Mare suparare mare pe Europeni ca le-am trimis tiganii pe cap.

Toata lumea pune invazia tiganilor in Europa pe deschiderea granitelor… s-ar putea sa fie asa si e sigur ca ‘deschiderea’ le-a facilitat deplasarile. Cu toate astea eu tin minte ca erau destui tigani la cersit prin ‘tarile calde’ inca inainte de ‘abolirea vizelor’.

Pe de alta parte daca te uiti cu atentie in jur constati ca tiganii au disparut din foarte multe locuri. In cele ‘clasice’ au mai ramas doar cei din piete si cei cu facturile false. Nu mai vezi, in schimb, un picior de tigan prin spalatoriile de masini si nici chiar printre gunoieri sau maturatorii de strada. Toate aceste locuri au fost ocupate de ‘albi’.

Si sa nu-mi spuneti ca tiganii au fost alungati de acolo pentru ca nu faceau treaba. Am avut multi colegi de munca tigani prin fabricile pe unde am lucrat si marea lor majoritate erau oameni la locul lor. Tot asa, cei treizeci de ani traiti in Giulesti m-au invatat ca tiganii sunt oameni la fel ca noi. Au intr-adevar o rata de criminalitate mai mare decat media pe intreaga populatie dar asta nu inseamna ca ei, ca natie, ar avea ceva ‘defect’.
Iar cel mai bun argument este faptul ca nu mai vezi un pet sau o cutie de bere pe strada. Daca cineva este dispus sa adune peturi si conserve de pe strada pentru a se intretine asta inseamna ca acel cineva chiar este dispus sa munceasca din greu.Dupa cum nici traiul pe groapa de gunoi nu este chiar floare la ureche.

Ce vroiam sa spun cu toata chestia asta este ca plecarea tiganilor are si o alta explicatie. Cand a venit criza peste noi si somajul a inceput sa-si arate coltii ‘albii’ au inceput sa caute si slujbe pe care mai de mult nu le-ar fi acceptat nici in ruptul capului. Iar tiganii au inceput sa fie ‘alungati’ din slujbele lor traditionale la prima abatere. Imi veti spune ca ‘si-o fac cu mana lor’ si ca nu e treaba patronilor de spalatorii sau din salubritate sa faca protectie sociala.

Asa e, numai ca e treaba noastra, a tuturor, sa facem comunitatea largita sa functioneze. Cu putina toleranta – putina, nu prea multa, adica exact atata cata avem pentru restul angajatilor – putem face in asa fel incat si tiganii care doresc acest lucru sa aibe locuri cat de cat stabile de munca. Asta va duce, pe de o parte, la scaderea numarului de copii din aceasta comunitate iar pe de alta la scaderea abandonului scolar. Adica la treptata disparitie a ‘problemei tiganesti’. Acestia nu trebuie sa fie ‘integrati’ ci doar sa aiba posibilitatea de a-si castiga existenta intr-un mod care sa nu puna piedici functionarii organismului social. De ‘integrat’ se vor integra singuri atunci cand vor dori ei.
Daca, in schimb, ii vom tine sechestrati la periferia societatii, atunci vor ramane ‘marginali’ pana la sfarsitul timpului. Si nu meritam asa ceva, nici ei si nici noi, toti ceilalti.

Finally someone who got it right!

Children are born to us, their parents, and government is populated with regular people, just like you and me. Even more so, in a democracy they are supposed to do as we, the voters/tax payers, tell them to.

Just as parents bear the ultimate responsibility for the upbringing their children receive so we, the people, bear the ultimate responsibility for the way we are treated by our governments.

And just as responsible parents teach their children how to drink, how to drive and how to keep these two things wide apart, it is our responsibility to constantly teach our politicians how to behave.

People glimpse fragments from the surrounding reality and then use their newly found understanding to gradually change it.
They do this in three, successive, steps.
The first has a lot to do with happenstance – the right man at the right place, the second involves a lot of ‘due diligence’ and the third depends very much on how those who end up in command of the new understating relate to the rest of the people.
Sometimes some of the people who ‘happen’ to ‘stumble’ on new information/experience something really new feel the urge to communicate to others what has happened to them.
Usually the information gleaned/sentiments experienced during this first step are so new that there are no socially sanctioned symbols that can represent them faithfully so the individual trying to communicate the entire experience has to find a novel way to make it understandable for those around him. This is art.
The second step has less to do with actual discovery and is more about systematization of information already at our disposal. Something like charting a newly discovered territory. Even if we have to adapt our existing tools to the new task – some of them had been discovered during the first step but that means they are already here when we start the second one, here the job to be done is more about reason than inspiration. This is science.
And now, that new information is available – even before it was widely disseminated – people start to use it. Some of it is used straight away/as it is/honestly while some other is used to keep ‘the others’ in the dark or to alter their perceptions in order to fit the goals of the ‘user’/’entrepreneur’/spin doctor.
Usually this last way of using newly found understanding has perverse consequences. The ‘user’ becomes arrogant and starts to believe he has somehow become a (demi)God while the people kept in the dark/unwittingly exploited sooner or later become aware of what is going on – and sometimes express that in artistic ways.
At some point the equilibrium is regained, either through  a  a series of oscillations that ’embrace’ it – a revolution – or through small steps in the right direction – evolution.
(Usually, as the distance between a given state of facts and the perceived point of equilibrium becomes wider then people gradually loose hope in evolution and start to consider more revolutionary methods.)

A fact is just that, a mere fact.
An acknowledged fact asks for an interpretation, otherwise the human mind finds it hard to accept its very existence.

An interpretation that seems to make sense becomes an understanding and regardless of that understanding being right or wrong it generates a belief.
Until that understanding is proven wrong and even then… eventually a new understanding is generated and, in its turn, it leads to a new belief.

That’s why we should indeed reserve the right Patton Oswalt speaks about and then use it sparingly, only when other believers tries to forcefully impose their beliefs on us.

In fact Oswalt is right. We don’t have to respect other people’s beliefs, only their right to have their own beliefs.

So what’s new…

Not so fast. There is more to it than the classic complaints – that high taxes discourage the working people while government hand-outs, made possible by those taxes, encourage the lazy to stay home.
If taxes are collected evenly – from all those that should pay them – and distributed sparingly – only to those who really need those hand-outs – nobody feels cheated so no disincentive is felt.

There is a more malignant phenomenon at work here. If taxes are really high – as a percentage – then being able to not pay them becomes a huge competitive advantage.

Not paying becomes attractive only after you are due a certain amount of money – you have to hire a tax consultant, pay some fees and commissions, etc. – but once you belong in that league not paying becomes a huge advantage over your competition. For instance over your competitors that are smaller and who won’t gain as much, or anything at all, by doing the same thing as you do.

And this is why the market becomes so polarized, why some of the really big brass do not push, in earnest, towards fiscal discipline and how the middle class gets squeezed out.

This quote is so wrong that it makes me wonder if Neil deGrasse Tyson is even aware of it’s existence…

Karl Popper has long ago produced ample proof that science is true only till proven wrong so it ever being true depends solely on us temporarily believing in it…
Maybe the guy who wrote this should have put it a little differently.

The good thing about the scientific mind-set is that whenever we find proof to the contrary it makes it easier for us to stop believing an erstwhile scientifically held truth.
And to continue from there.

Karl Popper: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
Falsifiability: https://explorable.com/falsifiability

Why read ‘philosophy’?

To better understand what’s going on around us, to find out what the ‘great minds’ had to say about the world in general or to be able to make ‘intelligent conversation’ in certain circles?

Why share our thoughts?

To measure them against what others have to say about the same subjects or as a ‘desperate attempt’ to change the world? (Supposedly for the better, of course! But then again, better for whom? Better than what?
And what do you mean by ‘better’, anyway?

One can be a genuine expert in ‘something’ – and be able to explain in very few words that ‘something’ to any layperson with a functional brain, or an expert in bull-shit, one that is able to speak for ever about anything under this sun, without ever uttering a single interesting word about anything.