Archives for posts with tag: authoritarianism

the-best-blow-chart-ever-bird-shit

It took me a while.
Long enough to become ashamed of myself…
But I finally got it!

All those individuals are birds! In order to get there they had to fly!

In human terms they were free, nobody forced them to get in those relative positions.
If living in a democracy, those above the basic level had run for those positions and their attempts had been validated by those residing on the lower branches!

So what’s keeping them there?

Do they really enjoy it?
Are they afraid that if they leave, even temporarily, somebody else would take their places?
Have their wings became so stuck with shit that they are no longer able to take off?

Besides that, what kind of leader can find any satisfaction in presiding over such a filthy mess?

“Kaci Hickox, a nurse whose return to the U.S. after treating Ebola patients in Sierra Leone was sidetracked when she was placed in a mandatory 21-day quarantine Friday, is criticizing the way New Jersey officials have handled her case.

Hickox says she doesn’t have a fever; a preliminary blood test came back negative for Ebola. She reportedly hired a civil rights attorney Sunday to work for her release.

I can understand the notion of ‘quarantine’ even if I have serious doubts about it’s efficiency.
But in an unheated tent and wearing paper scrubs?
I’m afraid this is less about separating people that might be carrying the virus from the rest of the population and more about frightening others from coming in!
Now, I cannot stop wondering, how many otherwise reasonable people will do their ‘best’ (worse?!?) to hide any contact they might have had with this disease?

PS. “Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo Sunday night said people returning from West Africa who have come in contact with Ebola virus patients but are not showing symptoms will be quarantined for 21 days at home instead of in a hospital.

The announcement marked a change in the policy outlined by Cuomo and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Friday that drew criticism from federal and local officials, and medical…”

It is up to us to decide how we put traditional precepts into practice!

islamic law about marriage

And what is there to stop the father from accepting her choice except for his ego or self serving interests?

Click on the picture, watch the video and then tell me what ‘higher instance’ forced any of those people to do what they did, to make the choices they made..
All individuals featured in this video belong to the Afghan people and, presumably, to the Muslim faith. Yet their attitudes cover the entire spectrum. Don’t tell me there is no such thing as free will and individual responsibility.

What forced the father to give away his daughter as compensation for his son’s “sins”?
Peer pressure?!? (‘Relatives’ that may become belligerent if their demands are not met.)
But who are these ‘peers’ if not human beings themselves?

When are we going to understand that we can not quell yesterday’s conflict by inflicting fresh sufferance?
This just doesn’t work!

no piggy back

For some 30 years now the western press is periodically awash with news about the impending doom that is going to engulf China. If not now then soon, very soon.

While I’m not particular fond of the Chinese communists – every political force that enjoys monopolistic control over the space where it resides eventually becomes too rigid and looses ability to cope with the day to day challenges – I must give them what is theirs.

By drawing from the rich experience of the Imperial China the current rulers have learned something. Don’t push it unnecessarily hard, don’t appear to be callous when there is no need for such thing. Not because it would be immoral or anything like that but because it is ‘a mistake’ to do such a thing.

In most countries if something like that would have happened it would have meant that the ordinary people were getting fed with the callousness of the government officials and that generalized riots will follow. Like what happened in Tunisia at the start of the Arab spring.
In  China when ever something like this grabs the attention of the public eye the ‘Party’ springs into action and promptly punishes the perpetrator instead of trying to shield him/cover up for him. This way the ‘Party’ preserves it role in the society and makes sure it remains relevant.

So please put those doom scenarios on hold, at least for as long as things like that will continue to be severely sanctioned by the ubiquitous ‘Party’.

Click here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2666147/No-free-rides-Chinese-government-worker-sacked-picture-emerges-riding-employees-flood-avoid-getting-wet.html if you want to read the whole story and thanks Veooz http://www.veooz.com/news/WHHU7ev.html for the picture

“The wiser of the two equally matched opponents will give up first.”
This is a Romanian proverb oftentimes interpreted as a justification/rationalization for cowardly behavior.

It’s anything but!

In a protracted conflict, where none of the opponents has a clear advantage or when the price of wining would be so huge that no one is willing to underwrite it, it is essential that at least one of the interested parties comes up with something new that might defuse the situation. Otherwise the whole thing drags on, people get bitter and calloused and what might have started as a misadventure or as a badly calculated move eventually becomes a festering wound that changes, for the worse, the life of many generations to come.

Think of what happens when two families become embroiled in a ‘vendetta’.
Or about the outcome of the WWI when the people of Germany were punished for the ‘mishaps’ perpetrated by Kaiser Wilhelm.

After WWII the victors have built on previous experience and didn’t fell anymore in the same trap. Instead of inflicting further pain on the already tormented German population they came up with the Marshal Plan. Now, 70 years after the allies landed in Normandy, it would be inconceivable that war might start again between France and Germany. The victors of the Cold War weren’t as wise as their predecessors.

What is happening right now in Ukraine is completely unacceptable. Occupying, in full or in part, the territory of another country, under any pretext, puts the aggressor outside the realm of the civilized world.
But who is the aggressor in this case?

Not so long ago (historically speaking) Louis the XIV-th used to say “L’Etat c’est Moi”. In those times political decisions, including those that had to do with the neighboring states, were made by the rulers while the general population could do nothing but endure their effects. Up to a point of course.
Meanwhile, in a large number of states the political system has evolved considerable. Elections are held periodically so that political leaders and general policies become sanctioned by the electorate. Because of this most of the time there is a certain compact, however fragile and contested, between the political class and the general population.
Unfortunately there still are a number of states where the political situation is ‘ambiguous’ and where the link between the powerful figures of the day and the general public relies more on deceit than on mutual respect and informed consent.
Whenever a country like this is involved in a less than savory encounter on the international scene a very fine line has to be toed when communicating displeasure with its actions. While firm and unambiguous, each message must be very carefully calibrated/formulated lest the general population of the less than democratic country involved will feel besieged. And will naturally coalesce around whoever is in power at that moment. Exactly what that person would wish for and exactly what those who are displeased by the actions perpetrated by that person should try to avoid at any cost.

PS.
In modern terms this whole concept is called re-framing.
And yes, it involves ‘giving up’ in the sense that the ‘wiser’ makes the gambit of renouncing rigidness and maybe even some ‘face’ in exchange for a workable solution.
Any incurred costs are temporary while the benefits tend to stretch far out into the future.
I repeat, just look at what role Germany is currently playing in the European concert.

the danger of forcing ideology

Vegans, please do not do this. Cats are not omnivores like us, they are obligate carnivores and cannot survive on a meat-free diet.

Edit: a lot of people commenting on this are arguing that the owners of this cat just “didn’t know what they were doing”, that protein is protein, and that any animal can survive on a vegan diet if done properly. NO. Cats are OBLIGATE CARNIVORES. They will die on a vegan diet. Some animals can do perfectly well on a vegan diet – dogs for example can be fed a vegan diet, if you’re careful. Cats ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT.”

“The owners “didn’t know what they were doing” “?!?
Who prevented them from researching the matter before proceeding?

Somehow I feel this makes a powerful case against “forcing ideologies” on anybody, not just on pets.

Image

A couple of days ago I stumbled upon a link from Upworthy about an al Jazeera interview with a legislator who is pushing an antiabortion bill. Since the story was nicely packaged I followed the link.

Rachel Maddow/MSNBC resuming what happened in the interview before the question that started all this:

“He tells al Jazeera that what he really wants is for there to be no legal abortion at all in Ohio except to save a woman’s life.”

And now we get to see an excerpt from that interview:
“- Reporter: What do you think makes a woman want to have an abortion?
– State Rep. Jim Buchy: Well, there’s probably a lot of… I’m not a woman, so I… I’m thinking, if I’m a woman, why would I want to get a… Some of it has to do with economics. A lot of it has to do with economics. I don’t know, it’s a question I’ve never even thought about.”

As an ethnic Romanian who lived for 20 years in a country were women were sometimes left to die at the orders of the secret police if they had tried to induce abortions on themselves and doctors were regularly sent to prison if they dared perform one outside the extremely narrow limits of the (communist) law I shared the link on my FB wall.

I received this very pertinent and absolutely logical comment:

“Somebody proposes we have a law that prohibits individuals killing other individuals… unless in self-defense. Someone asks somebody – Why would someone want to kill somebody? I never thought about why someone would want to kill somebody… he just forgot to add that that has little to do with the proposed ordinance … which seeks to protect life! Now why would one want to protect life… the answer is self evident!”

And this was my answer:

“(Dear friend) from the point of view that ‘life has to be preserved, no matter what’ you are, of course, right. All that is left for us to do is to settle among ourselves the exact moment when an embryo becomes life.
I’m afraid though that all this is about something different. Not more important than (individual) human life, just different.
About how others get to determine what happens to/with US based on THEIR convictions.

‘I don’t really care about what makes a woman wish to have an abortion, I just say she shouldn’t have any opportunity to do such a thing’.”

The world is turning on its head and he’s spinning fairy tales…
Besides that, what  on Earth does Putin have to do with anything?

Image

Bear with me and your curiosity will be satisfied.

Most of us believe that bed time stories come from the ancient past, that they were passed on across generations by the regular folks, from the ancient equivalent of you and me to our nephews.

Lets give this idea a second thought.

First of all there weren’t so many ‘you and me’-s readily available until recently. No more than 50 years ago very few people had enough free time, or energy, to spend on such frivolous topics. In those times most people worked/fought hard to make a living and a small minority was rich/powerful enough to live somewhat insulated from the daily worries of the commoners – ‘what will I be eating/feeding my kids tomorrow’. The rich and powerful had their own set of worries, even if of a different kind: how to rule efficiently enough as to maintain/enhance their power and how to pass on to their heirs  the skills they needed in order to ‘keep the show in working order’.
In those times the commoners, and their children, worked so hard that they usually fell asleep while eating ‘dinner’, thus having no use for any bed time stories.
Meanwhile the rich and powerful were so busy with their daily business/routine that they didn’t have time to spend with their children so they hired teachers and helpers to raise their offspring. Oftentimes this entire ‘nursery crew’ was under the authority of a spinster aunt or something similar but regardless of that almost none of them had the guts to  contradict and chastise the ‘young princes’ directly. The deadlock was at least partially solved through the use of bed-time stories and fables.

Seems far-fetched? I must remind you of two things. Not so long ago, Europe, and the Arab world, were choke full of story tellers. Remember the minstrels who spread out the story about Tristan and Isolde or Scheherazade, the world’s first spin doctor? So there were plenty of stories waiting to be reshaped into learning materiel for the offspring of the ruling class. And the second thing was that the ruling class had enough means to hire the best teachers available. So sharp minds plus plenty of raw material equals a lot of excellent  ‘bed time’ stories that actually started as lessons for future rulers.

And when did all this come to an end?
When the rulers had became careless and/or unable to maintain the entire kingdom in working order?
When the entire situation had became complicated enough so no individual ruler, no matter how capable, was no longer able to remain on top of things?
When the commoners, enticed by the incessant humming of the minstrels who kept distributing to the general public the same stories which were originally meant to the future rulers and somewhat empowered by the technological advances which had made even their humble lives a little easier and a little safer, became emboldened in their natural quest for autonomy? When all these three conditions/developments ‘merged’ into the explosive situation commonly known as pre-Revolutionary France or, in other circles, as the Enlightenment?

The point I’m trying to make here is that ‘bedtime stories’ are extremely important.
The next generation needs to be initiated in the mores of the old one.
Each new generation needs to understand and keep alive the traditions which have helped to build the society which had borne and educated its members.
Simultaneously, the young must maintain enough independence to understand that traditions are only guidelines and that they can be fine-tuned in order to fit each particular situation

If, for no matter what reason, the flow of information that needs to run from one generation to another is perturbed in any way the ‘train’ is in great danger. If the flow is too strong and the manner in which the information is presented becomes too imposing the ‘education process’ becomes a ‘training session’, the next generation looses it’s ability to think for itself and to solve by its own the smallest of crises, The whole thing eventually ends up in a catastrophe.
If the flow is too weak, either because the ‘teachers’ have lost heart or ‘the pupils’ were allowed to become too cocky – or both – the situation starts to resemble a railway with no rails: the train simply has no clue as to where ‘the way’ is and either grinds to a halt or ends up in a ravine.

OK but …”what  on Earth does Putin have to do with anything?”
Well, my favorite story is the one about the emperor who, at the advice of two of his courtiers (his ‘esteemed couturiers’  actually) started to walk naked through the main square of his capital city.
Do you remember that story?

http://www.andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html

Image

Well… the fact that we’ll indeed never completely get rid of bullying shouldn’t stop us from trying.
As to what we should be teaching our children… How about both?
Standing up for themselves will teach them how many things are within their grasp and that some are indeed outside that grasp. It will also teach them that they need to try in order to determine which thing lies where.
Standing up for others will help them, all of them, live in a better world than we did. And that will be a world of victors, not victims. ‘Cause bullies don’t stand a chance if enough of us stand up when needed.

Wearing pink shirts and passing bylaws doesn’t turn us into victims. Refusal to stand up for someone else does. The bullies love that, they would just take us down one by one while the rest of us turn their heads ‘it’s not my business, let that pussy fend for himself’!

And yes, there is a second way by which we can become a society of victims. A short cut of the first one. Let somebody else take care of the situation. Instead of standing up ourselves, together, to let/expect somebody else do that for us.
That would be akin to inviting a bully to ‘take us under his wing’!

Image

A friend of mine shared this on FB. Thanks Sheeja!

It was then that I realized that I do sometimes worry.

Only I don’t worry for tomorrow. I worry for me.
Worrying ‘for tomorrow’, per se, is indeed ludicrous but wondering what I’ll be doing tomorrow seems only natural for a sensible person.

After all it’s me who is going to live that day so how about living it to my liking, not somebody else’s?
Provided that I don’t hurt anybody in the process, of course.