Image

Image

Image

Click on each picture to see more on Flickr

Mike Responts's avatarThe Sports Pig's Blog

JENNY MCCARTHY AND SON

Holy crap!

This would be why you shouldn’t receive your medical advice from Playboy centerfolds. For YEARS, Jenny McCarthy has been the most vocal anti-vaccine spokesperson in the world. McCarthy had claimed (despite all evidence to the contrary) that childhood vaccines had caused her young son’s autism.

Now in a stunning article in Time magazine, it’s revealed that McCarthy’s son NEVER had autism in the first place. It turns out the boy had been misdiagnosed and really has a rare neurological disorder. Fortunately, the child is getting better and no longer displays any signs of autism. However, McCarthy has not apologized for her misdirected zealotry against having children vaccinated. Even if she did, APOLOGY NOT ACCEPTED.

How many thousands and thousands of children have developed childhood diseases because their idiot mothers saw Jenny McCarthy on Oprah or some other show and refused to get them vaccinated? We’ll…

View original post 16 more words

Image

“Vezi fa ca ala micu iar s-a cacat pe el. Ce facem, il schimbam odata sau facem altul?”

Cam asa si cu clasa politica, ne tot plingem de ea, ‘din toate pozitiile’ spectrului politic, dar nu facem nimic concret pentru primenirea ei.

Ca in bancul de  mai sus, aparent avem doua variante, schimbam ‘scutecele’ celor deja acolo – constienti fiind de faptul ca nici un ‘bebelus’ nu invata din prima sa se tina curat dar ca o data si o data tot va trebui ‘pus pe olita’ – sau ii schimbam cu o garnitura complet noua?

In realitate, tot ca in bancul de mai sus, nu prea avem de ales: ‘Si cu asta (astia de acum) ce facem?’
In cazul copilului e evident, in cazul politicienilor poate mai putin: ‘ce ma intereseaza pe mine ce se intampla cu ei, au facut deja destule belele si oricum s-au infruptat pe saturate!’

De fapt lucrurile nu stau chiar atat de simplu. Asa cum nici un copil nu se invata ‘curat’ din prima si de unul singur tot asa nici politicienii nu au actionat de unii singuri. In termenii lui Basescu “Let’s drop the hypocrisy. A state on its own cannot be either uncompetitive or corrupt, because the state always has a partner, which is the private sector.”

Toata chestia e ca trebuie sa intelegem o data ce a vrut Gresham sa spuna cu “banii ‘rai’ ii gonesc de pe piata pe cei ‘buni’ “ Povestea a inceput atunci cand au inceput sa fie folosite monezile de metal aur sau argint. Valoarea unei monezi consta in cantitatea de metal pretios continuta. Cum aurul este cu atat mai usor de prelucrat cu cat este mai curat, primele monezi au fost batute din aur aproape pur. Aurul pur este insa foarte putin rezistent asa ca cei care faceau monezi (si bijuterii) au inceput sa experimenteze diverse aliaje. In acelasi timp cei care aveau de a face cu multe monezi – marii comercianti si ‘zarafii’, cei care schimbau banii dintr-o moneda intr-alta – incepusera sa pileasca cate un pic de aur din fiecare moneda care le trecea prin mana.
In situatia asta cei care utilizau monezile aveau in fata doua incertitudini: cat aur intra in realitate in compozitia aliajului din care a fost batura o anumita moneda si cat din cantitatea initiala de aliaj se mai afla in moneda atunci cand ea era oferita la schimb – pentru marfa sau pentru alte monede.
Prima problema a fost rezolvata de Arhimede – asta descoperise el de fapt atunci cand a luat-o la fuga dezbracat pe strada strigand Eureka, o metoda sa masoare simplu densitatea unui aliaj, si deci procentajul de aur din acel aliaj – iar a doua prin introducerea monedelor zimtate – din cauza zimtilor orice tentativa de a pili o moneda iese foarte repede in evidenta.
Numai ca pana la rezolvarea lor circulatia banilor nu fusese pe atat de simpla pe cat ar fi trebuit sa fie. Orice noua emisiune monetara era tratata cu neincredere pana cand nu se afla ‘in piata’ cu certitudine titlul (continutul in aur) aliajului din care fusese batuta si apoi fiecare moneda era cantarita cu grija la zaraf. Iar monezile noi si fara zgarieturi din seriile ‘bune’ erau tezaurizate cu grija, ceea ce provoca o criza de bani pe piata, adica deflatie.
Pe de alta parte, din punct de vedere individual, in conditiile in care pe piata circulau si bani ‘prosti’ (adica ‘piliti’, pentru indivizi era practic imposibil sa bata ei moneda dintr-un aliaj mai prost) ar fi fost de-a dreptul o prostie sa nu incerce si ei sa pileasca cate putin din monezile care le treceau prin mana sau cel putin sa le cantareasca pe cele care li se ofereau inaite de a le primi ca plata.

Numai ca toate astea distorsionau piata in asa masura si presiunea pentru ca problemele sa fie rezovate a fost atat de mare incat cei din ‘fruntea  bucatelor’ au fost fortati sa implementeze masurile care se impuneau: emiterea de monezi cu continut fix de metal pretios si care aveau zimti de siguranta.
Aici trebuie facuta remarca ca cei care au avut cel mai mult de castigat din masluirea aliajului si din pilirea banilor erau cei care bateau moneda (suveranii locurilor, de cate ori trebuiau sa isi plateasca creditorii sau armatele mai bateau o cantitate noua de moneda in care puneau atat aur pe cat aveau sau pe cat credeau ca vor accepta creditorii) cat si marii comercianti ai momentului (cei care aveau oportunitatea sa pileasca cat mai multe monezi). Totusi si acestia au inteles pana la urma ca le va fi si lor mai bine daca instrumentele de plata vor functiona corect si intreaga economie va fi deblocata.

Cam acelasi lucru ar trebui sa se intample si in politica actuala. Nu e nevoie de cine stie ce filozofie. In momentul in care cei aflati ‘la butoane’, atat cei de la putere cat si cei din opozitie, vor intelege ca daca mai continua asa li se va prabusi sandramau in cap sa vedeti ce repede vor incepe sa faca ce trebuie.
Numai ca oamenii acestia, ca noi toti de altfel, au nevoie sa fie trasi tot timpul de maneca. Ce sa intelega ei daca noi, cei de rand, atunci cand avem o problema ‘sarim la cap cu cate o spaga’? Ca li se cuvine, nu? Iar atunci cand ne vine randul sa spunem ce parere avem despre ei nici macar nu mergem la vot.

“Pai degeaba merg la vot, ca nu am pe cine sa votez. Toti sunt la fel!” Poate ca or fi ei atat de asemanatori incat e greu sa-i deosebesti dar daca nu mergem de loc la vot semnalul pe care il trimitem este ca nu ne pasa, ca ei pot face ce vor si ca noi nu vom reactiona. Asa ca daca suntem atat de scarbiti incat nu ne vine sa votam cu nici unul dintre candidati ar trebui sa le spunem clar chestia asta si sa punem doua trei stampile pe buletinul de vot ca semnalul sa fie atat de puternic incat sa il auda si ei: “ne pasa de ce faceti voi acolo, aveti grija!”

Asa ca mai usor cu spaga si mai mergeti pe la cabina de vot.

Apropo, cati dintre voi stiu cine ii reprezinta in parlament sau in consiliile locale?

Dar cati dintre voi s-a gandit pe vremea lui Boc ca in loc sa fie taiate lefurile ar fi mai eficient sa fie stavilita ‘risipa’ resurselor statului si ca in loc sa fie marit TVA-ul ar fi fost mai bine sa fi fost imbunatatita colectarea lui? Cele 30-40% din economie care raman nefiscalizate sunt populate tot cu oameni din tara asta, nu?

Extrapoland citatul din Basescu rezulta ca ‘nici un smecher de pe lumea asta nu poate face nimic de unul singur’. Ar fi timpul ca toti, atat smecherii cat si cei care ii ajuta, sa inteleaga ca nu mai tine.
Mai e un pic si chiar ne cade sandramaua in cap.

Image

Please read first Mr. Binswanger’s article by clicking on the picture and only then proceed to my humble comments.

Even though I’ve been disappointed by Obama I don’t think yours is the right way out the current mess.
While you are right when claiming that the regulatory/welfare state is part of the problem I strongly oppose your solution: wholesale dismantlement.
The point of contention between us is the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.
You are right when you say that ultimately the free market will take care of everything – eventually even the ‘too big to fail’ will ‘eat the dust’, no matter what – my only problem is why allow them to grow so big as to put all of us in jeopardy when they fail/fall?
So how about putting the Sherman Antitrust Law to its intended use, to protect the freedom of the market from any entity, public or private, gaining any degree of control over the economic agents? (Here is a lot to be discussed, what I mean is that the state should only be able to restrict economic agents from acts that would harm the others – including from getting control over a market – and not to tell any of them what to do)
How about putting the entire state back to its intended use, a regulatory tool for making sure that the table stays level?
Right now it is anything but that but, I repeat, dismantling it altogether would not bring in freedom. It will bring very shortly a long period of dictatorship punctured by brief but very intense episodes of anarchy. Some like to call them revolutions …
In fact there is no difference between a state run monopoly and a private one, both fail eventually. And this is what Sherman had in mind, back in 1890.

Image

DSC_0222

Image

Robert Prechter, a market analyst who has correctly called all the ‘hiccups’ in the financial market, has crossed economy with sociology and came up with the concept of socionomics.

The idea is that behind all that is happening in the human realm lies something he calls ‘the social mood’ and if we want to understand what lies in store for us we’d be better off trying to figure out the changes in this mood rather than doing complicated econometric calculations or social forecasting.

Maybe not very scientific but he was spot on in his predictions – up to now, anyway.

According to his method this piece if news is akin to a new dawn: “The minibar may soon be extinct in most hotel rooms as guests spend more time in the lobby than in their rooms” (The most attentive among you will notice that I left out ‘experts say’ – because I feel that over reliance on ‘expertise’ is one of the explanation for what has happened  – but this is another, even if closely related, topic)

Why?

First of all because ‘hotel dwellers’ are very good predictors of socio-economic trends, they tend to have more resources and be more involved in significant decision making processes than the regular Joe.

Secondly because the main thing that let the last crises happen was a strange disconnection between those who made the most significant economic and political decisions and those who had to suffer them. Things happened as if those at the driving wheel were convinced that they could pursue their individual goals (getting rich and powerful) regardless of the consequences their behavior inflicted on the rest of the people.
Even stranger is the fact that too many of the rest of us validated that attitude by copying it. Remember that the financial meltdown started when people in the US could no longer service the huge debts they (irrationally we consider now) piled upon their most prized possessions, their own houses? And people did that exactly because they foolishly tried to mimic ‘the life style of the rich and wealthy’!

Thirdly, by being a ‘divergence’  this is a very powerful signal.
Let me be a little more specific. In ‘technical market analysis’ a divergence happens when the price of something trends in one direction while one or more ‘indicators’ trend in the opposite one. Usually a divergence is a reliable signal that the price will soon change its trend also.

In this case the ‘price’ is the general attitude of the people towards everything. Before 2007 carelessness was the norm, ‘live today as if it were your last’. Prices were paid, no questions asked and everybody retreated to their gilded dens to savor they prey. People left the city centers where individuals of different extractions lived intermingled and together with small businesses and shops and congregated in walled in communities in the suburbia where the population is self segregated according to various criteria – money first and ethnicity, ‘alternative life styles’, etc. on a second level. Strangely enough social life in quite a large number of these communities is almost inexistent, the inhabitants coming and going without noticing their neighbors. Meanwhile the size of the housing units grew without any real reason since the number of the family members living together has shrunk. The size of the cars used for commuting also grew because ‘bigger cars are safer’ – another strange development since while indeed bigger cars are somewhat safer there are some more efficient ways of increasing overall safety: public transport, rail, defensive driving…

The indicator is the attitude of the ‘hotel-dwellers’ – who, as I mentioned before, are a very interesting cross section of the society. During the bubble years we have witnessed the apparition of the room service – the mighty didn’t want to mingle with the less fortunate, he wanted his whims to be privately catered for – and the mini-bar – the ‘less fortunate’ wanted to enjoy the same perks, couldn’t afford the price so had to settle for less variety.
‘Conventional wisdom’ has it that the advent of technology would have enforced that trend, with wireless connectivity at his disposal why would a hotel guest already hooked up to FB, Netflix and the Cloud ever come out of his room except maybe to go to his business meetings, the beach or the gym?

And here we have a ‘divergence’ gaping at us: while the society at large is trying desperately to resume ‘business as usual’ “People are migrating out of their rooms rather than being in the rooms,” !

Several things might have contributed to this. Some of the hoteliers reduced the area covered by free wireless to the lobby area to lure their guests out in the open where they could be enticed to buy other services, the ‘technology’ became so affordable as to become accessible to the cost conscious, etc., etc., but the essential thing is that public attitude is changing.

Now we’ll have to wait and see where this incipient change in ‘the social mood’ will take us to.

PS. By clicking his picture you’ll get to a very interesting interview of Bob Prechter. The most interesting part starts at 15:00 where he discuses how people look up to the government for a solution.

I found the following joke in my inbox:

“A guy, just after making love to a woman, jumps up from the bed, grabs a small notebook and jots something in it.
– Why are you acting like a dick? You could have waited until I had left before adding me to your trophy list!
– I’m not adding you up on any list, I’m striking you out!”

Now this has left me thinking: He struck her out because he didn’t want to see her again in his life or because she was topping the ’10 things I want to do before I die’ list?

Intotdeauna lucrurile au mai multe fete si fiecare le poate intoarce dupa cum poate sau in functie de ce interese are la un moment dat.
Trebuie sa tinem cont totusi noi ne putem uita la ele din ce parte dorim si sa le simplificam cat vrem numai ele raman acolo in toata complexitatea lor si se mira: ‘Oare cand or sa ne bage astia in seama?’

Tocmai am citit pe Twitter: “Dati-mi voie ca, in ultima zi din an, sa-i adresez presedintelui Basescu racoroasa urare:” La anu, multi ani!” “ (Mircea Badea)

Cei cu inclinatii literare pot admira ascutimea verbului, cei preocupati de drepturile omului pot exclama ‘iata adevarata libertate de exprimare’ iar basistii pot spune ‘ce magar!’ doar ca problema ramane.

Iar aceasta nu este Basescu ci cum de a fost ales ca presedinte de tara un om care poate declara linistit: ““Eu nu spun că sunt un sfânt. Este controversat modul cum am primit apartamentul din Mihăileanu. Legal, dar controversat din punct de vedere moral. Acum, este controversa cu creditul fiicei mele. În mod cert, este legal. Deci, nu vorbesc de pe poziţia unui sfânt, dar lucrurile au limite”.”

Image

Sometimes things are so incredible that people are more comfortable joking about them than discussing them in earnest.
Anyway we should pay more attention about how the really important decisions are taken.

It’s our life at stake and we only have one!

PS Click on the picture and start the New Year as we all should: with a good laugh!

Broadly speaking all humans are intellectuals since all of them are conscious so, at least sometimes, they ponder upon things before deciding one way or another.

Nowadays, since we live in the era of the ‘peer reviews’, the concept is defined a lot stricter: one is an intellectual only if at least one ‘certified gatekeeper’ affixes him with an approval stamp…

OK, let me get serious.

Some people use their brains a lot more than others. Does this simple fact turn them into intellectuals?
Not so long ago, when books were not yet written directly on laptops, publishers used to hire people to do this job. Practically to copy a ‘manuscript’, usually typed (?!?), on a computer. Now, is that kind of a person an intellectual or not? After all he is working mostly with his brain, right? And in general people who work as clerks, or in a call center, are they intellectuals just because of their daytime jobs also?

No? Because their honest and respectable work, otherwise very useful, doesn’t result in anything new or original?
I concur.

So we might say that an intellectual is a person that uses his brain in such a manner that the end result of his activity is a new idea or concept, one that either fixes a problem that has become apparent, broadens the human knowledge or contributes to the artistic treasure of the mankind.
If we take this definition to be true then the limitation described when talking about peer reviewing looks rather stupid. Asking highly original people to evaluate the work of other highly original people would seem to be both a waste of their time and a subtle form of pressuring those whose work is being evaluated to conform to the established norms and customs of the ‘discipline’.
And this would be at loggerheads with the need for originality, wouldn’t it?
On the other hand in the modern days of very specialized science and technology it would be preposterous to accept every new ‘contribution’ as valid without previously checking it in some way or another…

And here we get to the really interesting part. The professionalism of the intellectuals.

What?!?

It’s simple actually. A professional is by definition a person who not only has the command of whatever skills he needs to perform his job but also such a high degree of self esteem that he always strives to do his best. In short a professional is a person who sees/describes himself as somebody who is able to perform a certain job above a certain level.

And exactly as we have doctors who save lives and quacks, writers and pen-pushers, cooks and people who waste good food, we also have people who love to think in searching for a solution or for the next new thing and people who think mainly about how to advance their ‘intellectual’ careers…

I’m not trying to convince any of you that bona-fide ‘intellectuals’ should volunteer their life and energy,  live on stale bread and dress miserably. I’m only suggesting that when a passionate one meets a ‘career’ man things will probably not work smoothly between them and if the career guy gets the upper hand it is the rest of us who are the real losers. The same thing happens if the society at large is not wise enough to make sure that the ‘professional’ ones have ‘enough to eat’ but this is a rather different problem.