going to clean. The idea that she lived there didn’t occur to him. When I heard about it, my indignation was palpable. It was the indignation and disrespect she lived with every day and that was alien to me.”
….
“What I didn’t realize was that we are stuck in our own heads far more than we can appreciate and that empathy has limitations. As a white male, I can convince myself that I understand racism and sexism, but it’s far more intellectual than visceral. My point of view is distorted by the culture I exist in.”
Peter Daou, “My Rude Awakening on White Males, Brown Females and #BlackLivesMatter

Now consider this:
Mothers usually have a ‘disproportionate’ influence over their (small) children.
This translates into the psychological well being of the mothers having a huge influence on the general behavior of the next generation.
In a so called ‘normal’ family – composed of a father and a mother – whatever ‘bad moments’ that happen to the mother can, and sometimes even are, mitigated by the father.
But the sad reality is that there are a lot more Afro-American single mothers than white single mothers – relative to the demographic composition of the population.
And we still wonder about how come the Afro-American teenagers and young adults are the cause of so many unpleasant incidents – relative to the demographic composition of the population, of course…

traped fox

I happened to stumble upon this video.
I was so happy seeing the cunning fox being greeted by her friends!

Then I watched the next clip.
And it hit me.

OK, I understand how and why the ‘art of trapping’ has been developed by our ancestors.
They were hungry and this was an effective enough method to get food. And furs for clothes.
Then furs for money.
Now furs for ‘fashionistas’.

An animal dying the most horrible death imaginable so that someone could flash a fur coat in a social setting.

Don’t get me wrong. I eat meat, almost every day, and, if hungry, I’d probably resort to trapping.
But I try to buy my food from farmers who raise their stock as humanely as possible.

Same thing with the fur coats. I understand why some people would want to wear them, specially in very cold climates. So I’m OK with shooting animals which do not belong to the endangered species. I’m also OK with farming animals for their furs – in decent conditions of course.

But I cannot understand how come someone would want to flash a fashionable fur coat when climbing out of a stretched limo, specially when the animal who had previously worn that fur had agonized for hours strangled by a noose-trap.  Or had a limb crushed in a leg-hold trap.

traped lynx

 

don't pee in our pool

First things first. Click on the picture and read the article.
It is interesting enough, even if it doesn’t say anything you didn’t already know – or at least presumed. That if enough people pee in the pool, the mixture of uric acid and chlorine, which produces some nasty chemicals, could become ‘powerful’ enough to affect a susceptible person.
The really interesting part being the fact that the scientists who have studied the matter do not seem to agree on how dangerous it is and what exactly, if anything, should be done about it.

But do we really need a scientist to tell us that we simply shouldn’t pee in the pool?
Regardless of whether the issuing chemicals would be powerful enough to harm us or not?

Then why do we hide behind slogans like ‘Global Warming is the New Religion’ when we discuss the subject of carbon dioxide being spewed into the atmosphere by the tens of billions of tonnes each year?

OK, I can understand that some of us are not convinced by the data put forward by the ‘alarmists’, specially after some of the scientists studying the matter have changed tack and have become ‘skeptical’ about the whole thing.
“I would say that the global warming is basically a non-problem. Just leave it alone and it will take care of itself. It is almost very hard for me to understand why almost every government in Europe — except for Polish government — is worried about global warming. It must be politics.”

“So far we have left the world in better shape than when we arrived, and this will continue with one exception — we have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming. We have to do that or that may take us backwards. People think that is sustainable but it is not sustainable.” Ivar Giaever, 1973 Nobel Prize for Physics, speaking in July 2015.

So. Cutting down the tropical jungle to make room for palm trees grown for their oil and burning during the last two centuries fossil fuels that have been accumulated during God only knows how many millennia is ‘sustainable’! Yeah, right.

Do you remember the smog that used to hang over Los Angeles until some of us wised up to the matter?

Is it a matter of politics?!?
And money?!?
And what’s new about that? Or is it that some of those who have to gain from us continuing to burn fossil fuels, indiscriminately, have not understood, yet, that we are all together in this? That the atmosphere is nothing but the huge ‘pool’ where we all live?
And breathe…

To me it doesn’t really matter what ‘science’ has to say about this. In fact ‘science’ cannot speak, it’s the scientists who speak on its behalf.
Now, since they don’t seem to agree on this subject we’d better realize that ‘This is too important a matter to be left to the scientists’ and remember the Hippocratic principle which teaches us ‘primum non nocere’: ‘Above all, do no harm!’

If ‘it’s a matter of politics’ how about us telling the politicians how we wanted it solved instead of letting them scheme on it?
And then let the business people take care of the money part?

One other thing and I’ll wrap it up.
I can already see my libertarian friends frowning:
‘He had jumped on the big government bandwagon’.
Not so fast.
In fact this is not a decision that should be made by the government, be it big or small.

We are the ones who should make up our minds about this matter.
We are the ones who should close the faucets, use more efficient cars, collect the trash selectively, etc, etc, etc… and maybe even walk a little.
We are the ones who should instruct the governments we have elected to use some of our tax money to finance some honest research into renewable power sources instead of allowing them to transform the whole issue into another ‘pork barrel bonanza’…

wumo567852b7e8fa87-46431296

tripoteur de fesses en allemagne

‘J’ai etait Charlie’ when the barbarians tried to silence it.
Not because I agreed with everything that was published there but because I believe that it’s unacceptable to try to kill somebody – unless that somebody tries to murder you, of course.

Having said that I must confess that I find it harder and harder to understand what’s going on in Charlie’s mind.

“Charlie doit être là où les autres n’osent pas aller. Pour cette couverture, je voulais dépasser telle ou telle religion et toucher à des choses plus fondamentales. (…) En affirmant les choses clairement, ça fait réfléchir. Il faut bousculer un peu les gens, sinon ils restent sur leurs rails”

(Charlie must go where others do not dare to. For that I’m willing to leave behind specific religious ideas and reach deeper levels. … By speaking frankly (about a subject) one can convince the others to take the matter into consideration. Sometime you need to jolt people (outside their comfort zone) otherwise they’ll stay put on their tracks).

OK, I can agree with that. Even if I think that some of the ‘jolts’ are distasteful, to say the least,  the principle is correct.
But there is a small problem here. If the jolt is too powerful the target will not get just outside its comfort zone – and into the ‘thinking mode’ – but directly into a full-fledged rage. A state of mind which rejects reason and sends the brain into a frenzy, looking for arguments with which to annihilate the original message.

2233252_136_charlie

This, for instance, might be considered rude but it’s impersonal enough to prod some individuals into considering whether following blindly into someone’s steps  – just because that someone pretends to have God’s blessing – might be a wise thing to do.
In fact this message works precisely because it offers food for thought. Each of the viewers might interpret it according to their own ‘Weltanschauung’ but the ultimate responsibility for the interpretation lies with the viewer, not with the cartoonist.

This is why I can’t agree with the cartoon about Aylan.
There is no option there. The message is clear. Aylan would have grown up to be a sex-molester, no doubt about that – at least in the eyes of the cartoonist.

And this just isn’t fair.
Because killing hope is a lot worse than actual murder.

Yes, we need to take great care about how we help the migrants to find a place among us. No doubt about that.
The point being that corralling them into a ghetto won’t solve anything. On the contrary.

“When it comes to assimilating new arrivals, Europe could learn a thing or two from America, which has a better record in this regard. It is not “culturally imperialist” to teach migrants that they must respect both the law and local norms such as tolerance and sexual equality. And it is essential to make it as easy as possible for them to work. This serves an economic purpose: young foreign workers more than pay their way and can help solve the problem of an ageing Europe. It also serves a cultural one: immigrants who work assimilate far more quickly than those who are forced to sit around in ghettos. In the long run most children of migrants will adopt core European values, but the short run matters too.” (The Economist, Migrant Men and European Women, Jan 16th, 2016)

 

WP_20160117_14_02_09_Pro1

Gravity, friction and constitution keep things from falling apart while ‘luck’, life and freedom keep them from freezing to death.