Image

 

Somebody forwarded to me an email, in Romanian, about this incident. I read it this morning.

Basically it was a translation of the article published by the Russian Radio, available here.

Two things have grabbed my attention:

“After the incident, the foreign media reported that “Donald Cook” was rushed into a port in Romania. There all the 27 members of the crew filed a letter of resignation. It seems that all 27 people have written that they are not going to risk their lives. This is indirectly confirmed by the Pentagon statement according to which the action demoralized the crew of the American ship.”

and

“The system with which the Russian Su-24 shocked the American destroyer “Donald Cook” has the code name “Khibiny”. This is the name of the mountain range on the Kola Peninsula in the Arctic Circle. “Khibiny” is the newest complex for radioelectronic jamming of the enemy. They will be installed on all the advanced Russian planes .
Recently the complex has undergone regular testing exercises on the ground in Buryatia. Apparently, the tests which were conducted under conditions as close to real as possible, were successful.”

So 27 American Navy personnel were scarred shitless by an extremely powerful experimental device soon to be deployed on ‘all the advanced Russian planes’!

OK, let’s get this straight. I’m no privy to any military secrets, Russian or American. For all I care/know this might have taken place ‘as advertised’. But there is one thing I know for certain, the Russians have actually published this article. So lets see what we can gather from this, undeniable, fact.

There are two main possibilities.

1. The whole thing is a bogus. Well, not entirely, the fly by has actually taken place, so only the spin out might be considered an elaborate invention. Why? D.J. Dyer offers a very pertinent reason: “Donald Cook is the first of our permanently forward-stationed ballistic missile defense (BMD) warships, which we’ve been planning to put in the European theater as part of the Obama “substitute” for the Bush 43 missile defense plan.” so the Russians couldn’t afford to loose the opportunity to raise the issue one more time.
2. The Russians have indeed developed a very efficient “complex for radioelectronic jamming of the enemy” and … used an experimental version in an actual encounter with a potential enemy, even before massively deploying it on the the rest of their Air Force?!? Does any of this make any sense?

Actually yes. It makes some sense.
Judging by the fact that somebody took the trouble to translate and disseminate the article in other languages than Russian and English means that that somebody thinks the effort is worthwhile. People have forwarded it  so, at least apparently, the whole thing got some traction. After reading the comments on the original link that impression is beefed up even more.

But what if we dig a little deeper?
To me at least it starts to smell like desperation. Do you remember how much hype Hitler made about his ‘secret weapons’ towards the end of WWII? No I won’t dismiss altogether the Russian military establishment, it still is very capable of throwing a hefty punch. The problems arise, exactly as they did in Hitler’s case, from the extreme concentration of decision power in present day Russia. Dictators tend to become elongated from the real world and to see nothing but enemies everywhere they look around. Enemies that have to be frightened into submission, no matter how, no matter what. In fact it’s more about alleviating  one’s own fears (dictator’s own fears) than anything else. Hiding desperation under a blanket of extreme aggression.

One other thing. Romania suffered for some 40 years the rigors of communist rule. During 25 of those years if somebody would have disseminated news about how strong the Americans were and how they had humiliated the Red Army that person would have gotten a hefty prison term  for defeatism and propaganda favorable to the enemy. Nowadays bashing America is …. you find the right word… No, the Americans are not whiter than Snow White but piling on their heads things that don’t belong there isn’t helpful for any of us.

 

I just received this in my mail:

He who doesn’t know he doesn’t know is stupid. 
          Avoid him.
He who doesn’t know he knows is asleep.
          Wake him.
He who knows he doesn’t know is untrained.
          Train him.
He who knows he knows is wise.
          Follow him.

 

Really? 
I prefer a different approach…

 

He who doesn’t know he doesn’t know is innocent.
          Leave him be.
He who doesn’t know what he knows is unsure.
          Comfort him.
He who knows he doesn’t know is wise.
          Help him and both of you will learn something.
He who is convinced he knows anything is conceited.
          He is the one you need to avoid.
          Widely. 

Image

 

Humans do that too and equally on their own.
The fact that tardigrades do it based on their resilience while humans are able to do it because of their ingenuity and willingness to cooperate doesn’t obliterate the fact that both ‘have it in them’, neither need any outside assistance.

 

Image

 

“Ren Alexandria: Complaining about a problem that HAS a solution is called “Whining”
Complaining about a problem that does not have a solution is called “Grief” “

The way I see this is that here is no such thing as a problem without a solution.
If you can’t get out of somewhere you are in a situation, not in a problem.

‘Solving a problem’ and ‘grieving’ are both human reactions to outside inputs, ways to cope with a specific set of conditions, but have different outcomes. Trying to ‘solve a problem’ will eventually set you free, even if through ‘death by exertion’ while ‘grieving’ will finally get you accustomed with the situation.

So this is more about individual choices than the specific set of conditions that generated the whole situation.

Image     Image

 

“Fleming moved to Federal parliament in 1913 as the member for the Division of Robertson, initially as a representative of the Commonwealth Liberal Party, then the Nationalist Party and later the Country Party.

While a member of Federal parliament, Fleming joined the Australian Infantry Forces on 6 October 1916 and served as a Driver in the Army Service Corps until his discharge in England on 27 December 1918. He returned to parliament and served until his retirement from politics in 1922. Fleming became an orchardist in Terrigal, New South Wales, where he died in 1961.”

So 100 years ago at least one member of a Parliament volunteered for active duty then retired from politics and took up a real job.

Nowadays we tend to equate involvement in politics with being a member of organised crime…

Don’t tell me the politicians should bear all the blame. After all this is our world too!

Avantajul fundamental al democratiei fata de celelalte metode de gestionare a spatiului public este caracterul ei participativ.

Prin exercitarea votului cetateanul isi exprima mult mai mult decat opinia cu privire la problemele aflate in discutie – si legitimeaza astfel una sau alta dintre optiunile supuse aprobarii populare. El isi probeaza astfel, direct si de netagaduit, interesul fata de viata cetatii si fata de viitorul sau. In plus, chiar daca varianta aleasa de el nu s-a bucurat de increderea a suficient de multi dintre ceilalti, simplul fapt ca toate variantele au fost examinate denota ca mecanismul democratic din societatea respectiva este in stare de functionare si ca suficient de multi dintre cetatenii acesteia se simt confortabil in interiorul ‘cetatii’, reprezentati legitim de catre conducatorii sai vremelnici si, daca nu chiar multumiti cu directia generala in care se indreapta societatea respectiva, atunci macar nu sunt disperati cu privire la acea directie.

Dar toate astea sunt valabile doar daca votul este exprimat. Indiferent cum.

In momentul in care votul nu este exprimat de loc, adica cetateanul prefera sa stea acasa in loc sa isi exprime parerea, repet INDIFERENT CUM DAR IN INTERIORUL CABINEI DE VOT, gestul sau devine extrem de ambiguu si deschis oricarei interpretari.

– Cei multumiti cu directia in care se indreapta societatea vor spune: ‘uite, daca nu a venit la vot inseamna ca si el este multumit cu ce se intampla, altfel ar fi facut ceva, NU?!?’
– Cei nemultumiti cu privire la rezultatul votului vor spune: ‘uite, daca lor nu le era lene poate ca reuseam sa schimbam ceva!’

In momentul in care absenteismul la vot capata dimensiuni de masa lucrurile se complica si mai tare:
– Cei care incearca sa manipuleaze rezultatul alegerilor, prin orice metoda, devin din ce in ce mai eficienti. In principiu ‘costul’ unui vot ‘a la carte’ este constant, nu depinde de prezenta la vot. In conditiile unei prezente slabe la vot s-ar putea sa fie suficient sa ‘controlezi’ 4-5 % pentru a obtine rezultatul dorit. In cazul unei prezente masive s-ar putea sa nu se mai stie…
– Cei care sunt multumiti cu situatia se simt incurajati sa continue – ‘astora’ nu le pasa – in timp ce aceia care doresc o schimbare devin din ce in ce mai defetisti – cu ‘astia’ nu se poate face nimic.
– De la un moment dat incolo ‘interesele straine’ incep si ele sa ‘adulmece’: ‘astia’ sunt atat de blegi/se cearta atat de tare intre ei incat in tara aia putem sa facem aproape tot ce ne trece prin cap.

Da, stiu ca foarte multi dintre voi sunt extrem de dezamagiti de ce s-a intamplat pana acum.
Din prea multa ‘nebagare de seama si iuteala de mana’  l-am lasat pe Iliescu sa se cocoate in fruntea bucatelor dupa ce se bagase singur, dar cu ‘voia dumneavoastra’, pe lista FSN-ului.
Dupa ce ne-am lamurit, in incercarea de a scapa de Ilici, l-am luat in brate pe Constantinescu dar am uitat ca nu ajunge sa il votezi, orice om politic are nevoie de sprijinul constant al alegatorilor sai pentru a face cu adevarat ceva.
Apoi am inceput sa votam la misto si uite asa a ajuns Vadim in turul doi, tot cu Iliescu. Si mare desteptaciune mare, iar l-am pus pe Iliescu ‘sef al statului’. Si tot nu ne-am invatat minte ca votul negativ nu rezolva nimic ci functioneaza ca o imputernicire in alb pentru cel care a fost ales ca fiind raul cel mai mic. Dar tot rau.
Si, ca sa nu iasa Nastase, l-am ales pe Basescu.

Stiu, e frustrant sa nu ai pe cine alege. Dar pentru cei capabili e si mai frustrant sa vada cum alegatorii dorm in cizme si voteaza ‘negativ’ sau de loc.
Iar celor care sunt alesi, asa cum sunt alesi, li se pare ca l-au prins pe dumnezeu de un picior. Simt ca nu le va cere nimeni socoteala niciodata si au impresia ca daca se vor certa suficient de convingator intre ei vor face rocada la putere pana la sfarsitul veacurilor.

Ce-ar fi sa iesim la vot si sa le transmitem: ‘aveti grija ce faceti, de-acum incolo suntem cu ochii pe voi!!!’? 
Cum? 
Foarte simplu. Pentru cei care nu au incredere in nici un partid sau candidat independent exista varianta anularii votului. Mai multe stampile si gata. Gata cu votul negativ. E suficient gestul de a merge pana acolo si de a anula votul. “Imi pasa de ce se intampla in tara asta, nici unul dintre voi nu mi se pare demn de incredere dar asta nu inseamna ca am de gand sa va las sa faceti ce vreti voi!”

Acum cei mai pesimisti dintre voi imi vor aduce aminte de vorbele lui Stalin: “nu conteaza cine voteaza, conteaza doar cine numara voturile!” Nu e chiar asa. Nu suntem in aceiasi situatie. Cei din comisiile electorale de circumscriptie si cei din ‘activul local de partid’ sunt si ei oameni. Una e sa modifici rezultatul unui vot cu cateva procente incolo-incoace sau sa mai umbli un pic la prezenta si alta e sa te confrunti cu 20% voturi anulate in semn de protest. Cam cat al doilea partid din sondaje.

Cum ar fi sa faca chestia asta vreo doua treimi dintre cei care nu vin de obicei la vot?

Freud sustine pe undeva ca abia atunci cand te ia gura pe dinainte spui cu adevarat ce ganduri iti trec prin cap si apoi propune o metoda de analiza a cuvintelor scapate fara voie din ‘gurile pacatosilor’.

Ia sa vedem ce iese daca aplicam principiul asta asupra sloganurilor electorale.

– “Trimitem la Bruxelles oameni Mandri ca sunt Romani, care vor apara Romania.”

Cam toti Romanii sunt mandri de apartenenta lor etnica asa ca partea asta este oarecum neutra, nici nu spune mare lucru si nici nu individualizeaza prea tare pe cei care folosesc sloganul. Exista totusi un mic semn de intrebare, mandria asta e doar asa, in general, sau se refera, direct sau indirect, la starea actuala a Romaniei si, mai ales, la directia in care se indreapta aceasta? Ma refer aici, bineinteles, la clasica intrebare din toate chestionarele de sondare a opiniei publice.
‘Oameni care vor apara Romania, la Bruxelles’.
‘Vor apara Romania…’ in principiu iarasi e OK …dar care Romania? Status quo-ul actual? Poporul in intregimea lui? Traditiile, granitele…? ‘Directia in care se indreapta tara’?
‘Vor apara Romania la Bruxelles’?!? De cine? Parca cei de la Bruxelles ne erau prieteni si urma sa ne aparam impreuna cu ei, nu? Vor apara Romania de imixtiunile birocratilor de la Bruxelles? De care dintre ele? De cele care ne deranjeaza pe toti, cum ar fi aiureala aia cu micii sau tot felul de alte sicane birocratice sau de insistentele lor sa ne facem o data ordine in batatura? (NB, nu ca ‘la ei’ ar fi totul in regula dar noi avem vorba aia foarte inteleapta cu ‘fa ce spune popa, nu ce face popa’ asa ca…)

– Eurocampionii. Puterea de a schimba. 

Mobilizator si continand promisiunea implicita a unei schimbari, ceea ce ar trebui sa-i atraga pe cei nemultumiti de situatia actuala. Pe de alta parte, promisiunea este destul de vaga, de generala. In spirit liberal, intr-adevar, promisiunea se margineste sa ne ofere un spatiu de libertate pe care urmeaza sa il modelam noi insine, liberalii propunandu-si doar sa ne ofere conditiile, energia necesara schimbarii. Pe de alta parte e atat de imprecisa incat multa lume se intreaba nedumerita: ‘schimbare, schimbare, dar incotro vreti sa ne duceti?!?’
Pai exact aici e clou-ul. Nu vor sa ne duca nicaieri ci vor doar sa ne creeze conditiile necesare ca sa putem reinvata sa ne purtam singuri de grija.
Sau cel putin asa ar trebui sa faca un partid cu adevarat liberal si cam asa s-ar traduce, cu bunavointa, sloganul lor electoral.
Pana la urma dupa fiecare runda de alegeri, in afara de un numar de alesi, ramanem si cu cate o masuratoare extrem de precisa asupra ethosului popular de la un moment dat. In cazul asta sloganul pare a fi fost selectionat mai degraba ca o intrebare de pe un chestionar de sondaj decat ca un indemn mobilizator adresat nehotaratilor. Totusi, poate e mai bine asa. Nu promite nimic ce n-ar putea fi facut, bineinteles cu conditia ca populatia sa dea aceasta putere de a schimba unora care sa nu abuzeze de ea. Si dupa aceea tot populatia sa pazeasca acea putere cu foarte multa gelozie.

– Europa in fiecare casa.

Principala calitate a acestui slogan este ca se pozitioneaza la antipodul celui care promite sa apere Romania la Bruxelles. Si totusi… chiar in fiecare casa? Tocmai acum cand restul Europei a inceput sa-i faca scandal Unchiului Sam ca inregistreaza prea multe convorbiri telefonice? Abia ce-am scapat de ‘Stalin si poporul rus libertate ne-au adus’ si acum ne punem singuri ‘fir scurt’ cu Bruxelles-ul, in fiecare casa? Parca depasisem faza “1984”! Sau poate ca nu?!?

– Noi ridicam Romania.

Pana unde? Si mai ales de ce? Ca sa vedem si noi cum e sa sarim cu parasuta? De nevoie, ca de placere…

– Schimba-i cu forta

Nu, multumesc. Am mai incercat o data in ’89 si tot cine a trebuit a iesit la suprafata. De data asta as prefera sa o luam mai pe-indelete si mai ales institutional. Ca da-ia ne socotim a fi stat de drept.

– Furatul ucide.

Asta e o constatare cumva? Daca e asa atunci e perfect. Iata pe unii care si-au dat seama ca orice organism social care permite membrilor sai sa fure se indreapta negresit spre pieire. Dar parca sloganurile astea se refera la viitor, sunt un fel de promisiuni, nu?
Pana la urma ce isi propun sa faca? Sa-i omoare pe hoti? Pe toti sau doar pe unii dintre ei? Cum o sa-i aleaga? Sa fure ei tot ca sa se termine o data cu balciul asta?

 

 

 

Most of you are probably aware that French was THE Lingua Franca until some 60 or 70 years ago, long after Britain had displaced France as the dominant world power.

Why? Because English is a lot more flexible than French and, as such, a lot more suitable as a medium for negotiation.
Why had we, as a species, waited for so long? Because until then international exchanges were, basically, more of an imperial nature than anything else. Only when people started to engage in meaningful negotiation medium became important. Orders can be given in any language, sooner or later the subordinate will figure out the message if the imperator is insistent enough but for meaningful negotiation to be possible the medium needs to be simultaneously expressive enough for the participants to be able to make themselves understood yet imprecise enough to leave room for ‘diplomatic’ manoeuvres.

Image

 

See what I mean?
The last entry is indeed the pinnacle of ambiguity, it is extremely descriptive and it can be simultaneously an oxymoron and a pleonasm, depending on which half of the couple is using it!

Here are some more examples from the FB wall where I found the picture:

Benjamin Adams: “In greek oxy means sharp. In English moron means dull. Oxymoron is an oxymoron.”

Matt Mailand: “civil war”

Reece Matthew Van Gameren “Clearly confused”

Travis Fox “Jumbo shrimp.”

Once upon a time, for if it hadn’t taken place people wouldn’t be still mentioning it, things were so similar as to be indistinguishable.

There was no male nor female, no black nor white, no pointed nor flat… everything was so bland as if there was nothing at all.

Until one day. One day when somebody named something for the first time and by doing so brought that something to life while leaving all the rest behind. As if on cue somebody else named something else and then again and again until everything in sight bore a name.

Then people started to speak about what they had seen and about what they were going to do and by doing so they created new realities out of the old, unique, one.
And very seldom these new realities, spoken by various people, resembled one another even if they started from the same point and the speakers themselves were using the same language and belonged to the same ‘species’. 

Scriind comentariul precedent despre evolutia de la stadiul de tara ‘bananiera’, care se bazeaza in principal pe exploatarea resurselor naturale,  la cel de economie industrializata care isi valorifica cat mai bine potentialul uman, mi-am adus aminte de ‘nu ne vindem tara’.

Lasa ca in loc sa o vindem am lasat sa fie pradata…din pacate semnificatia ‘strigaturii’ e chiar mai adanca!
Poate ca initiatorii ei, ‘raspandaci’ care aveau ca misiune crearea unui etos care sa permita ramanerea la putere a ‘esalonului 2’, erau ‘sinceri’ in sensul ca le era intr-adevar frica ca daca ar fi venit niste investitori seriosi ar fi cerut instaurarea unei ordini firesti…cam asa cum cere acum Dacia sa fie construita autostrada Pitesti-Sibiu…

Problema este insa ca zicala a prins la public ori asta inseamna ca publicul respectiv nu trecuse inca de etapa de dezvoltare a organismului social in care identitatea proprietarului este mai importanta decat efectul folosirii proprietatii. Bineinteles ca acestea doua sunt strans legate numai ca orice exagerare, in oricare dintre directii, duce la izbirea oistei de gard sau chiar mai rau.

Pai daca societatea romaneasca, populatie + guvernanti, ar fi reusit sa gaseasca o cale de a conduce eficient economia pe vremea cand toate erau ‘proprietatea intregului popor’ s-ar mai fi prabusit vreodata comunismul? Si atunci de ce am insistat sa lasam friele in mana acelorasi oameni care le tinusera si pana atunci? De ce ne-a fost frica de venirea unora care sa ne invete un nou model?

Bine, asta nu inseamna adoptarea necritica de comportamente doar pentru ca acestea provin ‘din afara’, acest lucru ar fi cel putin la fel de daunator ca refuzul aprioric de a intra macar in contact cu ele, din simpla frica de contaminare. Intotdeauna oamenii sunt cei chemati sa fie masura tuturor lucrurilor precum si motorul evolutiilor sociale.

Atunci nu ne-am ridicat la inaltimea provocarilor. Acum insa se pare ca avem parte de un nou start.