Excellent post.
Obama failed to fulfill, by far, both the promises he made when he run for president AND the hopes/illusions nurtured by those who voted for him but holding him accountant for all the misery that befell on the regular Joe is a little too much.
This kind of mistakes is very costly. Those who forget that the daily actions of each and everyone of us aggregate into our common destiny tend to believe that we might change our fortune simply by changing the leader.
History has proven, time and again, that we’ll keep making the same mistake until we’ll eventually understand what went wrong. And start doing ourselves what needs to be done instead of looking up to somebody above us to direct our actions.
I expect you all know the story of the flood.
For those who feel the need to refresh their memories here is the original version.
Lately people have given up reading so some guy felt the need to use another medium in order to convey the essence of this story. Or just saw a good opportunity to make a buck? Maybe both? Anyway…
Reactions have started to flow: “Why our Youth Group won’t be going to see Noah!”
Make an effort and do read that post. It’s really worth it.
Then somebody put THE question: “Does anyone really believe there was an ark?”
Here is my answer:
Yes, I do believe there was an ark, only it wasn’t ‘made out of wood’.
In fact I see the entire Bible as a very powerful metaphor.
Coming back to this particular instance, for a considerable amount of time people thought that children come from God and that intercourse was just for fun.
By specifically asking Noah to bring animals in pairs the Bible makes it perfectly clear that even if God’s will might have something to do with the whole process for a child to appear two parents of opposite sex are a must. Besides ‘the Word being spoken’ some actual, ‘material’ conditions must be met for anything of substance to come into being.
Furthermore, the fact of the matter is that Noah basically saved himself. It was he who build the ark. God could have ‘miraculously’ saved him, alongside some animals but no, he had Noah do all the work.
I understand this passage of the Bible as a warning: don’t expect anyone to do your job for you and it is you who are the sole responsible for the well being of the world around you.
We all know were the ‘cost culture’ has taken the ‘old’ GM: into the ground.
I’ll be blunt on this one. In fact it is not about minimizing the costs. That is not only rational but also natural. The real problems arise from ‘maximizing profits’, sometimes at “all costs”. Non financial costs that is. I.e. lives. Human lives in this case.
And this will keep on happening until we’ll finally understand that profits are good – inexorable even – but only as long they are an indicator for being on the right track towards long time survival (sustainable growth if you want to call it that way).
Allowing for the customers to get killed just for the sake of some pennies shaved from the costs is an extreme but compelling symptom of the present confusion. Short time profits, made at the expense of the customers, can be extremely dangerous.
Eventually they’ll kill the business itself, not just the customers.
PS Click on the highlighted quote, or here, and read the entire Bloomberg article. It’s worth it.
Some believe innocence is lost when becoming sexually active.
Some others understand, mostly the hard way, that being innocent means not being able to discern crooks from trustworthy people and that sometimes this condition cannot be cured.
Pe timp si pe experienta lucrului facut asa cum trebuie:
“Cum se ceartă femeile cu bărbații.”
Cica ‘barbatii sunt de pe Marte iar femeile de pe Venus’ dar daca tot s-au hotarat sa traiasca impreuna pe Pamant de ce nu se adapteaza oare noilor conditii?
Cititi povestea.
Apoi comentariile:
“Azi aveți ocazia să vă delectați cu un nou text din manualul de clasa a treia
În afara finalului (de un profund umanism și intens antiutilitarist) – personajul principal e ucis, dar criminalii nu-i consumă cadavrul din cauza remușcărilor, chiar dacă îs leșinați de foame – suntem răvășiți și de câteva întrebări nevinovate:
– cum iese pe poartă o văduvă?
– ce a muncit mama în ziua aia de s-a întors cu un iepure? autorul, după cum vedeți știe, dar preferă să se întrebe doar “cât?”
– e oare înțelept să-ți alungi neamurile pe câmp sperând că se vor înmulți ?
După ce mi-a ascultat nelămuririle Ilinca mi le-a spus și ea pe ale ei:
– Tati, ce au făcut cu friptura dacă nu au mâncat-o?
– Or fi dat-o la câini.
– N-aveau câini.
– Atunci cred că au îngropat-o.
După vreo oră, timp în care terminaserăm tema la mate, Ilinca a mai dat glas unui gând care o sâcâia:
– Tati, dar pe cruce ce i-au scris?
– Cum adică ce i-au scris pe cruce?
– Adică au scris “iepure” sau “friptura de iepure”?” “
Iar la final iata si gandurile mele:
Intrebarile Ilincai sunt de nota 10.
Textul intr-adevar nu prea are mari valente literare, nu pot intelege schematismul unora dintre cei care scriu pentru copii, dar reprosurile care i se aduc cu privire la logica interna nu stau in picioare.
De exemplu femeia nu iesea pe poarta intr-un anume fel specific vaduvelor, iesea pe poarta cu furca in spinare PENTRU ca era vaduva. Daca ar fi avut barbat se ducea el sa faca fanul iar ea ramanea acasa sa vada de curte si de copii.
Asta era diviziunea muncii pe vremea aia…
E adevarat ca se simte o oarecare contradictie intre stilul foarte simplist, aproape didactic, al exprimarii – care sugereaza ca povestea se va termina cu o morala clara – si finalul deschis…
Poate ca mesajul este de fapt asta: ‘asculta sfaturile celor din jur dar fa dupa capul tau’!
Cumpaneste bine inainte de a face ceva – ca sa nu ai remuscari, sa nu auzi labele iepurasului batand in cosul sobei – si dupa aceea asuma-ti consecintele – daca tot l-ai facut friptura atunci mananca-l ca e pacat de el.
Judecand dupa intrebarile Ilincai, se pare ca ea a priceput despre ce e vorba.





