Am I wrong or the graph in this article proves that being a conservative or a liberal has more to do with the conditions in which you grew up and with your own political choices than directly with your religious confession?
I always wonder why do we get updated every five minutes on the ‘Kim Kardashians’ of the world while it took at least 8 month for this information to percolate from the US to Romania.
And how many of you, citizens of the world, were aware of this development?
“Andraka wrote up an experimental protocol and e-mailed it to 200 researchers. Only Maitra responded. “It was a very unusual e-mail,” he remembers. “I often don’t get e-mails like this from postdoctoral fellows, let alone high-school freshmen.” He decided to invite Andraka to his lab. To oversee the project, he appointed a gentle postdoctoral chemist, who took the baby-sitting assignment in stride. They expected to see Andraka for perhaps a few weeks over the summer.
Instead, the young scientist worked for seven months, every day after school and often on Saturdays until after midnight, subsisting on hard-boiled eggs and Twix as his mother dozed in the car in a nearby parking garage. He labored through Thanksgiving and Christmas. He spent his 15th birthday in the lab.”
Democrats say the city lost revenue because rich people fled to the suburbs:
Conservatives say the entrenched unions made it impossible for a sound economic policy to be implemented:
http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/17404
Now how about both sides being right?
Readers of crime novels are familiar with this expression: “Cherchez la Femme”. “No matter what the problem, a woman is often the root cause” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherchez_la_femme. Nowadays things have changed a bit and ‘Cherchez l’argent’ (follow the money) seems more appropriate.
The union bosses used the public funds to establish a vast network of clients (in Latin it means ‘dependent person, vassal’ – http://www.latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/client) while the rich people refused (wisely) to pay for this profligacy but instead of doing something to curb it they choose the easy way out – moving to the suburbs.
And now, with the economic engine (auto industry) in shambles, the inner city collapsed. Do you think the dependent parts will last much longer? On what?
‘Yes, as the Supreme Court has said, we have a democracy. The people has the ultimate influence on the outcome of the elections. BUT only after the Funders have had their their way with the candidates!’
I’m not talking self defense here. Cross that line and you’re in deep trouble.
No, this is about killing animals.
I enjoy a juicy steak and most of my shoes are made of leather. (My grand father was a shoemaker and I’m able to glue or stitch a mend-able boot.)
I’m talking here about two very different situations.
It’s one thing to raise animals for food (our need for animal protein is real) and use their hides for clothing once we have already killed them but I find it really disgusting to hunt and/or slaughter animals just because we feel prettier clad/shod in their pelts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxbrMk4-ZmA
You know the joke about the proverbial glass.
The optimist sees it as half full, the pessimist as half empty while the ‘realist’ grabs it and ‘enjoys’ whatever is in it.
Something of the same nature happens with the whole planet. Optimists are happily careless about what’s going on, the pessimists are terrified about the future and the ‘pragmatists’ are callously using resources as if there is no tomorrow.
To me this whole situation looks like a tree house. All three kinds of people live together in it and use as sustenance the sap of the tree limb where the house was build.
Only the branch is slowly withering away. The pessimists moan about this but don’t do anything really significant, the optimists don’t care while the pragmatists have already made plans for another house on a higher branch.
There is one small problem though. As time goes by the lower branches wither away. The tree, now old, is left with very few leaves so it can no longer grow new branches nor feed its inhabitants.
At last the hungry survivors decide to climb down and search for another tree. Yeah…but they are too high in the air to jump and the branches bellow … are no longer there!
No, I’m not desperate nor Malthusian. I’m convinced that human ingenuity can solve problems far more complicated than the ones we are facing today. Only we have to start facing them instead of turning our heads the other way.
And we’d better start solving the existing problems without adding new ones. (Iatrogenics, see Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s Antifragile…http://www.amazon.com/Antifragile-Things-That-Gain-Disorder/dp/1400067820)
“Can Neuromarketers Really Peer Into Your Subconscious? They Say They Can.”
The problem is not whether they can or not. The problem is that they try.
Until not so long ago research was about how to get more money by making better products. Nowadays it’s mostly about how to squeeze most money out of as crappier products as possible
“…in many developing countries, conglomerates have not played an equivalent role. They have focused on non-tradable goods and services – those that cannot be imported or exported – and have eschewed international competition. They have focused on banking, construction, distribution, retail, and television broadcasting.
Once these companies dominate one market, they move to another that is equally sheltered from competition and devoid of export opportunities, often using their size and political influence to keep out would-be competitors. Instead of becoming agents of change, they often prevent change. (Indeed, the big economic debate in South Korea nowadays concerns whether the chaebols are stifling innovation by preventing start-up competitors from challenging them.)
Blogul asta nu se vrea a fi inca un Gica Contra ci doar un punct de vedere alternativ.
Am o parere buna despre Isarescu, nu l-am auzit pana acum sa ‘dea cu cu oistea in gard’. Si in aceasta luare de pozitie pune degetul pe rana:
“Colegii mei bancherii- unii se afla chiar in aceasta sala, accepta ca garantii de la vinaria mea doar cisternele de vin….”Ce face banca cu cisternele? Le taie, le scoate precum cu furnalele Bancorexului de la sfarsitul anilor ’90? Daca il intrebi pe cel de jos, nu pe cel de sus, adica nu pe presedinte, pe director, zice normele Bancii Nationale. Ma duc la domnul Cinteza (Nicolae Cinteza – seful Directiei de Supraveghere din BNR n.r.) si intreb daca au facut astfel de norme. Nu domnule, ei si le fac, noi doar le validam. Asa se invarte problema si la mijloc nu este decat o lipsa de incredere. Capitalul firmei la care sunt si eu actionar este de vreo doua ori mai mare decat maximul creditului circulant pe care pot sa il iau, considerand ca acel capital nu conteaza. Cisternele sunt cea mai putin importanta parte din unitatea de productie, nu pamantul, chiar daca via este noua, nici capacitate productiva, nici cash flow, nici business, numai o garantie reala relativ dubioasa’, a precizat seful BNR.
Nu pot totusi sa nu admir si absoluta sa candoare: “Ma duc la domnul Cinteza si intreb daca au facut astfel de norme. Nu domnule, ei si le fac, noi doar le validam.” Sa nu fi cunoscut, pana acum cel putin, Guvernatorul Isarescu mecanismul prin care se adopta “normele Bancii Nationale”? Sa fi fost doar o figura de stil?
nicichiarasa 