Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Thursday, Sept. 10, 2015, in Milwaukee. (Morry Gash/AP)

“Clinton hiring consumer marketing specialists “to help imagine Hillary 5.0.” “

Genuine democracy was about open discussion about all issues of public interest. It worked because openness made it so that the truly stupid (people and ideas) were weeded out before inflicting harm on a large scale.

The problem is that openness needs mutual respect.

Only that has become a thing of the past. Nowadays, when everyone knows better, political ideas are marketed like snake oil used to be not so long ago…

“Clinton’s campaign spent $18.7 million in the second quarter, dramatically more than any other. The mid-July report said she received $815,000 worth of services from strategist Joel Benenson’s firm alone. Since then, the campaign launched a $4 million ad blitz in Iowa and New Hampshire.”

“Steve Schmidt, the Republican strategist, puts it somewhat more crudely: “Trump’s starring in a reality show of his own making, and treats every appearance like an episode,” chasing ratings in the form of fresh votes. But how do you turn appointment TV into a lasting candidacy? “You need a huge team on the ground doing the nuts-and-bolts work — collecting signatures to be on the ballot in certain states, bringing voters to the polls — and Trump is very late to the party,” says Cohn. “Most of his rivals have been at this over a year, and have those seasoned operatives locked up. And even if they’re available, is he really prepared to pay them a premium now?” ”
This third quote is from Rolling Stone’s “Trump Seriously: On the Trail With the GOP’s Tough Guy” by Bob Solotaroff.

I know some of you are quite familiar with these political realities but don’t you get goose bumps about what’s going on, at least occasionally?

How come these species of political operators are so sure about themselves being entitled to do what they are doing that they have no qualms when doing it?

Can any of these occurrences be, even remotely, associated with the concept of democracy? Or have we, all of us, demoted the whole process to just a little more than ‘mob rule’? A contest among spin doctors about who is the more competent manipulator?

I believe that you’ve already watched the video before starting to read so I’m not going to discuss about what’s going on there.

The point I’m trying to make is that all rights come with a huge responsibility attached to them.
No, not the one to take that right to it’s ultimate consequence:

Every right has to be exercised with the utmost discretion and consideration.
Or else:

And no, this would be funny only if it wasn’t already tragic:

“Publicly, law-enforcement officials have been reluctant to link the movement’s antipolice rhetoric to the spike in violent crime. Privately, they have been echoing South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who said in a speech last week that the movement was harming the very people whose interests it claims to represent. “Most of the people who now live in terror because local police are too intimidated to do their jobs are black,” the governor said. “Black lives do matter, and they have been disgracefully jeopardized by the movement that has laid waste to Ferguson and Baltimore.””

Photo credit: Akram Abahre. While European countries are being lectured about their failure to take in enough refugees, Saudi Arabia – which has taken in precisely zero migrants – has 100,000 air conditioned tents that can house over 3 million people sitting empty.

Those tents have been erected there precisely for the pilgrims who go there for the Hajj. They are empty now because at this time of the year there are no pilgrims, yet.
If the Saudis were to invite refugees to stay, temporarily, in those tents, they would have to provide for those refugees more stable lodging by the time of the next Hajj.
Integrate them, that is.
And this is the reason for which the Syrians are not at all welcome there, just as the Palestinians were not welcome either. They would upset the balance of power.
Basically the rulers of the Gulf states bribe their citizens with money coming in from the rest of the world while shamelessly exploiting imported workforce, allowed to stay only on temporary visas. The Syrians (and the Palestinians) would have to be accepted on a more permanent basis and offered the option for a full citizenship. That would both dilute the per capita revenue of the citizens and introduce a more liberal line of thought in a very conservative society.
Yes, a more liberal line of thought. The Syrians do not insist that their women cover their faces and have tried, repeatedly, to out-throw the ruling family.
So yes, the wealthy Gulf States are indeed very hypocritical “when it comes to helping with the crisis.” (they have helped create) but that’s no excuse for us to follow their example.
After all it is us who came up with the notions of ‘human rights’ and ‘pursuit of happiness’, didn’t we?

Donald Trump Photograph by Mark Seliger

Donald Trump, as a man, is a very interesting subject. Click on his mug and read a very interesting article written by Paul Solotaroff  and published by the Rolling Stones.

What I’m interested in is Trump as a social phenomenon.

“Dame Athene Donald, who is Professor of Experimental Physics at Cambridge University, believes more “creative” toys such as Lego and Meccano, which are more likely to be given to boys than girls, should replace traditional “girls’ toys,” reported The Telegraph.”

Isn’t this nice? A scientist that shares her beliefs with us… how about some facts, for a change?

Don’t get me wrong, I basically agree with her only she’s got her horses behind the cart.

First of all Dame Athene Donald shared this, otherwise sensible, piece of advice – “ditch Barbie for Lego” – a full year after “The Lego brick has toppled the Barbie doll—at least for now—in children’s affections.”
Secondly the parents influence their children’s future in a lot more ways than by the choice of toys that are presented to their offspring. That choice is indeed a very good indicator about the attitude of the parents but only that, an indicator – not at all a ‘sentence’.

Here is Professor Donald’s main argument: ““We introduce social constructs by stereotyping what toys boys and girls receive from the earliest age,” she went on. “Girls’ toys are typically liable to lead to passivity — combing the hair of Barbie, for instance — not building, imagining or being creative with Lego or Meccano.””
So combing hair, or dressing a doll, leads to passivity while playing with Lego necessarily leads to becoming a creative adult… Yeah… sure… That’s why fashion and cooking, two domains otherwise closely connected to the womenfolk, involve a huge amount of creativity while most manufacturing jobs – still performed predominantly by men – are mostly about following procedures…

So yes, I fully agree with her conclusion – ““We need to change the way we think about boys and girls and what’s appropriate for them from a very young age.”” – but I’m afraid that she arrived there led by her activism rather than by ‘scientific’ reasoning.

And since I’m very afraid of all forms of activism I’d rather follow the advice offered by Claire Gillespie, the author of the article that prodded me into writing this post:“Don’t pigeonhole little girls into typically “female” interests and subjects. Don’t pigeonhole little boys into typically “male” interests and subjects. And give all children the time and freedom to explore all their options, without forcing them to go down the arts or sciences route from a young age.”

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

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

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


Hürriyet’s editor-in-chief Sedat Ergin

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

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

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

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

Why do we bash the West but not Saudi Arabia?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What we get is a ‘double selection’.

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

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

Is any of us in this ideal situation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PS.
I somehow feel this fits well in here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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