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!
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)