Falşi potenţatori de productivitate a muncii [False work productivity enhancers]

Mă tot uit la aceşti oameni cum lucrează... De mai bine de o lună, îi vezi că fac ceva cu adevărat, fie înfruntând ultimele zvâcniri de arşiţă de prin septembrie, fie printre stropii de ploaie, deocamdată timizi, şi adieri tot mai reci.

Nu par a fi nişte naşparlii incurabili precum colegii lui Dorel (+ aici, aici). E drept că, atunci când vine ploaia, o lasă mai moale. Cu toate acestea, n-aş zice putea că nu se străduiesc.

Nu pot judeca eu dacă or fi trebuit să termine de multişor sau dacă lentoarea aparentă (care îi exasperează pe locuitorii din zonă, pe şoferi sau trecători zilnici) o fi vreo constrângere impusă de considerente tehnice.

Indiscutabil, nu are cum să fie uşor să dai la târnăcop sau lopată, să tragi de cabluri şi nici să stai toată ziua în miniexcavator nu este ca o plimbare cu bărcuţa.

Date fiind vremurile (şi salarile!) oribile din România, a munci este – n-o spun deloc cu ironie – un act eroic. Mai ales în condiţiile în care mai toată lumea ia în derâdere munca fizică. N-o fi ea de pus pe piedestaluri, ca în manualele comuniste, dar nici de batjocorit.

Nimic de râs privind activitatea în sine, poate nici de compătimit, însă nu acelaşi lucru l-aş putea spune despre falşii potenţatori de productivitate a muncii folosiţi.

După ce că se fac din greu puţinii bani, după ce şi aşa organismul este solicitat din plin, la ce bun să-i risipeşti pe primii şi să-ţi istoveşti trupul suplimentar cu otrăvitoare delicii precum ţigări, bere (nu 2-3 pahare, ci mulţi litri) şi băuturi răcoritoare?!

Este o tristă înrobire – faţă de obiceiurile consumiste ale lumii care cere să fim în rând cu ea, cât şi faţă de reclamele care intră în subconşient şi te învaţă să bei şi să fumezi.

De fiecare dată când auzim ectenia “pentru cei bolnavi, pentru cei robiţi şi pentru mântuirea lor, Domnului să ne rugăm”, să nu ne închipuim că este ceva desuet a te mai ruga pentru ‘robi’ (că “doar nu ne mai calcă turcii să ne înrobească”, am zice noi), ci să pomenim în gând un astfel de rob!

[Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la/For all the posts on this blog go to: Contents/Cuprins]

What makes Russia ‘great’ and what ‘belittles’ Great Britain [Ce face Rusia ‘mare’ şi ce ‘micşorează’ Marea Britanie]

Gone are the days when Napoleon Bonaparte was fearing Russia for being “the continental sword of England,” and so are the days when Winston Churchill’s Britain had to make use of the USSR as a continental sword against Nazi Germany.

Today, a general mistrust – whether polite or sarcastic at times – reigns over the relations between London and Moscow. The reasons for that are not entirely obvious.

London is no longer backing a moribund Ottoman Turkey against Tsarist Russia, nor is it offering a safehaven to thousands of White Russians, fleeing from the onslaught of Bolshevik Communism.

Neither are Britain’s and Russia’s conflicting interests in Asia so vivid as they were in 19th century, as there are is no British, nor Russian empire left.

The British armed forces are in their 10th year of what could be called a ‘Fourth Afghan War’, while London’s and Moscow’s views on Iran differ, but there’s no Great Game being played anymore. No longer British, India is rather close to Russia.

Therefore, why are Britain  and Russia are on so irreconcible terms these days?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Of course that, beyond my above hypersimplistic geopolitical analysis, there are enough substantial differences to be found. But there are similarities even within those differences:

[1] Britain’s slow descend into a multicultural dictatorship seems incompatible with the nationalistic dictatorship of Vladimir Putin.

They are both doubtful democracies. The significant difference is that one has always been a democratic pariah, while the other has still got the BBC, which is worth several thousand bayonets, if we look at it from Bonaparte’s perspective.

Maybe Oliver Cromwell was no less of a villain than Ivan the Terrible, but it seems that only the latter’s country would forevermore be labeled as ‘undemocratic’.

On the other hand, it seems utterly inconceivable to put into question the paramount British democracy. Anyone who dares do that would be quickly dismissed as insane…

[2] Britain’s willingness to sell almost anything to foreign investors is different from the fact that Russia’s economy was handed to a bunch of oligrachs that are more ore less controllable (even when they reside in London :-) by Putin.

Either the capital is multinational or national, the sad truth is that both Britons and Russians are no longer in control of their natural resources and national economies.

Both the Communist paradise promised in the USSR or the Welfare State promised in post-WW2 Britain were illusions.

[3] Britain’s Armed Forces are facing one of their toughest enemies ever, the severe budget cuts, while Russia’s Military, in spite of a poorer budget, is rearming.

It would take some time before Russia closes all the technological gaps, however, it will always enjoy an advantage in numbers and strengths.

[4] Britain is not as alone as Russia is. Shielded by NATO membership, and thanks to the English Channel, the Perfidious Albion is relatively safe.

In no possible UK-against-Russia scenario, Britain would be forced to fight alone, as in the summer of 1940. As for Moscow, it has no true friends. Even the strategic partnership with India (a rich buyer of Russian defence equipment) could hardly be considered an alliance.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Irrespective of visible differences like these, there must be a deeper explanation for the fact that former allies (against antichristic figures like Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler) are at odds with each other. Which are those?

Is there a true incompatibility between Russia and Great Britain? At a first glance, there are is a majority of atheists, hedonists, pseudo-Christians and abortionists in both countries…

UK’s population is growing thanks to immigrants (many of whom are Muslim), whilst Russia’s population is in decline because of poverty, corruption, alcohol abuse, which are just the visible effects of a dreadful moral decline.

But while Britain is sinking into a swamp of irreligiousness, at least for some Russians there is hope. There is nothing to hope for in the religion of political correctness of Britain but there’s everything a man needs for salvation in the Orthodox Church.

Just as Stalin did, when he desperately needed to halt Hitler’s panzers’ stunning advance, Putin is using the Orthodox Church as a counterweight to Western influence in his country.

However, he can only use some hierarchs and the human and corruptible side of the Church; neither Putin, nor anyone else could compromise or destroy the Lord’s true Church. None of Russia’s material and political assets are as valuable as the Orthodox faith.

Even after Russia will have lost everything (large territories, control of natural wealth, sovereignty, millions of people) – in a catastrophic world war, for instance – it will still remain one of the richest countries of the world in spiritual terms.

If only the same could be hoped for Britain! The more Britain has achieved in terms of civilisation, the more spiritually barren it is…

For generations, Russians have been accustomed with losing everything, and maybe only the bitterness of another devastating blow in historical terms will help them come to their senses and rediscover the meaningfulness of Orthodoxy.

For Britons, it is very likely that any earthly victory will inflate their delusions, while any defeat will push them into despondency. In either case, they seem doomed, as they’ve got not metaphysical lifebuoy in their inane quest for material prosperity.

[For all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

Cranes over Bucharest [Macarale peste Bucureşti]

Since the fall of the Iron Curtain, Romania’s (not Hungary’s!) capital – Bucharest, not Budapest! – hasn’t seen as many cranes (pics 1, 3, 5, 7) as those visible these days.

They are not as omnipresent as they were in the late 1980s, nevertheless, their presence can’t remain unnoticed, to locals and visitors alike.

As if there were no global economic crisis and Romania were immune to the turmoil in the Eurozone, cranes leave their mark of optimism on Bucharest’s skyline.

So it was during Nicolae Ceauşescu’s last days, so it was in Patriarh Noah’s time. People were building as if there would be a guaranteed tomorrow.

It’s true that, in Brussels, where cranes (pics 2, 4, 6, 8) stood a few years ago, a new building has risen to accommodate the newest EU institition.

The European External Action Service (EEAS) has got a nice home now, but whether the EU has a common foreign policy is still arguable.

The same applies for Bucharest. It may have more and more visible tower cranes, however, the city still lacks a coherent development strategy.

Were the cranes in Brussels and are those in Bucharest a true earnest of a prosperous future?! I bet Ceauşescu thought the same about his cranes in 1989…

[For all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

Romanians to their former ‘orange’ hero: “Come out, ordinary mutt!” [Românii către fostul lor erou ‘portocaliu’: “Ieşi afară, javră ordinară!”]

What has been a common sight of the past years – in some corners of the EU (Greece, Italy), in countries from EU’s periphery (Georgia), in several Arab states (Egypt, Libya) and to a lesser extent in Russia – is finally taking place in Romania.

People are taking their anger to the streets, a few for senseless rioting (like in England), some others simply to shout that they’ve had enough of the current Government and especially of the incumbent president since December 2004.

Many of those contested learders around the world had always been villains, but Traian Băsescu – just like Mikheil Saakashvili, in Georgia, and Ukraine’s former president Viktor Yuschenko – was portrayed as an anti-communist and anti-totalitarian hero not so long ago (by the mid 2000s).

It was a ridiculous image, as he was a merchant marine captain, in charge of the largest vessel in the commercial fleet of communist Romania, and he had never hid (nor had he ever seemed ashamed of) his communist past.

Far from winning elections  in landslide victories – and many believe he couldn’t have won at all without Uncle Sam’s help – he was, nevertheless, regarded as a ‘hero’ by his fanatic supporters, as well as by the mainstream media of the Western world.

In spite of this pedestal of respectability on which he was put and of his ceaseless rethoric against the corruption and presumed authoritarianism of others, his regime proved to be even more malignous than the previous ones in post-communist Romania.

Eager to get richer, as the former communists had done before them in the early 1990s, the orange gang around Băsescu has engaged in parasiting on the Romanian economy.

That was nothing new for democratic Romania. What would eventually draw the ire of many was the aggressive manner in which he understood to exert his prerogatives, as if the political establishment could be steered like the oil tanker that was once under his command.

Unlike his predecessors – a shrewd former commmunist, always able to build consensus, and a politically weak geology professor, who refused to run for a second term, admitting that “he had been defeated by the system” – Băsescu appears to be at ease only when at war with someone.

Because of his stubbornness and arrogance, the ‘orange hero’ would soon be vehemently contested. Halfway into his first term, the Parliament voted for his impeachment. According to the Constitution, he was suspendend, the President of the Senate temporarily replaced him, and Romanian voters were called to approve or nulify the decision of their representatives.

Back then, Romanians were to bee too blind to see that the bogus anti-system hero, promising to tread on all enemies of democracy and prosperity, was himself the product of a despicable system. Thus, he won the referendum confirming him in office by 70%.

It would be simplistic to believe foreign media reports (+ here) that the protests on the streets have to do with the VAT increase (from 19% to 24%) or with some of the harshest austerity measures taken anywhere in the EU: a 25% wage cut of public employees, and a 15% tax on pensions. The decisions were taken in May-July 2010, and Romanians bit the bullet.

Maybe not even the incident that ignited the protests – in the second week of January 2012, Băsescu arrogantly took on the chief of the Romanian emergency rescue service (SMURD), accusing him of opposing a controversial health reform – should be overestimated.

Nevertheless, it was the spark that enraged many, among the millions in whose hearts the ‘Orange Revolution’ (a term which was not as much used in Romania as it was in Ukraine, while the colour was equally widespread) into an ‘orange plague’.

People are angry with a lot of things in this country, among which Băsescu’s divisive manner of leadership and resentful attitude rise above any other reasons of discontent.

The president who promised “to turn to the people” (in his war against a corrupt system) has turned his back on the people that put their hopes in him.

Only insiders from the system who knew exactly when to dress in orange are better off, while many of Băsescu’s fans, his reluctant supporters (who thought he was a lesser evil), the mass of politically indifferent Romanians, and those how never voted for him are worse off.

Although demonstations were held in many cities (some 60) apart from Bucharest, very few are those protesting on the streets these days, compared to the level of discontent in Romania.

Most protesters are against the entire ruling class, the opposition (former communists + liberals) is united only in weakenesses, while most other law abiding citizens are  ‘protesting’ on Facebook and blogs or cynically mock those on the streets.

It seems unlikely – but I like to never say never! :-) – that Băsescu and the Government he supports would resign and call earlier elections (as 2012 is electoral year anyway). Not even blocking unpopular reforms appears probable for now.

This happens because – thanks to the very same putrid system that he often criticized –  Băsescu has managed to forge a ruling coalition. His party (PDL) is propped up by a new party (UNPR) made up of dissenters  from the main opposition party (PSD).

With a popular support of 10%, Băsescu’s regime is currently a sort of elected dictatorship. The widespread (but far from being massive until now) protests and the president’s reaction to them will be one of the most serious test for the post-1989 Romanian democracy.

All in all, the hero of 2004-2009 has turned into public enemy number one. Like so often before in history, the same man who once personified so many hopes for the better became the personification of bitter disappointment.

Sadly, irrespective of all the anger and despair of many, there’s no true ‘feeling of revolution’ in the air, as if everyone knew that, with of without ‘captain Băsescu’, Romania would be still floating adrift boundlessly... As if only hitting an iceberg could possibly help this aimless nation come to its senses...

[For all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

Aşteptând încă revoluţia mondială... (9) [Still waiting for the world revolution...]

N-or putea măsura vreodată statisticile câţi or fi fost aceia care, acum 22 de ani, aşteptau zorii libertăţii de a-L putea mărturisi pe Cel Care revoluţionează conştinţele de două mii de ani încoace şi oferă adevărata libertate...

În schimb, este sigur că la un alt fel de revoluţie şi alt fel de libertate se aşteptau majoritatea românilor – să se ‘dea drumul’ la cumpărături, să ai cu ce, dar şi ce să cumperi.

După decenii de dezumanizare – brutală mai întâi, apoi mai rafinată, cu destule ‘părţi bune’ de sub spoiala cărora mulţi nu îşi mai pot aminti nonsensurile şi relele – în ‘paradisul comunist’, puhoaiele de neterminaţi oameni noi nu mai aveau decât aspiraţii de sorginte materială.

Libertatea nu putea fi concepută ca însemnând a fi liber, ci a avea. A deţine, a cumpăra, a folosi sau adesea doar a etala bunuri de tot soiul era expresia supremei libertăţi.

Dacă şi eu, la nici zece ani, eram contaminat – visând să am jucării ca în Germania :-) – ce alte aşteptări puteau să aibă cei abrutizaţi de lipsa de perspectivă, cu mintea trecută fără de încetare prin râşniţa sloganurilor ideologice?

Puţini spre niciunii or mai fi fost aceia care să creadă în posibilitatea de îndeplinire a falselor promisiuni de înfăptuire a paradisului comunist.

Utopia îşi arătase hidoasa neputinţă de multă vreme. Mai degrabă ar fi făcut plopul pere şi răchita micşunele decât să iasă ceva bun din fantasmagoria comunistă.  Probabil că şi cei mai fanatici comunişti (de or mai fi fost vreunii?!) înţelegeau aceasta.

Totuşi, evidenţa eşecului nu era suficientă pentru a aduce eliberarea de credinţa că raiul pe pământ se poate înfăptui. Ba chiar că acesta ar şi exista deja, dincolo de Cortina de Fier.

Comunismul murea, dar efectul său otrăvitor abia avea să se desăvârşească. Majoritatea oamenilor erau robiţi de aceeaşi iluzie pe care o constata Sf. Apostol Pavel: “Dacă morţii nu înviază, să bem şi să mâncăm, căci mâine vom muri!”.

Robii lui ‘aici şi acum’ nu se puteau elibera de comunism decât spre a preschimba lanţurile sclaviei anterioare cu altele mai sclipitoare şi – doar aparent! – mai uşor de purtat.

Din lacul cu rumeguş ideologic al comunismului s-a sărit în puţul consumismului, într-o mocirlă călduţă. Ca de carton putred, sloganurile comuniste erau tot mai greu de ros, dar şi mai greu de digerat. Le-au înlocuit cele de marketing, parcă mai crocante şi apetisante.

Sufletelor constipate de o cvasiabsolută lipsă a opţiunilor, 22 de ani de ‘libertate’ le-au adus o permanentă cufureală, ca urmare a chiolhanului de alegeri care le sunt puse înainte.

Cine nu cumpără nu este şi n-ar putea fi fericit, sugerează – chiar dacă nu explicit – lozincile vremurilor noastre. Cine nu consumă, nu contează (pentru progresul economiei). Cine nu are, nu este (nimic pe lumea aceasta). Acestea sunt proclamatele noi adevăruri.

Şi nici nu s-ar putea numi post-revoluţionare, căci mereu se anunţă noi revoluţii în comerţ, în tehnologie sau economie, başca în politică.

Aşa cum troţkiştii vorbesc despre o revoluţie permanentă, şi în paradisul consumist se tot succed revoluţii – ale preţurilor, ofertelor, bonusurilor, chilipirurilor… Nimic nu stagnează, totul se schimbă. Oare în mai bine?!

Culmea este când negustori din ţara Revoluţiei Culturale a lui Mao Zedong, vin să ne promită  o revoluţie a comerţului (potrivit imaginilor de faţă).

Aşa fraieri să fi fost?! La peste două decenii de ‘libertate’, pare-se că n-am învăţat cât de fericiţi putem fi cheltuind mai puţin, dar cumpărând mai mult. Nici nu vrem mai mult de atât, nici că ni se oferă altceva.

Ca ţară creştin-ortodoxă (oare?!) s-ar fi cuvenit să căutăm mai mult nepreţuitele – pace, bucurie, iubire, blândeţe, compasiune, răbdare…

Bine ne-ar fi fost să nu ne fi scobit de miez sufletele, pentru a le umple cu biete consumabile, prin care îşi închipuie rostul sute de milioane de oameni din lumea aşa-zis dezvoltată sau în care îşi caută eliberarea miliardele de chinezi şi de indieni.

Din păcate, şi românii se leagănă letargic  pe pânza de păianjen a amăgirii că suntem ceea ce avem şi avem ceea ce putem cumpăra – iar aceasta ar fi o condiţie absolut necesară a fericirii.

[Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la/For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to: Contents/Cuprins]

Există o autentică fascinaţie românească pentru îmbrăcămintea britanică? [Is there an authentic Romanian fascination with British clothing?!]

Cu mulţi ani în urmă, în copilărie, am pus la păstrare în memorie o expresie care desemna calitatea, durabilitatea şi chiar eleganţa – ‘stofă englezească’ (iată un exemplu).

Treptat, îmi pare că expresia a ajuns să nu se mai refere exclusiv la textile şi îmbrăcăminte, ci să fie o marcă (un brand) a(l) calităţii şi a(l) lucrului bine făcut (vezi aici sau aici).

Este unul dintre acele lucruri – or fi multe, puţine?! – pentru care britanicii ar putea să fie mândri (nu că le-o trebui prea mult să se umfle în pene :-) că le construieşte o imagine relativ bună în ochii românilor.

Să nu uităm faptul că sintagma, înfiptă bine în vocabularul limbii române, precede deceniile comuniste când ajunseseră rarităţi hainele din stofă (şi calitate) englezească.

Chiar şi eu m-am simţit elegant şi mândru de un sacou din astfel de stofă englezească, cu mult înainte de a şti despre şi de a fi un fan (mă rog, cât pot fi eu de ‘fan’ :-) a unui brand britanic: Marks & Spencer.

Într-o Românie comunistă, precum aceea în care am deschis eu ochii şi unde opţiunile vestimentare erau destul de limitate, ceva ‘made in UK’ părea foarte atrăgător.

Sau ieşit din comun(ism), sau chiar subversiv un picuţ. Sau, cum am zice în zilele noastre, era… cool. Poate chiar funcţiona ca un surogat de libertate.

Pentru mulţi, faptul că puneau mâna pe vreo pereche de blugi (blue jeans), sau altceva făcut (‘made in…’) în lumea liberă le era suficient, ca să se considere disidenţi, cumva eliberaţi şi resemnaţi cu celelalte realităţi zilnice.

Ce nevoie să mai ai de libertatea cuvântului sau libertate de conştiinţă? Puţini mai aveau cuvânt (azi şi mai puţini), iar conştiinţă – nici atâţia cât ceilalţi puţini…

Multora le era destul dacă puteau ciupi frânturi de libertate vestimentară. Cei care puteau ciupi, au ajuns şmecheri.

Mulţi dintre ceilalţi au ajuns buni meseriaşi, profesori, doctori, ingineri etc – pentru că nu aveau cum să iasă în evidenţă decât prin lucrul bine făcut de ei înşişi, nu prin ceva de purtat, care putea fi mai întâi cumpărat, apoi etalat.

Pe atunci, moda dezirabilă era să fii mai toată ziua prins într-o uniformă: de şoim al patriei, de pionier, de vânzător, de muncitor, de miliţian, de soldat, de membru al gărzilor patriotice sau de… artist în Cântarea României.

Parcă şi în afara contextelor oficiale, tot un soi de uniformă era şi îmbrăcămintea aşa-zis civilă – cu prea mici variaţii, anostă, uneori nu prea comodă, adesea lipsită de calitate.

La două decenii după ce am sărit pârleazul din raiul comunist, or fi încă destui care să se îmbrace uniform, cu având aparent diverse, dar în realitate foarte sărace alegeri de haine ‘made in China’.

Totuşi, există mult mai multe opţiuni, precum aceste magazine de haine englezeşti, adesea la mâna a doua (second hand), aflate cu precădere în Transilvania***, cu o singură excepţie (poza 7) – Bacău (unde am mai constatat urme britanice :-)

Dar nici stofele englezeşti par să nu aibă succes în vremurile noastre de criză, căci o prăvălie “de haine engleze”din Arad (poza 1, septembrie 2010) avea să devină “magazin chinezesc” (poza 8, septembrie 2011).

*** NOTĂ: Imaginile nelocalizate în articol au fost surprinse, în luna mai 2011, în oraşele Oradea [2], Satu Mare [3], Baia Mare [4], Odorheiu Secuiesc [5] şi Miercurea Ciuc [6].

[Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la/For all the posts on this blog go to: Contents/Cuprins]