[EN] Punished smokers / [RO] Fumători pedepsiţi

[EN] I admit that sinful I sometimes can’t help enjoying when I watch the sad view of some ‘punished smokers’. [RO] Admit că păcătosul de mine uneori nu mă pot abţine a mă bucura când urmăresc trista de privelişte a unor ‘fumători pedepsiţi’.

[EN] I remember the long hours when I breathed in the sickening smoke... at school, at work, on the street, in pubs, sometimes even on beaches or in parks. [RO] Îmi amintesc lungile ore când am inspirat scârbosul fum… la şcoală, la serviciu, pe stradă, în localuri, uneori chiar şi pe plaje sau în parcuri.

[EN] Nevertheless, there’s nothing funny – neither I, nor anyone else should laugh at these enslaved people. [RO] Cu toate acestea, nu este nimic amuzant – nici eu, nici altcineva nu ar trebui să râdă de aceşti oameni înrobiţi.

[EN] None of us would look better if our power of will were diminished by nicotine and the tyranny of hedonism. [RO] Niciunul dintre noi nu ar arăta mai bine dacă puterea voinţei ne-ar fi diminuată de nicotină sau de tirania hedonismului.

[EN] This is how those once ‘cool’ smokers (like these teens drinkers) look when they grow up… pretty ‘un-cool’, I’d say… [RO] Aşa arată acei cândva ‘cool’ fumători (precum aceşti băutori adolescenţi) când cresc mari... destul de ‘ne-cool’ aş zice eu...

[EN] Sidelined: taken out of their daily routine, out of their work environment or even out of buildings. [RO] Marginalizaţi: scoşi din rutina zilnică, afară din mediu de lucru sau chiar afară din clădiri.

[EN] Smoking is no longer a comfortable experience in most of EU countries and the USA. It still is in China and Russia. [RO] Fumatul nu mai este o experienţă confortabilă în cele mai multe state UE şi în SUA. Este încă în China şi Rusia.

[EN] Lighting a cigarette has become something that must always be done outside… And not only outside the European Commission headquarters in Brussels (pic 1). [RO] Aprinderea unei ţigări a devenit ceva care trebuie făcut întotdeauna afară… Şi nu doar în afara sediului Comisiei Europene din Bruxelles (poza 1).

[EN] Smokers are compelled to go out in front of little stores in Brighton (2) or to descend 30-40-50 floors in New York City. [RO] Fumătorii sunt forţaţi să iasă afară în faţa unor mici prăvălii din Brighton ori să coboare 30-40-50 de etaje în New York City.

[EN] And that may not be the worst. They could be crammed into glass cubes like in the Airport of Munich (3)… [RO] Şi aceasta s-ar putea să nu fie cel mai rău. Ar putea fi înghesuiţi în cuburi de sticlă precum în Aeroportul din Munchen (3)...

[EN] Is it good? Is it bad? Is it discriminatory? Is it politically correct? What about the efficiency of these constraints? [RO] Este bine? Este rău? Este discriminatoriu? Este politic corect? Ce putem zice de eficienţa acestor constrângeri?

[EN] Maybe some good results will be observed over the decades, when other cause of death would seem insurmountable… [RO] Poate că unele rezultate bune vor fi observate peste decenii, când alte cauze ale morţii vor părea insurmontabile…

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

Coup d’état in Romania?! Or just an outburst of orange hysteria?[Lovitură de stat în România?! Sau doar o răbufnire de isterie portocalie?]

There are no tanks rolling down the streets of Bucharest, no one has been arrested or exiled, public gatherings are still taking place in the city centre. It’s Code Orange again – but not because of the political turmoil.

It’s the crazy weather once more – this time the scorching heat, not the heavy snowing and blizzards.

The ‘civilised world’ – the EU (especially Germany) + the USA & others – have expressed their concerns and preoccupation with the sad fact that their beloved orange hero of 2004 was wrongfully (so they claim) impeached a few days ago.

These high priests of democracy decry the fact that Băsescu could have been ‘executed’ by votes in the Romanian Parliament. But it’s all a hysterical reaction.

Votes are no bullets. These are the same votes that have recently installed an Islamist (albeit moderate) president in Egypt, the same that sent spirited Nicolas Sarkozy to early retirement, and the same that will probably oust Angela Merkel from power in 2013.

Happen what may – a bigger evil than Băsescu can always befall Romania; but this is no reason for not removing the current evil – I am siding with those that, on July 29, will vote YES to confirm his impeachment.

He has never been the honest fighter for democracy, the defender of an independent judiciary, the committed supporter of the rule of law, nor the reformist whom the foreign media kept portaying over the past decade.

He has been an authoritarian, abusive, antidemocratic, and arrogant president who could never put up with the imperfections of Romania’s Constitution.

As a matter of fact, back in 2004, he had promised that he wouldn’t be an neutral president, but a kind of “player-President.” And he surely kept his promise, and played aggressively.

Whether a man like him, considered to be a creation of the former Communist secret services, has already played all his trumps is difficult to say. Used to steering a 306-meter long oil tanker, Băsescu is skilled at turning adverse odds in his favour.

Exposing the plagiarism of the current Prime Minister only hastened his impeachment, although it wasn’t a decisive blow to his adversaries, that would assure the survival of his moribund orange regime.

The average voter doesn’t know what plagiarism is. But Băsescu may still have some aces left in his sleeves.

His orange supporters are enraged, desperately trying to convinge the Sublime Porte of 2012 – which is not Ottoman Istanbul anymore, but Brussels and Washington DC – that a coup d’état has taken place in Romania, thus a referendum would be illegitimate.

Some of their arguments are valid, yet so are many of those against Băsescu’s rule. He was not the enlightened reformist of democratic institutions often described by foreign fans and internal worshippers, but a rather constant saboteour of democracy.

Most of all, irrespective whether he did it constitutionally or not, he is a shameless liar – and his irresponsible lies amount to (if not even surpass) the gravity of high treason.

Out of his abundance of lies, it’s worth noting only those with catastrophical economic consequences. In the autumn of 2008, as the global economic crisis began breaking havoc elsewhere in the world, he said Romania would not be affected.

Even more so, he said the wages of teachers should be increased by 50% and accused the liberal Prime Minister of refusing to provide the funds for his irresponsible claims.

In the meantime, his orange clique (PDL) was promising a 6.5% percent economic growth for 2009. At the end of that year, the economy would contract by 7.2%.

A bit later, in January 2009, he said that Romania would not need an IMF loan. In May 2009, Romania loaned 20 billions euros from the IMF and the European Commission.

Where did the money go? In the coffers of foreign banks, in the pockets of ‘orange’ companies, but surely nowhere in the benefit of Romanians who refuse to bite the bullet.

Although prescribed as a life-or-death necessity, with obstinance and cynicism spit at the ‘lazy Romanians’, it is still arguable whether Romania was in a such desperate need of a bailout. Or was it more an experimetal medicine forced down our throats by Doctor Băsescu?

A year later, in May 2010, Băsescu subjected Romanians to a fierce austerity experiment – a 25% wage cut in the public sector, and a 5% VAT increase.

Some may argue that any of these are but inoffensive (to the degree they are ‘constitutional’) lies and a kind of inherent mistakes of democracy that can’t be punished in any democratic society.

What if they are not as innocent as we are told they are? Băsescu’s orange gang was one of cunning profiteers, thus most of his (and his regime’s) apparent mistakes look like sheer premeditated crimes.

A yesman of Washington DC, of Brussels, and of Berlin (where some of his most voiceful supporters are heard these days), he did nothing in favour of Romania – only in favour of the orange myriad of interests that he patronized.

He is a fake hero of democracy, an indecent patron of a corrupt regime whom most voters in Romania (hopefully – it’s risky to say anything more these days) don’t want as president anymore.

There’s no lack of easily corruptible yesmen in Romania, therefore no one in Washington DC, Brussels or Berlin should worry about Băsescu being thrown into the dustbin of history.  

Romanians should be as concerned about the democratic world’s crocodile tears for the fate of Romanian democracy as those cynics in the aforementioned capitals were worried when Băsescu was pushing this impoverished and abused nation through the steepest chasm of austerity ever seen in the EU.

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

Brussels, the European capital of begging? [Bruxelles, capitala europeană a cerşetoriei?]

Far from being ugly, Brussels probably isn’t  one of the first five most beautiful European cities, nor the biggest, either in terms of area, demographics or economic strength.

Yet it is one of the most politically influent cities in the world, as capital of the EU and headquarters of NATO. Sadly, it may deserve another not-so-flattering title.

It’s a sort of secular Mecca, except for the fact that the 500 million Europeans don’t have a religious duty to visit the ‘European shrines’.

As European citizens and taxpayers, they have the right to visit the EU’s institutions, mainly the European Parliament.

On the other hand, for all those exerting political power anywhere in Europe (at national, and sometimes even local level), visiting Brussels is compulsory.

For those in charge of a government, an important municipality, a big region, governing with their backs turned on Brussels has become impossible.

Not less than 75 to 85% (+ here, here) of the laws affecting every European’s life are fully enforced (as regulations) or initiated (as directives) from Brussels.

The fact that the process of turning a proposal of the European Commission into a legislative act passes through Strasbourg one week per month is irrelevant.

Big decisions are taken in Brussels, and the world’s largest corporations, best consultancies, professional associations or NGOs are pretty aware of that. 

It appears that around 3,000 such EU Affairs interest groups spend 158 million euro per year only on communication.

But that’s the glamourous part of Brussels and a deceptive indicator of the (presumably prosperous) state of the Union.

Beyond this glorious image, there’s a less appealing one that hasn’t ever struck me in other big cities of the world.

What cannot evade the eyes of tourists (even the richest ones, travelling by limousine) in the European capital is the number of beggars and homeless people.

With the exception of Bucharest, I haven’t seen as many beggars as in Brussels anywhere else in the world.

I didn’t see that many neither in London, nor in Paris, Berlin etc, and I hardly noticed any in Washington, DC.

One wouldn’t see beggars (only protesters – but that’s a different matter) near the White House, (Washington, DC) or Buckingham Palace (London).

Nevertheless, they are omnipresent near the European Commission (pics 3, 6), the European Parliament (pic 9) and Justus Lipsius building of the EU Council (pic 1).

They are not the ingenious street buskers seen in other cities but relatively lousy players (= beggars) who wish to have their ‘performances’ rewarded by passersby.

As long as all important companies want to be seen in Brussels and try to have a say in the intricate EU legislative process, why wouldn’t the begging industry do the same?!

The saddest thing is that many of these destitute people – it’s arguable if begging is profitable or not – use Romanian to swear at photoholics like me :-(

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

Democraţie românească în 2012: taxare fără reprezentare [Romanian democracy in 2012: taxation without representation]

Noul Guvern de la Bucureşti a fost instalat de o coaliţie şi de un preşedinte, Traian Băsescu, a căror susţinere (aprobare, simpatie etc) nu depăşeşte 25% în sondaje. Şi la acest procentaj s-ar ajunge de-abia cumulat, ba încă şi prin jonglerii statistice.

S-a mai văzut şi la alţii, ar zice unii. Da, admit eu, şi chiar îmi vine în minte cel puţin un exemplu din istoria relativ recentă – ultimele două cabinete laburiste din UK.

T. Bliar and G. Clown primiseră un pic peste 35% din totalul voturilor exprimate în mai 2005, scor graţie căruia s-au menţinut la putere până în 2010.

Era vorba de un singur partid, nu de o strânsură conjuncturală. Şi de un executiv proaspăt instalat după un scrutin, nu cu nouă luni înaintea unor alegeri generale.

Felicitat de preşedintele Comisiei Europene, de trimisul Unchiului Sam în România cât şi de cel al Perfidului Albion, noul Guvern român are tot atâta legitimitate cât avea Guvernul Majestăţii sale în coloniile nord americane pe la anii 1770.

Supuşii britanici care aveau să devină cetăţeni americani, se plângeau de “taxare fără reprezentare”, cum reclamă în zilele noastre inscripţiile de pe taxiurile din Washington D.C., teritoriul federal fără putere de vot în Congresul SUA.

Fix de acelaşi lucru, de nereprezentare – în ciuda birurilor plătite – se plâng milioane de români. Mai rău decât toţi – cei lăsaţi să moară sub nămeţi în aceste zile.

Explozia nemulţumirii de dincolo de Atlantic în urmă cu vreo 235 de ani avea să ducă la grave răzmeriţe,  insurgenţă, apoi la un Război de Independenţă, respectiv la naşterea SUA.

Ceea ce ar putea exploda în România este încă ţinut la rece, sub temperaturi polare. Dar şi când va fi să explodeze tot ce s-a acumulat, nu-s deloc semne că are ce să se nască ceva bun.

Oare ce s-ar mai putea ‘naşte’ dintr-o naţiune muribundă, care a pierdut într-un deceniu de pace mai mulţi locuitori decât totalul celor decedaţi în războaie de la proclamarea independenţei (1877) până acum?

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

Hollow triumphalism [Triumfalism găunos]

In the wake of the last EU summit, all leaders who had entered lengthy negociations in Brussels claimed ‘victory’, whilst not truly achieving anything substantial for the half a billion European citizens.

On the one hand, the presumed Franco-German diktat of a European Fiscal Union stepped closer to reality than ever before.

By March 2012, another EU Treaty with as strong historical implications as those of the Treaty of Maastricht is due to be signed.

Out of the EU’s current 27 members (soon to be 28), at least 23 countries will no longer decide exclusively by themselves how to shape their national budgets. A Big – and pressumably wiser – Brother in Brussels (the European Commission) would ‘help’ national governments plan their spending more carefully.

That should be cheered as a ‘triumph’ of common sense and seen as a ‘safeguard’ that public debt would stop accumulating to unsustainable levels in EU countries, we were told.

Nevertheless, this assumption regarding the smooth functioning of the future United States of Europe (USE) does absolutely nothing to solve the actual economic crisis in Europe, and the future of the common currency is still uncertain.

Irrespective of the ideological debate – is it worth giving up national sovereignty or not, could Europeans live better within the USE than in their national states? – a full fiscal union offers no solutions to the current debt crisis…

Neither to the lack of competitivity of many European economic sectors or to the demographic and moral decline of the Old Continent.

When and who is ever going to address those issues in the EU? For how long would political leaders be fooled by fictions such as ‘economic growth’ and ‘prosperity’, which are impossible to achieve while built up on other fictions such as ‘credit’ and ‘capital markets’?

When will history makers (politicians) learn the bitter lessons of history that all times of severe crisis are the broader consequence of a grave moral ills rather than effects of mere disfunctionalities or redeemable mistakes?

There cannot be growth on a continent where millions of EU nationals are are still ‘second (or even fourth!) class citizens’ on the job market, where the brain drain to the USA has never ceased, where hedonism, promiscuity, moral relativism and abortions are widespread.

On the other hand, Britain’s PM David Cameron also claimed his petty ‘victory’ for managing to snatch his country out of the future new European treaty.

Far be it from me to join those deploring Great Britain’s self-condemnation to many years (the most commmonly invoked figure is 20) of isolation. After all, outside the European Exchange Mechanism and the Eurozone, Britain had done better than it would have probably done inside.

Anyway, the much esteemed financial services and the partly nationalised British banking system will not remain immune to what’s going on in the Eurozone, and their freedom of maneuver could be limited whether the UK is in or out a new EU treaty.

Cameron put himself in a ridiculous position, as defender of the bankers (and not for the first time!) in an era when everyone hates them, although most EU Council solutions to the crisis favoured this clique, not the European taxpayers.

In spite of being portrayed as an isolationist (in Europe) or foolish (at home), he dared taking a huge gamble, and that’s somewhat admirable.

Especially when compared to yesmen like Romania’s President Traian Băsescu, who has been a brainwashed lobbyist for the USE even long before this last EU summit.

Last, the little victories of the Hungarian, Swedish and Czech delegations who said they would first consult national parliaments are also ridiculous. It’s not impossible but very unlikely that they would join Britain on the isolationist path.

Britain and Sweden could possibly afford it, like Switzerland and Norway. But Hungary and the Czech Republic would eventually give in to unbearable pressures.

All the triumphalism of those pretending to avoid a catastrophy either by wowing for deeper European integration or, on the contrary, by staying out of too much integration – is equally meaningless.

Europe is in desperate need of both sound economic solutions and of reshaped moral foundations, which it gravely lacks.

Their absence is by no means a sign that the Old Continent requires a ‘revolution’ in political terms or a sort of ‘Nuremberg trial’ for a failed generation of bankers and/or politicians.

It would actually need other Europeans – people aspiring towards what truly matters in this life (which is but an antechamber of afterlife), not hordes of hedonist copycats, enslaved by the dreadful illusion that happiness equals a perpetual ‘I-do-what-I-please (having fun, feeling good) here and now’...

Simply replacing a wrong ideological model (unrestricted free flow of capital, living on credit) with another (a centralisation of austerity) leaves little room for hope. Everything will keep turning from bad to worse.

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

A joke about Germany’s supremacy in Europe [O glumă despre supremaţia Germaniei în Europa]

Germany’s economic supremacy in today’s Europe (EU and EMU respectively) may not be anything to joke about. It’s a sheer fact.

.

No matter how much the Perfidious Albion, France, Poland or Romania would be whining about it, there’s only one economic superpower in the EU.

.
The topic is very interesting and – God willing – I would like to write more about it in 2011, especially as the ‘EMU crisis’ (or ‘euro crisis’, or whatever… – but still a ‘crisis’) is far from over.
.

Until then, here’s an interesting joke that could well be about... Germany’s lobby in Brussels. And let us ignore for a while that the German language is in not position of challenging the supremacy of English yet.
.

However, the joke (I thank a fellow blogger for sending it to me) it’s not completely far-fetched, as it may seem to some.
.

It makes an interesting analogy to how Germans know how to have things ‘done their way’ within the EU. They many not have Hitler’s Wehrmacht, but their economy is as strong today as it has ever been for the past two hundreds of years.
.

Enjoy the joke (+ my not-so-spectacular pics from Berlin), and keep an eye on Germany! I’d say it’s too early to dismiss this country’s potential on the world’s stage.
.

We’d better try to understand more this of country, and even learn German!
.

Even before learning Chinese, I’d say that any European country not having at least several ‘platoons of intellectuals’ who could speak perfect German and perfect Russian has a severe handicap. Only God can spare that country of the cost of such ignorance!
.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
.

“Euro-English”
(nothing but a joke, but bearing a ‘seed of truth’ like every joke :-)
.

The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the EU rather than German which was the other possibility.
.

As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty’s Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a five year phase-in plan that would be known as ‘Euro-English’.
.

In the first year, ‘s’ will replace the soft ‘c’. Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard ‘c’ will be dropped in favour of the ‘k’. This should klear up konfusion and keyboards kan have 1 less letter.
.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome ‘ph’ will be replaced with ‘f’. This will make words like ‘fotograf’ 20% shorter.
.

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be ekspekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible.
.

Governments will enkorage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling.
.

Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of the silent ‘e’-s in the language is disgraseful, and they should go away.
.

By the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing ‘th’ with ‘z’ and ‘w’ with ‘v’. During ze fifz year, ze unesesary ‘o’ kan be dropd from vords kontaining ‘ou’ and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.
.

After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi to understand ech ozer.
.

Ze drem vil finali kum tru! Und ve vil al be speking German lik zey vunted in ze furst plas!
.

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

The European Citizens’ Initiative: could it improve anything? [Iniţiativa Cetăţenească Europeană: ar putea îmbunătăţi ceva?]

As the European Monetary Union (EMU) is in dire straits, the battle for the European Citizen Initiative (ECI) is doomed to be kept out of the media spotlights.

Few Europeans, out of so many burdened with earning a living in a more and more hostile economic climate, know that this ECI is about giving them a chance to forward law proposals directly to the European Commission.
.

Even fewer of those few who are aware of this innovation made possible by the Treaty of Lisbon care about whether this invention will ever be brought to life, and if it will ever prove to be an effective tool of participatory democracy.

Most of the people I know (including readers of this blog) are more likely to be part of the ever growing ‘skeptical camp’… Thus, they would probably exclaim something like the following, bewildered with my naivety:

“What participatory democracy?! There’s no such thing in the EU! Can’t you see that it’s all some sort of couch-potato democracy? How can you be so stupid not to see that all decisions that matter are taken behind closed doors?”

“What faith can you still have in the EU or in democracy in general, when you see the MEPs asking for an increased budget, when the eurocrats recently had their pay rise confirmed by the European Court of Justice?”
.

On the spot, while under the heavy bombardment of such questions, I admit that one can hardly find much to say against such a diatribe, sprung from the embittered hearts of so many people. Politics has gravely disappointed many people in the EU.

If dialogue with such decidedly ‘anti-EU’ people would still be possible, I’d first say to them that I don’t put faith in any human construction. How could anyone have faith in earthly institutions, and not in the Maker of all things visible and invisible?

Maybe this is precisely what explains their disillusionment… People all over the EU put all their faith in this ‘paradise on Earth’ that allows us to abort millions of children, to live carelessly, and enjoy benefits that Americans couldn’t dream of.

But the piggy bank of the Welfare State is now broken. Having fun till in the late 20s, retiring in the early 60s, having holidays abroad every year, choosing not to work if staying on the dole is more convenient may slowly become a thing of the past.

A golden age of hedonism may be over. It wasn’t (exclusively) the EU’s merit while it lasted, nor it is EU’s fault because it’s no longer possible. A day of reckoning has come, and we should thank God for this chance of coming to our senses.

On the other hand, I would also admit that both in the old EU (EU15), where people had decades of benefits from being part of the Union, and in the newer EU (EU12), there are objective reasons for citizens to feel confused, irritated, and disheartened.

They are witnessing a widening gap between the EU elite and themselves, the ordinary people. Much of what’s on Brussels’ agenda may not be on the citizen’s agenda and vice versa.

Yet this is what the ECI could do – bridge the gap. Wouldn’t it be an interesting to see people (not so many: one million) being able suggest what should become law in the Union? It may not work wonders, but it could prove useful.

Keeping all politicians under a (healthy, not paranoid!) presumption of guilt, some of those who know about the ECI have noticed immense pressures from governments, and quite possibly industrial lobbysts, to make it as ‘useless’ as possible.

Initially, gathering signatures was supposed to take no more than 12 months, from a 1/3 of EU’s Member States (9 countries). Now, the draft bill refers to more time available, 18 or even 24 months, and to fewer countries – 1/5 of 27.

That makes 5.4 countries, but I hope they will reasonably solve the dilemma, without having Belgium split or Scotland secede from the UK to make up for the 0.4 :-)
.

Another barrier against an effective ECI is the request of several governments want that each signer should provide the number of their ID card or passport number. This is a requirement that would radically decrease participation.

For fear of not having their data collected many people would probably give up the idea of supporting a proposal. According to an ECAS survey, up to 66% of those required to put their ID number on a ECI could refuse to sign.

The battle against deterrent restrictive conditions for the validity of a ECI is carried out these days in the European Parliament, and those favouring a ‘citizen friendly ECI’ are asking their support for this petition.

It’s pointless to complain about the democratic deficit in the EU, while not trying to address it. Hardly could the ECI turn almost 400 million Europeans of voting age into politically-conscious citizens like the Swiss, but why not try to have a say?
.

A petition which could one day turn into a ECI is the one that asks for a complete ban of GMOs in Europe. That would be a great victory against a huge army of transatlantic lobbyists, wouldn’t it?

.

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