Nu-mi place Antena 3

February 19, 2016 //
0

Mai bine spus nu-mi mai place.

A fost o vreme cand ma uitam la cateva dintre emisiunile lor.
La Mircea Badea, de exemplu. La inceput era interesant. Obraznic, proaspat. Obraznicia a ramas numai ca de vreo cativa ani incoace se cam repeta. Asa ca …

Singura lor emisiune care merita atentie in continuare este “In Premiera” cu Carmen Avram. De fapt aceasta este emisiunea lor fanion, cea care castiga premii internationale si care i-a facut cunoscuti peste hotare.

In rest… s-au coborat si ei la stilul tabloidizant care face ‘breaking news’ din orice si unde la ordinea zilei sunt exagerarile si can-canurile.

Dar faptul ca au coborat stacheta nu inseamna ca trebuie desfiintati. Ci doar ca noi, spectatorii, nu pierdem nimic daca nu ne mai uitam la emisiunile lor.

N-am sa ma apuc sa discut acum despre actiunea ANAF-ului sau daca interventia Senatului reprezinta o imixtiune, sau nu, in mersul justitiei.

Ce ma intereseaza pe mine este reactia publicului.

Care, din nou, s-a lasat impartit in tabere. Atat de distantate incat nici nu-si mai vorbesc intre ele. Ba chiar unii isi retrag like-rile date lui Iohannis pe Facebook pentru ca a indraznit sa spuna ca nu este de acord cu evacuarea fortata.

N-am sa va ‘plictisesc’ acum cu ‘libertatea de expresie este esenta democratiei’ si cu ‘actul de justitie s-a incheiat atunci cand cladirea a intrat in posesia statului iar ce se intampla in continuare are de-a face doar cu modul in care niste functionari gestioneaza aceste proprietati in numele nostru’.

Am sa va intreb insa cat mai avem de gand sa ne lasam manipulati?
Impartiti in gasti pentru a fi dusi de nas cu si mai multa usurinta?

Chiar asa? Doar Moise Guran s-a prins ca victimizarea Antenelor poate fi extrem de folositoare pentru unii si extrem de nociva pentru ceilalti? Doar Patrick Andre de Hillerin a avut curajul sa ne spuna ca nu e bine sa ne bucuram de raul altora?

Si totusi dracul nu este chiar atat de negru.

Sunt multi cei care nu se lasa orbiti.

Presedintele Tarii, primul ministru, presedintele Senatului, ziaristii pe care i-am mentionat deja precum si inca multi altii. Nu doar ziaristi.

Si inca ceva. Foarte multa lume ii atribuie lui Basescu ‘meritul’ de a fi bagat zazanie in clasa politica romaneasca. Din pacate fenomenul a inceput mult mai devreme. ‘Meritul’ acesta nu ii apartine, in nici un caz, in totalitate.
Mai tineti minte Mineriadele? Manifestatiile si contra-manifestatiile din 1990-1991?
‘Noi muncim, Nu gandim’ si ‘Moarte Intelectualilor’?

Poate ca, sub valurile facute de ‘agitatorii’ de profesie, oamenii care conteaza, adica poporul, au inceput sa isi dea seama ca nu are rost sa astepte ca politicienii sa-si faca datoria singuri. Ca acestia trebuiesc impinsi de la spate.
Asa cum a facut multimea indignata de ce s-a intamplat in ‘Colectiv’.

Si uite ca cei aflati astazi ‘in fruntea bucatelor’ nu mai afiseaza nepasarea suficienta cu care ne obisnuisem pe vremurile lui Nastase si ale lui Basescu.

Daca vom continua sa stam cu ochii pe ei, lucrurile vor merge din ce in ce mai bine.
Bineinteles, cu conditia ca pana atunci noi sa nu ne luam, unii pe altii, de beregata.

Tags , ,
Categories alegerile pe care le facem, an electoral, cadre mentale, democratie reprezentativa, Justitie sociala, respect reciproc, Tara lui Iohannis

Conu’ Leonida fata cu Monopolu’

February 18, 2016 //
0

Va povesteam ieri cum s-a facut de-am ramas o noapte deconectat de la reteaua de curent electric.

De fapt n-a fost mare chestie.

In timp ce ii povesteam unui prieten ce mi s-a intamplat acesta mi-a sugerat sa cer niste curent de la un vecin, nu de alta dar ca sa nu se dezghete frigiderul. (Norocul a facut ca noaptea trecuta a fost cea mai calda din iarna asta, iar ghinionul ca mi s-a stricat si centrala termica, dar asta e alta poveste)

Zis si facut. Am luat o ‘toba’ de cablu cu imprumut de la vecinul de vis-a-vis, am montat un prelungitor cu doua stechere ‘tata’, l-am rugat pe vecinul de alaturi sa bage unul dintre ele in priza de la masina de spalat, l-am bagat pe celalalt intr-o priza schucko de la mine (dupa ce am ‘scos’ sigurantele dintre casa si tablou, bineinteles) si uite-asa am avut curent in toata casa.

Dar nu despre asta vroiam sa scriu astazi ci despre atitudinea pe care o au marile companii de ‘utilitati’ fata de clientii lor.

Companiile de telefonie si cablu TV se roaga efectiv de tine sa le platesti facturile si te deconecteaza abia dupa aceea.
Cei cu apa la fel.

Singurii care te ‘taie’ cu prima ocazie (si la care taxele de reconectare sunt mari) sunt cei cu curentul si cei cu gazele. Asta cu toate ca fara telefon poti trai foarte bine pe cand fara curent si/sau fara caldura aprope ca nu poti supravietui, mai ales iarna.

Care sa fie explicatia? In afara de faptul ca furnizorii celor doua chestii fara de care nu te poti descurca stiu ca nimeni nu e nebun sa stea fara?

Faptul ca nu ai alternativa valabila la nici unul dintre ei? Ca acum sunt suficiente oferte de telefonie incat sa existe concurenta pe piata? La fel si la cablul TV? Dar nici o alternativa viabila in ceea ce priveste alimentarea cu curent electric sau cu gaze naturale?

Cu apa e un pic mai complicat – poti sa iti faci put si deconectarea in sine e mai complicata. Intr-un fel sunt oarecum ‘la mijloc’, intre cele doua situatii ‘extreme’: monopol clar si concurenta cat de cat efectiva.

Asa ca…

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories alegerile pe care le facem, banii ca scop, cadre mentale, identitate colectiva, respect reciproc, Tara din care traim

Sindicatele si economia de piata

February 17, 2016 //
0

“Pe 29 martie 2002, liderii sindicali ai federaţiilor Univers şi Energia Mileniului III (FEM) au decis să-şi facă propria firmă. Ei nu au făcut altceva decât să preia, pur şi simplu, de la Electrica, în baza unui protocol, serviciul de citire a contoarelor electrice, cu tot cu angajaţii respectivi. Astfel a rezultat firma SC Sindserv SA, deţinută în prezent de FEM III în proporţie de 54,4%, de câţiva acţionari persoane fizice şi de filialele din ţară ale federaţiei sindicale. Prin urmare, liderii sindicali au devenit şi acţionari, şi angajatori, dar erau concomitent şi sindicalişti pentru propriii muncitori.”

“Conform site-ului Ministerului Finanţelor, cifra de afaceri a firmei Sindserv a crescut de la an la an, în timp ce o parte din angajaţi au fost concediaţi. În 2005 Sindserv avea 1.487 de salariaţi şi venituri de 8,9 milioane euro. În 2008 firma a înregistrat venituri totale de 10,6 milioane euro, în contextul în care mai avea 1.192 de angajaţi. Cei doi salariaţi ai Sindserv care au dat firma în judecată nu înţeleg cum se poate să li se reducă leafa la jumătate, în contextul în care, în trei ani, firma sindicaliştilor-patroni a disponibilizat 300 de salariaţi şi a încasat cu 1,7 milioane euro mai mult.”

Cu vreo trei ani in urma n-am avut minte si am facut un contract cu Banc Post. Eu ma angajam sa am bani in cont iar ei sa-mi plateasca niste facturi la scadenta.

Asa ca ieri au venit doi angajati ai Sindserv si mi-au taiat curentul.

Undeva prin Decembrie probabil ca nu au fost suficienti bani in contul de la Banc Post asa ca factura de curent din noiembrie a ramas neplatita. In Ianuarie au fost destui asa ca factura pe Decembrie a fost achitata. Dar cea din Noiembrie a ramas asa cum era. Nu stiu de ce, nu am vorbit inca cu cei de la banca.

Ieri, cand au venit cei doi, le-am spus:
‘Aveti amabilitatea sa asteptati 10 minute si ma intorc cu factura platita.’.
‘Ne pare rau, nu putem face asa ceva. Noi avem un ordin de deplasare, daca nu il aducem la indeplinire avem de suferit consecintele’.

Azi dimineata, cand au venit sa reconecteze – aceiasi doi, discutia a continuat:

‘Voua nu vi se pare anormal sa deconectati un abonat care are factura curenta achitata? Nu e clar ca restanta este urmare a unei neintelegeri si mai bine ii dai un SMS spunandu-i ca il deconectezi peste doua – trei zile?’
‘Sigur ati primit o somatie de plata. Impreuna cu ultima factura’.
‘Se poate sa fi primit numai ca eu am facut contract cu Banc Postul tocmai ca sa nu mai trebuiasca sa citesc facturi. Si ma intreb in continuare cum de nu faceti si voi precum majoritatea tuturor celorlalti furnizori de utilitati. De ce nu trimiteti un SMS sau nu dati un telefon?’
‘Daca dumneavoastra ati fi patronul unei firme si ati avea posibilitatea sa castigati 300 de lei -taxa de reconectare, cu pretul deplasarii a doi oameni de doua ori cate 10 minute la cate o adresa, nu ati face acest lucru?

Cred ca unii oameni nu au auzit de ‘sa nu omori gaina cu oua de aur’.

Tags , ,
Categories aici sunt banii dumneavoastra, alegerile pe care le facem, banii ca scop, cadre mentale, identitate colectiva, rationalitate limitata, respect mutual, Tara din care traim

Working at both ends of the problem

February 13, 2016 //
0

iqvl1s8v8lzmbki8xjyy

“Administrators at the Success Academy—a network of high-performing charter schools in the New York area—are standing behind what they call a model teacher, who was caught on camera ripping up homework and berating a first grade student for answering a math problem incorrectly.”

 

I totally disagree with this kind of behaviour.
Having said that let me offer you a glimpse of what’s going on in the minds of those who accept or even promote it:
Shouldn’t we be working at both ends of the problem?
Educate the educators about how to motivate the children to learn without crippling their souls AND educate the employers and their agents (managers) about how treating your work force with due respect would yield way better results than using mockery/belittlement as a motivation tool?
“Dr. McDonald, the N.Y.U. professor, who also sits on the board of the Great Oaks Charter School on the Lower East Side, said that the behavior in the video violated an important principle of schooling.

“Because the child’s learning was still a little fragile — as learning always is initially — she made an error,” he said in his email. “Good classrooms (and schools) are places where error is regarded as a necessary byproduct of learning, and an opportunity for growth. But not here. Making an error here is a social offense. It confuses others — as if deliberately.” “

When is it that any of us should stop learning?

And shouldn’t we also be educating ourselves about the fine difference between spoiling a child and helping him/her into becoming a fully-fledged adult (a ‘man’ in the un-gendered meaning of the word)?

p03j0k3f

“Saudi women need to ‘think like men’

Gender segregation in Saudi Arabia has sometimes led to “immaturity”, a Saudi businesswoman and member of Jeddah’s municipal council has told BBC HARDtalk.”

 

Tags , , , ,
Categories authoritarianism, Choices we make, collective identity, effective communication, Frames of mind, gender roles, human rights, Mutual Respect, Psychology, The kind of world we live in, yes but

On why having meaningful conversations with your children is so important.

February 12, 2016 //
0

sex education

“Last week, we heard the story of a West Texas high school that plans to expand its sex-ed program after its abstinence-only policy resulted in a mass outbreak of chlamydia amongst its students.”

Let me ask you something.

Could it be that most of the ‘modern’ children live in ‘bubbles’?
That they have (meaningful) contact almost exclusively among themselves and seldom with older/younger generations?
This being the reason for which ‘sensitive’ information passes so hardly from one generation to the other.
And this is valid for way more subjects than just ‘mere’ sex!
“It’s not the kids who aren’t mature enough to learn about sex, it’s their parents who aren’t mature enough to let them.”

 

Tags , , , , ,
Categories Choices we make, collective identity, Culture, Frames of mind, gender roles, limited rationality, Psychology, Trust

“The Parable of the Drunk”

February 4, 2016 //
1

1x59cvjb_mojtouxmkbihsq

“When we’re trying to recreate an intellectual milieu, even one that’s relatively recent, we invariably discover that the vast majority of the sources we need to do such a thing have been swallowed up by oblivion and lost forever. Sometimes those that remain—e.g., Plato’s dialogues—remain because they were the best of the best, works of great importance. But this isn’t always (or even usually) the case. Sources often survive for largely accidental reasons. Regardless, the temptation to exaggerate the significance of what we have has proven irresistible for generations of intellectual historians. As the philosopher Aaron Haspel puts it in Everything (2015): “The parable of the drunk looking for his keys under the street lamp, where the light is better, explains vast swaths of intellectual history.” (John Faithful Hamer, Touch They’re Real in his blog Committing Sociology)

As always things are not as simple as they seem at the first glance – otherwise we wouldn’t have had a parable to start with, would we?

Basically the drunkard is doing the only reasonable thing available to him. Searching in the lightless park would be completely pointless but what if somebody else had lost a wallet in the lighted area?

Aaron Haspel is also right. Our intellectual history consists indeed of whatever cultural artifacts have been lucky enough to survive. Considered important enough by a sufficient number of people so they helped preserve it to the present day.
Or, evidently, both!

I’d like to direct your attention to ‘Considered important enough by a sufficient number of people’.
You see, the drunkard was looking under the street lamp because ‘This is where the light is’. He was reacting rather sensibly to a real situation.

But what if the reality of something is not so easily ascertainable? What if it’s a ‘second degree’ reality, one that is constantly (re)created by human intercourse? Like people choosing which book to keep and which one to throw into a bonfire?

fahrenheit451

Or even a ‘third degree’ reality? One that is imagined by someone who tries to assess the wishes of somebody else?

“Politicians are fooled into thinking corporate welfare is important to voters because politicians spend an inordinate amount of time with the powerful people to whom corporate welfare is vitally important. That’s why every candidate who has tried to win Iowa has prostrated him or herself before ethanol.”

You certainly guessed it. This paragraph will be about the ‘fourth degree’ reality. The one we, the voters, bring upon ourselves at the ballot box. After having carefully considered each candidate and his or her programme. Or having voted with ‘that particular one’ just because  …

The point I’m trying to make here being that this ‘fourth degree reality’ is not at all ‘virtual’, in the manner the second and the third ones are. In fact this ‘fourth degree’ reality is exactly the one where we have to live. Where we are faced with the consequences of the choices we, ourselves, have made while bringing it about.

Tags , , , ,
Categories Choices we make, collective identity, cooperation, democracy, effective communication, fail better, Frames of mind, limited rationality, man induced fragility, politics, The kind of world we live in

Shape shifters

February 4, 2016 //
0

cruzmeme

“That was done by somebody named John Fugelsang, who somehow thinks he’s funny. At least he has the courage or naivete (you decide) to own up to such stupid overgeneralizing, of a company-line liberal sort that panders to a sycophantic gaggle of Cruz-hating left-wing foamers. [I’ve hosted the image locally in case the creator sees this essay and tries to delete it from his social media out of shame and embarrassment…sorry, man, too late–it’s on the record now!”

“The Candidate is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada/(Hawaii) to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth,” the board said, explaining Cruz/(Obama) met the criteria because he “did not have to take any steps or go through a naturalization process at some point after birth.”

Wow… That settles it… Both are indeed ‘natural born citizens’ so the only relevant thing here is the manner in which people relate to a ‘delicate’ subject.
Some tend to let themselves be driven by sentiment rather than reason while others change their minds according to their most immediate interest.

September 9, 2015, at a rally in Washington against the deal with Iran:

“Despite being rivals for the Republican presidential nomination, Cruz and Trump enjoy an unusually cozy relationship. Cruz, who invited Trump to the rally because he would bring the spotlight, praised the real estate mogul as “my friend” and the two men embraced on stage.”

““I hear it was checked out by every attorney and every which way and I understand Ted is in fine shape,” Trump told ABC News just before speaking at a Capitol Hill rally blasting the Iran nuclear deal. ”

Fast forward to January, 2015.

“Donald Trump doubled down on rival Ted Cruz’s citizenship Monday night, again questioning whether the Canadian-born Texas senator is eligible for the presidency.
“My new battle is with a gentleman named Ted Cruz,” the billionaire real-estate mogul said at a rally in Farmington, N.H. “The Canadian, the man from Canada.””

“But Trump has begun to raise an issue that could have deeper resonance. He criticized his principal GOP rival as trying to portray himself as “Mr. Robin Hood — he’s gonna protect you from the horrible Wall Street bankers,” when he took a loan from Goldman Sachs, his wife’s employer, for his Senate campaign, which he didn’t fully disclose.”

“Cruz noted that Trump in September said Cruz’s Canadian birth did not disqualify him for the White House since his mother was an American citizen. Now, he has changed his mind.
“Now since September, the Constitution hasn’t changed,” Cruz said, “but the poll numbers have.”
Trump acknowledged as much, saying that Cruz didn’t seem like a threat before, but now is neck-and-neck with him in the Iowa polls.”

perspective09

During this exchange Cruz brought back into the limelight an almost forgotten movie:
cruz jumping the shark

“That’s the scene that brought into our parlance the use of the term “jumping the shark” to signify that someone’s relevancy had reached it’s zenith and was in decline.”

Prophetic words?
For which one of them?

Anyway, my ‘democratic conundrum‘ is still unsolved.

Gov. John Kasich, maybe?

kasich, the underdog

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

The link between logic and epistemology

February 2, 2016 //
0

Oscar Hoffman, an excellent Professor of Sociology at the Bucharest University, kept telling us, his students:

“For a proposition to be ‘true’ it is not enough for it to be ‘logical’, it also has to make sense from the epistemological point of view.”

Rather hard to swallow, specially for young individuals… and since most students tend to be … well… at least young at heart… it wasn’t simple for us to follow him.

Here’s a story that might help.

“A young man knocks on the door of a great Talmudic scholar.

“Rabbi, I wish to study Talmud.”

“Do you know Aramaic?”

“No.”

“Hebrew?”

“No.”

“Have you ever studied Torah?”

“No, Rabbi, but I graduated from Harvard summa cum laude in philosophy, and received a PhD from Yale. I’d like to round out my education with a bit of Talmud.”

“I doubt that you are ready for Talmud. It is the broadest and deepest of books. If you wish, however, I will examine you in logic, and if you pass the test I will teach you Talmud.”

“Good. I’m well versed in logic.”

“First question. Two burglars come down a chimney. One emerges with a clean face, the other with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“The burglar with the dirty face.”

“Wrong. The one with the clean face. Examine the logic. The burglar with a dirty face looks at the one with a clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with a clean face looks at the burglar with a dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. So the one with the clean face washes.”

“Very clever. Another question please.”

“Two burglars come down a chimney. One emerges with a clean face, the other with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“We established that. The burglar with the clean face washes.”

“Wrong. Both wash. Examine the logic. The one with a dirty face thinks his face is clean. The one with a clean face thinks his face is dirty. So the burglar with a clean face washes. When the one with a dirty face sees him washing, however, he realizes his face must be dirty too. Thus both wash.”

“I didn’t think of that. Please ask me another.”

“Two burglars come down a chimney. One emerges with a clean face, the other with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“Well, we know both wash.”

“Wrong. Neither washes. Examine the logic. The one with the dirty face thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face thinks his face is dirty. But when clean-face sees that dirty-face doesn’t bother to wash, he also doesn’t bother. So neither washes. As you can see, you are not ready for Talmud.”

“Rabbi, please, give me one more test.”

“Two burglars come down a chimney. One emerges with a clean face, the other with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“Neither!”

“Wrong. And perhaps now you will see why Harvard and Yale cannot prepare you for Talmud. Tell me, how is it possible that two men come down the same chimney, and one emerges with a clean face, while the other has a dirty face?”

“But you’ve just given me four contradictory answers to the same question! That’s impossible!”

“No, my son, that’s Talmud.”

OK, but where’s the promised link?

Well, who wrote the Talmud in the first place?

A countless number of people who have figured out there’s no such thing as a definitive answer for any question?
That books should be written to help other people develop their minds, not to ‘mold’ them?
That books should be read as an exercise for the ‘thinking muscle’, not in (vain) search for ‘the absolute wisdom’?

Still looking for that link?
Keep reading, only take greater care when choosing them books.

(another version of the same story ends up like this:

“Goldstein is desperate. “I am qualified to study Talmud. Please give me one more test.”

He groans, though, when the rabbi lifts two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“Neither one washes his face.”

“Wrong. Do you now see, Sean, why Socratic logic is an insufficient basis for studying Talmud? Tell me, how is it possible for two men to come down the same chimney, and for one to come out with a clean face and the other with a dirty face? Don’t you see? The whole question is “narishkeit”, foolishness, and if you spend your whole life trying to answer foolish questions, all your answers will be foolish, too.”

May we all have the wisdom to ask, and answer, the wise questions!)

Tags , , , , ,
Categories Choices we make, cooperation, effective communication, Frames of mind, limited rationality, Mutual Respect, Psychology, religion, The world as described in jokes

Never say never….

February 1, 2016 //
2

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.

 

 

Tags , ,
Categories Choices we make, cooperation, Frames of mind, limited rationality, manipulation, Mutual Respect, Psychology, The kind of world we live in

Manipulation 101

January 31, 2016 //
5

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.”

” “Under a package of bills New York’s City Council will consider to ease enforcement of quality-of-life offenses that lawmakers say clog the courts and have been disproportionately enforced against minorities, urinating and drinking in public would no longer be treated as crimes.
According to the New York Times, one liberal official who sponsored this change noted it was designed to help minorities “reach their full potential.” So not being able to legally pee in public is what’s holding minorities back?”
“Not only is this train of thought disgusting, it is demoralizing to minorities. How is encouraging offensive, anti-social behavior helping them, or anyone, to “reach their full potential?” “
 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?
Reality check no 2.
Under the new legislation public urination would be still considered a misdemeanor, “Cops would have discretion to issue civil or criminal summons” but “The proposal would remove the possibility of permanent criminal records for public urination and violating park rules, mostly treating them as civil offenses, along with public drinking, littering and excessive noise.”
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?
Tags , , ,
Categories Choices we make, collective identity, corruption, democracy, effective communication, Frames of mind, human rights, limited rationality, manipulation, Mutual Respect, Politically induced fragility, politics, Psychology, Rule of Law, Social justice, The kind of world we live in, yes but
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »