Looking back at past events, following present ones and thinking of what the future may bring, I can not but imagine the world to be a sort of a giant stage, with most of us as spectators, enjoying, or not, the play displayed in front of us.
It's somehow funny when you think about the strange similarities between Assange of Wikileaks and Strauss Kahn of IMF. They both managed to become sexual harassers after meddling in US affairs. When I take into consideration the power DSK had as head of the IMF, needless to say the money (300 mil. only in art collections), I find it hard to believe that he couldn't hire a prostitute, if he really had such urgent needs. With Assange, a similar story.
Moving on to something of a more recent status, the News Corp/Murdoch hacking affair. So, let's say that the accusations are true. And faith has it that they got caught. But who is stupid enough to believe in faith? Or for that matter, who is so ignorant as to think that this is the only case of hacking by an international corporation? The mobile phone, other than making us extremely dependant on it, has proven to be a very useful tool in the hands of secret services, media and terrorists. So, this whole sharade which takes place in London right now is pretty funny. Let's "grill" Rupert Murdoch and his son, for hacking the phones of MPs, PMs and other high ranking people. The girl who was killed and whose phone was also hacked is, maybe, just for show off, a pretext. I wonder who mr. Murdoch annoyed over the years...
I could name another huge theater play, but with gruelling consequences: war. Hundreds of people die daily, and for what? Revolutions? Strangely, Libya, with its huge oil reserves, is the sole place where the US intervened.. what about Syria? Yemen? Egypt? Of course, who knows what happens behind closed doors... but I'm talking about military intervention. I suggest a well known book, "Confessions of an economic hit man". It's a real eye-opener!
As I discuss with some of my friends, no matter how much we talk about what could be behind many of the events we see on the news, the truth is that we can only make speculations. And, like in a theater, we won't know what actors really feel, or think. In this case, we won't know what's the truth. We can cling to conspiration theories, to "shocking" news, or to history books. Rarely will we have access to revealing documents, usually after some years post-events, but, in general, the truth will lie hidden.
And as for your mobile phones, if you do have something "confidential" to say, keep it till you meet face to face.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Monday, June 6, 2011
Las' să curgă!
Dacă aș fi responsabil cu administrarea căminelor, aș institui plata facturilor de apă pentru studenți, separat. Așa, s-ar termina cu abuzul existent. În fiecare an când am stat la cămin, am avut parte de colegi care, când făceau duș, se credeau sub cascade. Pentru că e gratis, frate! Dac-ar face așa acasă, le-ar da mama-n cap cu polonicu, că n-ar mai avea bani de legume...
Când iei în considerare faptul că există o criză a apei pe tot globul, te uiți puțin la cifre:
Cifrele acestea, preluate de pe wikipedia, reprezintă o aproximare a numărului de oameni care suferă de pe urma lipsei accesului la apă curată. Și acestea sunt doar câteva exemple. Nu am luat în considerare India sau China. În America de Sud există țări precum Venezuela sau Cuba unde apa se raționalizează. Altfel, ajung oamenii să moară de sete.
Iar apa nu se folosește doar pentru băut. Domestic, se folosește și pentru alte activități, precum spălat, udat iarba și altele. Pe plan industrial, e o cu totul altă poveste. Doar pentru irigații se folosesc cantități enorme. Iar sistemele sunt de multe ori ineficiente, distribuind apa în mod păgubos.
Dacă te uiți la campanii publicitare UNICEF, OXFAM sau WWF, vei vedea care e de fapt situația. Mor oamenii și animalele de sete iar noi risipim în batjocură.
Mi-am făcut o lucrare pe politica României privind apele minerale. Deținem circa. 60% din rezervele Europei de apă minerală (Nicidecum doar o treime, cât am auzit la o campanie publicitară la radio). Iar ideea e că apele astea curg, așa, în neștire, că doar au de unde. Un exemplu de stupiditate tipic românească e că, pentru ca un izvor să poată fi exploatat, SNAM (Societatea Națională a Apelor Minerale) trebuie să monitorizeze debitul timp de 7 ani. Adică, 7 ani, curge o grămadă de apă ce, pe lângă faptul că ar putea salva o grămadă de vieți, ar putea aduce în bugetul României mulți bani. Și, cum știm cu toții, România are nevoie de bani!
Zilnic, te miri ridicolul ce se petrece în România. Am scris articolul în limba română fiindcă mi-e rușine să îl scriu în engleză și să îl citească vreun străin (nu că n-ar ști ei ce e pe la noi). Dacă cei de afară au totuși un minim de respect pentru țara și resursele lor, la noi există o batjocură generală. Pentru cine citește acest articol, încercați puțin să vă gândiți la ce am scris și, data viitoare când faceți duș, gândiți-vă că alții mor de sete și faceți puțină economie. S-ar putea ca și copiii voștri să fie cândva în aceeași situație.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg-ac0EaYDQ
Când iei în considerare faptul că există o criză a apei pe tot globul, te uiți puțin la cifre:
Cifrele acestea, preluate de pe wikipedia, reprezintă o aproximare a numărului de oameni care suferă de pe urma lipsei accesului la apă curată. Și acestea sunt doar câteva exemple. Nu am luat în considerare India sau China. În America de Sud există țări precum Venezuela sau Cuba unde apa se raționalizează. Altfel, ajung oamenii să moară de sete.
Iar apa nu se folosește doar pentru băut. Domestic, se folosește și pentru alte activități, precum spălat, udat iarba și altele. Pe plan industrial, e o cu totul altă poveste. Doar pentru irigații se folosesc cantități enorme. Iar sistemele sunt de multe ori ineficiente, distribuind apa în mod păgubos.
Dacă te uiți la campanii publicitare UNICEF, OXFAM sau WWF, vei vedea care e de fapt situația. Mor oamenii și animalele de sete iar noi risipim în batjocură.
Mi-am făcut o lucrare pe politica României privind apele minerale. Deținem circa. 60% din rezervele Europei de apă minerală (Nicidecum doar o treime, cât am auzit la o campanie publicitară la radio). Iar ideea e că apele astea curg, așa, în neștire, că doar au de unde. Un exemplu de stupiditate tipic românească e că, pentru ca un izvor să poată fi exploatat, SNAM (Societatea Națională a Apelor Minerale) trebuie să monitorizeze debitul timp de 7 ani. Adică, 7 ani, curge o grămadă de apă ce, pe lângă faptul că ar putea salva o grămadă de vieți, ar putea aduce în bugetul României mulți bani. Și, cum știm cu toții, România are nevoie de bani!
Zilnic, te miri ridicolul ce se petrece în România. Am scris articolul în limba română fiindcă mi-e rușine să îl scriu în engleză și să îl citească vreun străin (nu că n-ar ști ei ce e pe la noi). Dacă cei de afară au totuși un minim de respect pentru țara și resursele lor, la noi există o batjocură generală. Pentru cine citește acest articol, încercați puțin să vă gândiți la ce am scris și, data viitoare când faceți duș, gândiți-vă că alții mor de sete și faceți puțină economie. S-ar putea ca și copiii voștri să fie cândva în aceeași situație.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg-ac0EaYDQ
Monday, May 23, 2011
How many eggs has the stolen hen still got?
If any...
Today I was at a meeting with some important people from our national bank. There, I raised the issue of the Romanian Treasure, which was taken to Russia on the 27th of july 1917, and never returned, except for a small part. The answer I heard was amusing, but at the same time, dissapointing. But, let's not forget, it's not BNR's fault. This answer was given to me under the form of a story in which, during a certain high level meeting, one Romanian official was told that Romania should keep on stressing the fact that when Poland gave it's treasure to Romania, during the Second World War, Romania gave it back. So, that would be a good argument to give to Russia, maybe this way they would sympathise with us. Doubt that.
First of all, when I heard the estimated value of this treasure two weeks ago - 3 billion Eur, I was stupefied. It seemed such a small value for the following:
As for the other goods, they are inestimable. In other words, there were approx. 91 tons of gold coins and 2,4 tons of gold bullion. This is worth around 10 billion Euro, and not 3, a fact confirmed by national and international experts in numismatology. So, 10 certain billion Euro plus an inestimable value in works of art, documents and other goods, equals? Surely a lot.
And even if we were to ignore the monetary value, it would still be a matter of intrinsic value, artistic value, historic value, and, most important - it's our property!
But, as the people from BNR put it - let's not be naive. I'm sure that all those works of art will not be returned, because in all these years, they must have been scattered throughout the world. The russian state makes reference only to the metal part of the Treasure. The rest is forgotten.
It's a bit late now, so I won't keep on writing too much. The question I want to raise is: Why the hell are we such a weak state? Why can't we just take advantage of what we have, claim what is rightfully ours and set our place as it should be, not just the ass kissers of Europe? And they wonder why the good people leave the country...
I leave you to read some interesting facts about this treasure. Let you decide, like I did, about the situation. I left the BNR discussions with a large grin on my face. It was that of disgust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Treasure
http://tezaurulromaniei.com/
http://romaniadeieri.blogspot.com/2010/01/tezaurul-romaniei.html
Today I was at a meeting with some important people from our national bank. There, I raised the issue of the Romanian Treasure, which was taken to Russia on the 27th of july 1917, and never returned, except for a small part. The answer I heard was amusing, but at the same time, dissapointing. But, let's not forget, it's not BNR's fault. This answer was given to me under the form of a story in which, during a certain high level meeting, one Romanian official was told that Romania should keep on stressing the fact that when Poland gave it's treasure to Romania, during the Second World War, Romania gave it back. So, that would be a good argument to give to Russia, maybe this way they would sympathise with us. Doubt that.
First of all, when I heard the estimated value of this treasure two weeks ago - 3 billion Eur, I was stupefied. It seemed such a small value for the following:
- 1738 boxes containing Romania's gold reserves (314.580.456 Lei)
- 2 boxes containing the jewels of Queen Maria (7.000.000 Lei)
- 188 boxes containing property belonging to the Romanian National bank - including gold, deeds, deposits, etc. (1.593.762.197,52 Lei)
- 1621 boxes containing cash, jewelry, paintings, and other assets (7.500.000.000. Lei)
As for the other goods, they are inestimable. In other words, there were approx. 91 tons of gold coins and 2,4 tons of gold bullion. This is worth around 10 billion Euro, and not 3, a fact confirmed by national and international experts in numismatology. So, 10 certain billion Euro plus an inestimable value in works of art, documents and other goods, equals? Surely a lot.
And even if we were to ignore the monetary value, it would still be a matter of intrinsic value, artistic value, historic value, and, most important - it's our property!
But, as the people from BNR put it - let's not be naive. I'm sure that all those works of art will not be returned, because in all these years, they must have been scattered throughout the world. The russian state makes reference only to the metal part of the Treasure. The rest is forgotten.
It's a bit late now, so I won't keep on writing too much. The question I want to raise is: Why the hell are we such a weak state? Why can't we just take advantage of what we have, claim what is rightfully ours and set our place as it should be, not just the ass kissers of Europe? And they wonder why the good people leave the country...
I leave you to read some interesting facts about this treasure. Let you decide, like I did, about the situation. I left the BNR discussions with a large grin on my face. It was that of disgust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Treasure
http://tezaurulromaniei.com/
http://romaniadeieri.blogspot.com/2010/01/tezaurul-romaniei.html
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Nobody's country. Everybody's purse.
I sit amazed by the sheer hipocrisy of the people involved in Romanian politics. Some years ago, I would have been outraged by the nerve these people have, when they laugh and defy us smiling, continuing their theft and plunder. But now, I smile back, because I see that this country is nobody's land. Everybody can ignore the law and do whatever they wish.
The amount of money Romania has to collect from debtor countries rounds up a staggering 9 billion dollars. Our debt? More than 90 billion. If we were to stop borrowing money, and start recovering our liabilities, there would be only 81 billion dollars in debt. Still an astounding sum of money, owed to the IMF and other predators, but nevertheless smaller. But, Romania, in my opinion, is the weakest state in existence. Our people, the stupidest people. Older people say: "It's up to you, the new generation, to do things better here. You're our hope". What a load of crap! All young people wish to do is get the hell out of here, out of this place where people trash our history, despise our culture, and ignore the huge potential this country has.
A lot of people still live with the impression that the revolution was our product. Wrong. We were mere puppets. But, ignoring these facts, I want to stress out the fact that Ceasusescu left us with no debt whatsoever, only with liabilities to collect. He left us with a strong industry, with a top state agriculture. What do we have now? Did you know that a recent study ranked Romania no. 12 in the top of countries threatened by malnourishment, by hunger?
How can that be? With all of our land? With our huge potential to feed not only ourselves, but a great deal of Europe and the world as well? And the ministers laugh! Yesterday, I heard on the radio, at the Agraria expo in Cluj, a poor peasant who told the current minister of agriculture, in a very pitiful tone, that "You promised to help us. You lied to us!" And you know what he said? "So?" And he was laughing, he was despising the poor man. But that man was the voice of many others. These scums of the earth, who rule us, are full of empty promises, and they just steal as much as they can, without doing anything for our country. Ok! You wanted that revolution! But why the hell didn't you keep the infrastructure, the industry, everything that Ceausescu built for us? They just stole everything! And now, we're the laughing stock of Europe.
We wanted to join the EU. We yurned for it. We did everything they told us to do. And what did we get in change? We can not work abroad, we still have to show our ID when leaving the country, we import all their merchandise, and we don't have anything to say about it, because we're too small. Mr. Stefan Andrei, the former Minister of External Affairs, during Ceausescu's time, who is a man I deeply admire, explained to us in a very simple way, that we have no benefits from this adhering. Just look him up on youtube and google, and you'll understand so much more about our past and present, and about this very valuable man.
I keep watching "Romania, te iubesc" on Pro Tv. I'm astounded by what they uncover, and yet still nobody does anything about what they show. They revealed not once details about Romania's illegal deforesting, with critical facts, data, names, videos and so on. Nobody from any Ministry did something. They simply ignore everything. And you know what's the "funniest" thing? That even if all the old politicians were to suddenly disappear, the young ones would hardly do anything different, because they're almost all the same. Trust me, I had the chance to see many of them in "action", speaking what they were taught by their "elders".
We live in one of the richest countries in the world, when it comes to natural wealth. We have a very good geopolitical position. We have a lot of talented young people who would do something good for our country. But they can't because it's infested with both our citizens and foreigners, who steal, corrupt and mock us. We're nobody's land, certainly not our land! Italians call us thieves and murderers, but they keep on coming and making very profitable deals here. English people call us dirty and criminals, but they come here and rape our children. And this list can go on. When will we have the courage to stand up and do something about it? It's not about the conversation between me and the taxi driver, in which we talk about how nobody cares about Romania. It's not about what I write! It's about what we all do! We're a democracy. If we want to change things, we can. Nobody will shoot us. But, wait... The interests are too high for the politicians to want to change something. So, then? What will we do? We'll keep on winding about our pitiful faith, over a glass of beer, during a friendly conversation, or in the market. And that's it.
In the end, I think about all of our ancestors who tried to change something. I recall Mihai Viteazu, Horea, Closca and Crisan, Avram Iancu, and many others.. We betrayed them, we sent them into exile, we weren't worthy of them. We were always a people ruled by others, and when we had a chance to rule ourselves, we just didn't want to. And we still don't. I accept the fact that foreigners despise us. They sure do have why.
http://stirileprotv.ro/emisiuni/romania-te-iubesc/
http://www.theinvestor.ro/red-carpet/stefan-andrei-despre-romania-cu-stefan-andrei/
http://www.9am.ro/stiri-revista-presei/Actualitate/52529/Stefan-Andrei-Ceausescu-a-infiintat-Uniunea-Europeana.html
http://ziarero.antena3.ro/articol.php?id=1297165907
The amount of money Romania has to collect from debtor countries rounds up a staggering 9 billion dollars. Our debt? More than 90 billion. If we were to stop borrowing money, and start recovering our liabilities, there would be only 81 billion dollars in debt. Still an astounding sum of money, owed to the IMF and other predators, but nevertheless smaller. But, Romania, in my opinion, is the weakest state in existence. Our people, the stupidest people. Older people say: "It's up to you, the new generation, to do things better here. You're our hope". What a load of crap! All young people wish to do is get the hell out of here, out of this place where people trash our history, despise our culture, and ignore the huge potential this country has.
A lot of people still live with the impression that the revolution was our product. Wrong. We were mere puppets. But, ignoring these facts, I want to stress out the fact that Ceasusescu left us with no debt whatsoever, only with liabilities to collect. He left us with a strong industry, with a top state agriculture. What do we have now? Did you know that a recent study ranked Romania no. 12 in the top of countries threatened by malnourishment, by hunger?
How can that be? With all of our land? With our huge potential to feed not only ourselves, but a great deal of Europe and the world as well? And the ministers laugh! Yesterday, I heard on the radio, at the Agraria expo in Cluj, a poor peasant who told the current minister of agriculture, in a very pitiful tone, that "You promised to help us. You lied to us!" And you know what he said? "So?" And he was laughing, he was despising the poor man. But that man was the voice of many others. These scums of the earth, who rule us, are full of empty promises, and they just steal as much as they can, without doing anything for our country. Ok! You wanted that revolution! But why the hell didn't you keep the infrastructure, the industry, everything that Ceausescu built for us? They just stole everything! And now, we're the laughing stock of Europe.
We wanted to join the EU. We yurned for it. We did everything they told us to do. And what did we get in change? We can not work abroad, we still have to show our ID when leaving the country, we import all their merchandise, and we don't have anything to say about it, because we're too small. Mr. Stefan Andrei, the former Minister of External Affairs, during Ceausescu's time, who is a man I deeply admire, explained to us in a very simple way, that we have no benefits from this adhering. Just look him up on youtube and google, and you'll understand so much more about our past and present, and about this very valuable man.
I keep watching "Romania, te iubesc" on Pro Tv. I'm astounded by what they uncover, and yet still nobody does anything about what they show. They revealed not once details about Romania's illegal deforesting, with critical facts, data, names, videos and so on. Nobody from any Ministry did something. They simply ignore everything. And you know what's the "funniest" thing? That even if all the old politicians were to suddenly disappear, the young ones would hardly do anything different, because they're almost all the same. Trust me, I had the chance to see many of them in "action", speaking what they were taught by their "elders".
We live in one of the richest countries in the world, when it comes to natural wealth. We have a very good geopolitical position. We have a lot of talented young people who would do something good for our country. But they can't because it's infested with both our citizens and foreigners, who steal, corrupt and mock us. We're nobody's land, certainly not our land! Italians call us thieves and murderers, but they keep on coming and making very profitable deals here. English people call us dirty and criminals, but they come here and rape our children. And this list can go on. When will we have the courage to stand up and do something about it? It's not about the conversation between me and the taxi driver, in which we talk about how nobody cares about Romania. It's not about what I write! It's about what we all do! We're a democracy. If we want to change things, we can. Nobody will shoot us. But, wait... The interests are too high for the politicians to want to change something. So, then? What will we do? We'll keep on winding about our pitiful faith, over a glass of beer, during a friendly conversation, or in the market. And that's it.
In the end, I think about all of our ancestors who tried to change something. I recall Mihai Viteazu, Horea, Closca and Crisan, Avram Iancu, and many others.. We betrayed them, we sent them into exile, we weren't worthy of them. We were always a people ruled by others, and when we had a chance to rule ourselves, we just didn't want to. And we still don't. I accept the fact that foreigners despise us. They sure do have why.
http://stirileprotv.ro/emisiuni/romania-te-iubesc/
http://www.theinvestor.ro/red-carpet/stefan-andrei-despre-romania-cu-stefan-andrei/
http://www.9am.ro/stiri-revista-presei/Actualitate/52529/Stefan-Andrei-Ceausescu-a-infiintat-Uniunea-Europeana.html
http://ziarero.antena3.ro/articol.php?id=1297165907
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Humane - the horrible way!
I just stumbled upon another documentary, similar to "Food Inc.". It's called "Earthlings". It depicts how companies use animals for profit only. I couldn't yet watch it, maybe tonight is not my best night for such a 'treat", but maybe some of you reading this article will have the guts to watch it.
I ask myself: How much time will have to pass before cruelty is gone? I understand that demand for meat is huge, and rising, but isn't there another way to slaughter animals? Or at least to treat them with more respect, since we live due to the food they provide us with... I think of how American Indians and African Indigenous tribesmen treat the animals they kill: they pray for it, they thank it, because they can live another day due to their meat. And they kill it quickly, in a decent way. If those people, who have very strong spiritual beliefs, and an understanding of the world far better than ours can do so, why can't we? Why must we ignore what's happening? Animals are innocent. They give us their life, we might as well give them some respect.
I am part of the young generation. I can change things. But not alone. To be "humane" is no longer a quality. Why has it become this way? Why do we tolerate people who slaughter animals, who despise all forms of life, only thinking about money? Think about the fact that it's not only these animals who suffer.. It's also wild animals. Think about what's happening to dolphins or whales. It's pure evil. We mustn't accept such atrocities. People who do such things to animals, don't care for humans as well. Just think on it!
I ask myself: How much time will have to pass before cruelty is gone? I understand that demand for meat is huge, and rising, but isn't there another way to slaughter animals? Or at least to treat them with more respect, since we live due to the food they provide us with... I think of how American Indians and African Indigenous tribesmen treat the animals they kill: they pray for it, they thank it, because they can live another day due to their meat. And they kill it quickly, in a decent way. If those people, who have very strong spiritual beliefs, and an understanding of the world far better than ours can do so, why can't we? Why must we ignore what's happening? Animals are innocent. They give us their life, we might as well give them some respect.
I am part of the young generation. I can change things. But not alone. To be "humane" is no longer a quality. Why has it become this way? Why do we tolerate people who slaughter animals, who despise all forms of life, only thinking about money? Think about the fact that it's not only these animals who suffer.. It's also wild animals. Think about what's happening to dolphins or whales. It's pure evil. We mustn't accept such atrocities. People who do such things to animals, don't care for humans as well. Just think on it!
Sunday, April 10, 2011
What would this house do?
This weekend was all about debating among the best people in Romania, and abroad. Issues raised were of importance and actuality, but one stroke me as highly demanding: "This house would grant amnesty to dictators who willingly stand down from power".
Being on the government side, I supported this cause. But, it also happens that this is my belief as well. Make it a short story, I consider that in order to avoid more blood spilling, such a consensus must be made. Further on, so many examples in history where dictators were trialed by international courts only to discover later that the whole process was one huge joke, are numerous: Saddam, Milosevic, and many more. Today, we live in times when status quos are changing from one day to the other. Look at North Africa and the Middle East. Further on, leaders who willingly gave up power are now held into account and persecuted. As such, Hosni Mubarak, the former head of state of Egypt is now under threat of prosecution, a demand supposedly requested by the egyptian people. His assets were frozen upon departure, and his swiss bank accounts also. I ask myself: If Switzerland is a neutral country, why does it allow banks to do so? At the moment of Mr. Mubarak's bank account block, he was not indicted for any crime, therefore he was not a criminal. This also happened to Muammar Gaddafi's bank accounts. This makes way for worrying precedents. But, to come back to my initial topic, I quote one fellow debater: "So what if some human lives are lost in the process of apprehension? This happens so that in the future, no more lives are lost." Well, if politicians and heads of state think the same, then we have a big problem. Who has the right to decide who must die for better causes? I say: nobody! If you can make it such as to create a context in which a dictator can leave power and so, combat the killing of innocent victims of both sides, then why not do so? Because, as we see in the case of Gaddafi, when one's life is threatened, one will fight 'till the bitter end. And, let's not forget: Behind every major political decision, reasons are of all sorts. Some, of the gruesomest motif.
Being on the government side, I supported this cause. But, it also happens that this is my belief as well. Make it a short story, I consider that in order to avoid more blood spilling, such a consensus must be made. Further on, so many examples in history where dictators were trialed by international courts only to discover later that the whole process was one huge joke, are numerous: Saddam, Milosevic, and many more. Today, we live in times when status quos are changing from one day to the other. Look at North Africa and the Middle East. Further on, leaders who willingly gave up power are now held into account and persecuted. As such, Hosni Mubarak, the former head of state of Egypt is now under threat of prosecution, a demand supposedly requested by the egyptian people. His assets were frozen upon departure, and his swiss bank accounts also. I ask myself: If Switzerland is a neutral country, why does it allow banks to do so? At the moment of Mr. Mubarak's bank account block, he was not indicted for any crime, therefore he was not a criminal. This also happened to Muammar Gaddafi's bank accounts. This makes way for worrying precedents. But, to come back to my initial topic, I quote one fellow debater: "So what if some human lives are lost in the process of apprehension? This happens so that in the future, no more lives are lost." Well, if politicians and heads of state think the same, then we have a big problem. Who has the right to decide who must die for better causes? I say: nobody! If you can make it such as to create a context in which a dictator can leave power and so, combat the killing of innocent victims of both sides, then why not do so? Because, as we see in the case of Gaddafi, when one's life is threatened, one will fight 'till the bitter end. And, let's not forget: Behind every major political decision, reasons are of all sorts. Some, of the gruesomest motif.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Doar statul e de vina? Accentul pe pasiune.
Acum doua saptamani, am participat la o prezentare a unei mari companii de audit. In cadrul acestei prezentari, la un moment dat, un student a intrebat daca la beneficii se ofera si reduceri pentru abonamentele la sala de fitness. I s-a raspuns ca nu. Ok, dupa ce l-au lamurit, am pus si eu o intrebare: " Sa zicem ca studentul nostru se angajeaza la compania dumneavoastra. Nu ii oferiti reducere la sala de fitness, dar el tot vrea sa mearga la sala. Intrebarea e, va avea timp sa mearga?". Studentii au izbucnit in ras si aplauze, dar reprezentantii companiei nu au fost la fel de amuzati. Desigur ca nu, deoarece programul de munca acolo presupune pe langa obositoarele si nesfarsitele ore de lucru, multe deplasari si munca peste program. Iar ca beneficii? - " dezvoltare continuua". Hai, scuteste-ma! Aici, ti-o dau inainte cu "Noi cautam oameni pasionati pe care sa ii dezvoltam continuu.". Dar beneficii materiale? Nimicuri.
Majoritatea studentilor vad in a pleca in strainatate ( la studii sau sa lucreze ) drept cea mai buna solutie. De-a lungul timpului, cei cu care am povestit pe aceasta tema, si-au exprimat parerea sincera ca aici, in Romania, statul isi bate joc de tine. Intr-adevar, la prima vedere, asa pare. Mai ales acum, cu noul Cod al Muncii, care printre altele, permite angajatorului sa te tina in proba 3 luni, dupa care simplu te poate inlocui, pe motive de nepotrivire. Iar sa te judeci cu ei in scopul dovedirii faptului ca de fapt esti perfect pentru acel job, e o pierdere de vreme.
Dar, eu ma intreb: doar statul e de vina? Sa ma refer acum din nou la companiile multinationale ce vin in Romania. Aici, salariul minim este mic. Am ridicat aceasta problema in cadrul unui curs ce l-am avut saptamana trecuta, dand ca exemplu aceeasi companie care, in Austria, plateste poate 2000 Eur, iar aici, 400, petru acelasi post. Ca ce chestie asemenea disparitati? Iar eu spun: de ce nu sunt preveniti din facultate studentii? "Nu mergeti sa va angajati acolo, ca trag pielea de pe voi, pentru maruntis!" Iar cineva va raspunde: "Si atunci ce sa fac, frate? Sa mor de foame?". Asa e, nu poti sa nu te angajezi. Dar revin, de ce nu se schimba situatia? De ce, in universitatile noastre, unde pretentiile unor profesori cu privire la propria competenta sunt de-a dreptul absurde, feedback-ul catre studenti este infim? In alte cuvinte, profesorii sunt aroganti, dar de invatat, nu te prea invata mare lucru, iar pe partea practica, zero. Iar despre asa zisele recrutari din cadrul facultatii, observ ca nu exista conditii. Adica, daca vrei sa angajezi studenti de la noi, sa vad ca le oferi ceva, nu doar un salariu mic, in schimbul "pasiunii". " Cautam tineri pasionati" este noul slogan general in companii. Citeam intr-o carte a unui fost MBA Harvard, cat misto se facea acolo de acest slogan. Ii ridiculizau pe angajatori, spunand ca urmatoarea gaselnita ar fi "ne dorim ca noii angajati sa aiba orgasm atunci cand lucreaza, sa se infierbante cu gandul la urmatoarea zi de lucru..".
In universitatile de top de afara, exista statistici ce arata ca, dupa un an de la absolvire, procente de approx. 90% sunt angajati ( procentajul depinde de universitati). Cu alte cuvinte, universitatile de acolo sunt interesate sa aiba studentii lor o rata a angajarii cat mai ridicata. La noi, in schimb, e problema ta daca iti gasesti. La fel cum e problema ta unde iti faci practica, daca o faci. Citez un profesor din cadrul universitatii mele, care a spus "priveste fiecare student ca pe 2500 lei ambulanti.". Deci, asta e mentalitatea. Si atunci, revin la intrebarea initiala: Doar statul e de vina ca nu isi gasesc studentii de lucru in Romania? Iar raspunsul meu e: Nu, printre altele, sunt si profesorii de vina, fiindca nu sunt interesati de parcursul studentilor dupa absolvire. Iar companiile multinationale care trag tot de pe tine pentru un salariu de neinchipuit afara, profita la maxim. Te mai miri ca pleaca tinerii talentati? Daca mergi la vreun profesor sa ii ceri un sfat, iti tranteste usa in nas. Asa ceva nu se intampla in universitatile din strainatate. Acolo, studentii sunt respectati si incurajati sa gaseasca locuri de munca bune. Aici, nu prea.
Majoritatea studentilor vad in a pleca in strainatate ( la studii sau sa lucreze ) drept cea mai buna solutie. De-a lungul timpului, cei cu care am povestit pe aceasta tema, si-au exprimat parerea sincera ca aici, in Romania, statul isi bate joc de tine. Intr-adevar, la prima vedere, asa pare. Mai ales acum, cu noul Cod al Muncii, care printre altele, permite angajatorului sa te tina in proba 3 luni, dupa care simplu te poate inlocui, pe motive de nepotrivire. Iar sa te judeci cu ei in scopul dovedirii faptului ca de fapt esti perfect pentru acel job, e o pierdere de vreme.
Dar, eu ma intreb: doar statul e de vina? Sa ma refer acum din nou la companiile multinationale ce vin in Romania. Aici, salariul minim este mic. Am ridicat aceasta problema in cadrul unui curs ce l-am avut saptamana trecuta, dand ca exemplu aceeasi companie care, in Austria, plateste poate 2000 Eur, iar aici, 400, petru acelasi post. Ca ce chestie asemenea disparitati? Iar eu spun: de ce nu sunt preveniti din facultate studentii? "Nu mergeti sa va angajati acolo, ca trag pielea de pe voi, pentru maruntis!" Iar cineva va raspunde: "Si atunci ce sa fac, frate? Sa mor de foame?". Asa e, nu poti sa nu te angajezi. Dar revin, de ce nu se schimba situatia? De ce, in universitatile noastre, unde pretentiile unor profesori cu privire la propria competenta sunt de-a dreptul absurde, feedback-ul catre studenti este infim? In alte cuvinte, profesorii sunt aroganti, dar de invatat, nu te prea invata mare lucru, iar pe partea practica, zero. Iar despre asa zisele recrutari din cadrul facultatii, observ ca nu exista conditii. Adica, daca vrei sa angajezi studenti de la noi, sa vad ca le oferi ceva, nu doar un salariu mic, in schimbul "pasiunii". " Cautam tineri pasionati" este noul slogan general in companii. Citeam intr-o carte a unui fost MBA Harvard, cat misto se facea acolo de acest slogan. Ii ridiculizau pe angajatori, spunand ca urmatoarea gaselnita ar fi "ne dorim ca noii angajati sa aiba orgasm atunci cand lucreaza, sa se infierbante cu gandul la urmatoarea zi de lucru..".
In universitatile de top de afara, exista statistici ce arata ca, dupa un an de la absolvire, procente de approx. 90% sunt angajati ( procentajul depinde de universitati). Cu alte cuvinte, universitatile de acolo sunt interesate sa aiba studentii lor o rata a angajarii cat mai ridicata. La noi, in schimb, e problema ta daca iti gasesti. La fel cum e problema ta unde iti faci practica, daca o faci. Citez un profesor din cadrul universitatii mele, care a spus "priveste fiecare student ca pe 2500 lei ambulanti.". Deci, asta e mentalitatea. Si atunci, revin la intrebarea initiala: Doar statul e de vina ca nu isi gasesc studentii de lucru in Romania? Iar raspunsul meu e: Nu, printre altele, sunt si profesorii de vina, fiindca nu sunt interesati de parcursul studentilor dupa absolvire. Iar companiile multinationale care trag tot de pe tine pentru un salariu de neinchipuit afara, profita la maxim. Te mai miri ca pleaca tinerii talentati? Daca mergi la vreun profesor sa ii ceri un sfat, iti tranteste usa in nas. Asa ceva nu se intampla in universitatile din strainatate. Acolo, studentii sunt respectati si incurajati sa gaseasca locuri de munca bune. Aici, nu prea.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Fii curios la piata..
Piata e un loc in care poti foarte bine afla starea natiunii. Poti trage niste calcule micro si macro economice destul de serioase. Ideea e sa fii empatic.
Plimbandu-ma printre tarabe, admirand varietatea de culori prezenta, dar si zambind atunci cand aud discutiile politice ale clientilor si vanzatorilor, ma opresc atunci cand imi doresc sa cumpar ceva. Dar nu ma limitez doar la atat. Ci intreb oamenii cum le merge. Cum se descurca. De unde isi iau produsele. Iar raspunsurile lor sunt uneori dramatice. Astfel, trecand peste articolele din revistele financiare, privitoare la starea agriculturii romanesti, ajung sa povestesc direct cu sursa. Imi vine un exemplu in minte, cu rosiile de Oltenia. Anume, am aflat ca acele rosii, la exterior rosii, dar in interior verzi, sunt asa fiindca se pune un praf peste ele, cand sunt inca necoapte, praf care le inroseste peste noapte. Nu sunt fan rosii, dar imi plac capsunile. Iar cand vad in piata "capsuni aromate", mari cat un pumn, lipsite de miros sau gust si imi aduc aminte ce capsuni gaseam la munte mai demult, mici si aromate, ma intreb ce contin. Oare cum au ajuns asa? Iar aspectul terifiant este ca aceste produse intra si se descompun in corpul nostru. Nu suntem deloc atenti la ce mancam. Introducem in corp o gramada de tampenii. Numeroase documentare arata clar unde se situeaza agricultura acum. Standardizarea impusa de UE determina o scadere drastica a calitatii alimentelor, pana in punctul in care acestea nu numai ca isi pierd valorile nutritive, dar devin periculoase.
In Romania ar putea fi un paradis al agriculturii traditionale, sau "Bio", "Eco", etc. Adica, ar reveni la ce a fost pana acum nu multi ani. Dar, cine doreste sa practice agricultura traditionala, adica fara Organisme Modificate Genetic (OMG), risca sa falimenteze. Ce mai, nu esti lasat sa le vinzi, daramite sa iesi la export. Se cauta fructele si legumele imense, merele "de ceara", fara viermi sau lovituri. Atunci, ce ramane de facut? Afli din piata ca nimeni nu sprijina aricultorii mici. Fondurile Europene sunt practic imposibil de accesat, datorita birocratiei si coruptiei. Lumea prefera de multe ori sa cumpere de la marii retaileri. Zilnic, daca merg in Auchan, vad o multime de oameni la raioanele de legume si fructe. Aceste produse nu sunt romanesti, chiar daca e sezonul lor. Dupa ce sunt trasportate sute si mii de kilometri, ce valoare nutritiva mai au?
De ce nu sprijinim producatorii romanesti? De ce acestia trebuie sa practice agricultura de subzistenta? Am putea fi o natiune extrem de competitiva pe partea agriculturii si a unor resurse naturale. Dar si pe alte planuri, cum ar fi energia regenerabila. Dar ce e de vina oare? Lipsa de informare sau confortul? Se zice la fiecare generatie noua ca e generatia care trebuie sa schimbe ceva. Intrebarea e: Se schimba ceva?
Va sfatuiesc sa fiti curiosi. Sa mergeti prin piete, unde inca mai puteti cumpara cateva alimente sanatoase. Vorbiti cu oamenii. Intrebati-i de sanatate. Va vor spune mult mai mult de-atat.
Plimbandu-ma printre tarabe, admirand varietatea de culori prezenta, dar si zambind atunci cand aud discutiile politice ale clientilor si vanzatorilor, ma opresc atunci cand imi doresc sa cumpar ceva. Dar nu ma limitez doar la atat. Ci intreb oamenii cum le merge. Cum se descurca. De unde isi iau produsele. Iar raspunsurile lor sunt uneori dramatice. Astfel, trecand peste articolele din revistele financiare, privitoare la starea agriculturii romanesti, ajung sa povestesc direct cu sursa. Imi vine un exemplu in minte, cu rosiile de Oltenia. Anume, am aflat ca acele rosii, la exterior rosii, dar in interior verzi, sunt asa fiindca se pune un praf peste ele, cand sunt inca necoapte, praf care le inroseste peste noapte. Nu sunt fan rosii, dar imi plac capsunile. Iar cand vad in piata "capsuni aromate", mari cat un pumn, lipsite de miros sau gust si imi aduc aminte ce capsuni gaseam la munte mai demult, mici si aromate, ma intreb ce contin. Oare cum au ajuns asa? Iar aspectul terifiant este ca aceste produse intra si se descompun in corpul nostru. Nu suntem deloc atenti la ce mancam. Introducem in corp o gramada de tampenii. Numeroase documentare arata clar unde se situeaza agricultura acum. Standardizarea impusa de UE determina o scadere drastica a calitatii alimentelor, pana in punctul in care acestea nu numai ca isi pierd valorile nutritive, dar devin periculoase.
In Romania ar putea fi un paradis al agriculturii traditionale, sau "Bio", "Eco", etc. Adica, ar reveni la ce a fost pana acum nu multi ani. Dar, cine doreste sa practice agricultura traditionala, adica fara Organisme Modificate Genetic (OMG), risca sa falimenteze. Ce mai, nu esti lasat sa le vinzi, daramite sa iesi la export. Se cauta fructele si legumele imense, merele "de ceara", fara viermi sau lovituri. Atunci, ce ramane de facut? Afli din piata ca nimeni nu sprijina aricultorii mici. Fondurile Europene sunt practic imposibil de accesat, datorita birocratiei si coruptiei. Lumea prefera de multe ori sa cumpere de la marii retaileri. Zilnic, daca merg in Auchan, vad o multime de oameni la raioanele de legume si fructe. Aceste produse nu sunt romanesti, chiar daca e sezonul lor. Dupa ce sunt trasportate sute si mii de kilometri, ce valoare nutritiva mai au?
De ce nu sprijinim producatorii romanesti? De ce acestia trebuie sa practice agricultura de subzistenta? Am putea fi o natiune extrem de competitiva pe partea agriculturii si a unor resurse naturale. Dar si pe alte planuri, cum ar fi energia regenerabila. Dar ce e de vina oare? Lipsa de informare sau confortul? Se zice la fiecare generatie noua ca e generatia care trebuie sa schimbe ceva. Intrebarea e: Se schimba ceva?
Va sfatuiesc sa fiti curiosi. Sa mergeti prin piete, unde inca mai puteti cumpara cateva alimente sanatoase. Vorbiti cu oamenii. Intrebati-i de sanatate. Va vor spune mult mai mult de-atat.
Seeing "no fly zone" through a student's eyes
In the last few weeks, the world has seen big events pile up. First, it was the crisis in North Africa and Mid East, and second, the earthquake in Japan followed by the Fukushima nuclear plant leakage. There is no doubt that both pose great threat to security, from different angles. But, nevertheless, one is caused by man, while the other is of natural origins. I shall refer here to a part of the Libyan crisis, and that is, the intervention of the western allies, under the "no fly zone" excuse.
Talking with some of my student colleagues, I wanted to hear what their points of view concerning this decision of Nato and the US were. Where we seemed to lack understanding was in the imposing of the so called "no fly zone" decision. I had some questions which I asked them:
1. What gives these countries the right to intervene in another country's internal affairs?
2. If the excuse is to protect civilians, why do they actually kill a lot of them?
3. If it's about imposing a "no fly zone", then what does that have to do with tanks, trucks and so on?
4. Why do these countries ignore similar situations, like Yemen?
Ok, so what gives these countries this right to intervene? The official version is under the pretext of saving civilians from Gaddafi's violent response. Ok, but as far as I see, these civilians who fight against Gaddafi are drunk with the taste of blood, and seem to want more. When you refere to "saving the Libyan nation", you usually think of all the population. Or, as far as I see, from an outsider's sources of information, there are also a lot of Gaddafi supporters. So, it's not the whole nation. Then, how do you decide which civilians are right? Isn't this a matter of internal affairs? Both parts are armed, but it's not like Gaddafi has only the army on his side, with no civilians whatsoever. this intervention creates precedents, allowing for future interventions wherever Nato and the US see fit.
Second, it about protecting civilians. Then why do you kill them? Why not go straight for Gaddafi and put an end to all of this? The coalition says that Gaddafi is not a target. Ok, then why bombard one of his command centers? If they would have killed him, would it have been an "Ups!" case? A collateral victim? And what gives anybody the right to decide which civilians can be killed? Since this happens inside a country, and there have been numerous such cases in history where there was no foreign intervention, other than humanitarian at most, what makes this one an exemption?
So, institute a no-fly zone. This basically means a territory over which aircrat are not permitted to fly, for the scope of protecting civilians. What does this then have to do with ground forces? I seldom heard of a tank firing at an airplane. Not to mention a truck. I also think it's quite difficult to throw a grenade at a stealth plane, or a high altitude bomber. I come back to the term "libyan nation" which, due to it's incorrect use, allows all sorts of violent actions.
I don't say that me or my colleagues support violent regimes. Far from that. But why are other similar situations ignored, or lesser handled? The Arab League and the African Union gave their support in the beginning, for imposing a no-fly zone. But now, the international response seems to completely disagree with such actions. Who has killed more civilians? Gaddafi's troups or the Coalition's? Who are the bad civilians?
And, last but not least, where does oil fit here? Or oil doesn't matter. Some weeks ago, Cuba's Fidel Castro predicted what would happen, saying that Americans will intervene, for the sole purpose of acquiring oil. Now, Americans gave full control of the operations to Nato. But who shall think that the USA has no benefit? Who will participate in the reconstruction of the country, in case Gaddafi's regime falls? What will happen to all that oil? The largest reserves in North Africa will just serve Libya and transform it into a second Dubai? I find that hard to believe.
As I came to a conclusion with my colleagues, we ended up admitting that whatever suppositions we make, they will never matter, not changing the course of history... For now.
Talking with some of my student colleagues, I wanted to hear what their points of view concerning this decision of Nato and the US were. Where we seemed to lack understanding was in the imposing of the so called "no fly zone" decision. I had some questions which I asked them:
1. What gives these countries the right to intervene in another country's internal affairs?
2. If the excuse is to protect civilians, why do they actually kill a lot of them?
3. If it's about imposing a "no fly zone", then what does that have to do with tanks, trucks and so on?
4. Why do these countries ignore similar situations, like Yemen?
Ok, so what gives these countries this right to intervene? The official version is under the pretext of saving civilians from Gaddafi's violent response. Ok, but as far as I see, these civilians who fight against Gaddafi are drunk with the taste of blood, and seem to want more. When you refere to "saving the Libyan nation", you usually think of all the population. Or, as far as I see, from an outsider's sources of information, there are also a lot of Gaddafi supporters. So, it's not the whole nation. Then, how do you decide which civilians are right? Isn't this a matter of internal affairs? Both parts are armed, but it's not like Gaddafi has only the army on his side, with no civilians whatsoever. this intervention creates precedents, allowing for future interventions wherever Nato and the US see fit.
Second, it about protecting civilians. Then why do you kill them? Why not go straight for Gaddafi and put an end to all of this? The coalition says that Gaddafi is not a target. Ok, then why bombard one of his command centers? If they would have killed him, would it have been an "Ups!" case? A collateral victim? And what gives anybody the right to decide which civilians can be killed? Since this happens inside a country, and there have been numerous such cases in history where there was no foreign intervention, other than humanitarian at most, what makes this one an exemption?
So, institute a no-fly zone. This basically means a territory over which aircrat are not permitted to fly, for the scope of protecting civilians. What does this then have to do with ground forces? I seldom heard of a tank firing at an airplane. Not to mention a truck. I also think it's quite difficult to throw a grenade at a stealth plane, or a high altitude bomber. I come back to the term "libyan nation" which, due to it's incorrect use, allows all sorts of violent actions.
I don't say that me or my colleagues support violent regimes. Far from that. But why are other similar situations ignored, or lesser handled? The Arab League and the African Union gave their support in the beginning, for imposing a no-fly zone. But now, the international response seems to completely disagree with such actions. Who has killed more civilians? Gaddafi's troups or the Coalition's? Who are the bad civilians?
And, last but not least, where does oil fit here? Or oil doesn't matter. Some weeks ago, Cuba's Fidel Castro predicted what would happen, saying that Americans will intervene, for the sole purpose of acquiring oil. Now, Americans gave full control of the operations to Nato. But who shall think that the USA has no benefit? Who will participate in the reconstruction of the country, in case Gaddafi's regime falls? What will happen to all that oil? The largest reserves in North Africa will just serve Libya and transform it into a second Dubai? I find that hard to believe.
As I came to a conclusion with my colleagues, we ended up admitting that whatever suppositions we make, they will never matter, not changing the course of history... For now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)