Ringhişpil de ură [Merry-go-round of hatred]

Oricâte argumente ar căuta, şlefui şi pune în vitrină oricare dintre tabere – în favoarea acestui fals erou al democraţiei, Traian Băsescu, sau împotriva lui – ele nu mai contează în aceste zile.

A încerca să convingi pe cineva care îl vrea dus pe Dictachior ori pe un băsist portocaliu şi în cerul gurii de valabilitatea a măcar 5% dintre ideile susţinute de cealaltă parte are tot atâtea şanse de izbândă precum a câştiga Marele Premiu la Loto 6 din 49.

Atât cei care îl vor plecat (eventual şi la puşcărie) pe Traian Băsescu, cât şi cei care îl vor înapoi la Cotroceni au cam înţeles că ora dezbaterilor a trecut. De fapt, cu valul de isterie băsistă nici nu s-ar fi putut discuta nimic.

Comparând Parlamentul României cu Parlamentul Republicii de la Weimar, care a favorizat ascensiunea lui Adolf Hitler, şi trimiţând şarje de delaţiuni la Bruxelles, oamenii preşedintelui cred că dreptatea este de partea lor.

Numai că Dreptatea nu a fost niciodată de partea mârlăniei, aroganţei, şantajului, violenţei de limbaj, ipocriziei, minciunilor neruşinate, furtişagului ridicat la nivel de excelenţă şi altor metehne care au caracterizat cei ultimii opt ani de domnie băsistă.

Cei care urlă că înlăturarea idolului lor este ‘lovitură de stat’ sau ‘atac asupra instituţiilor statului’ refuză să vadă cât de găunos este personajul pe care l-au pus pe un piedestal al democraţiei.

Băsescu are de dat răspunsuri despre dispariţia flotei comerciale a României, despre aducerea trenurilor cu mineri în iunie 1990, despre mascarada răpirii jurnaliştilor români în Irak (2005) şi despre punerea ţării pe masa de disecţie a FMI (2009).

Poate mai mult decât orice, el trebuie să răspundă despre ce s-a ales de promisiunile sale de erou al luptei anticorupţie din 2004. Cum se face de caracatiţa roşie, atribuită lui Adrian Năstase, a fost înlocuită de o mai lacomă şi mai neruşinată caracatiţă portocalie?

Dincolo de propaganda auto-intitulaţilor inteligenţi, democraţi, europeni etc, există destule argumente pentru a susţine că DA, Băsescu trebuie să plece – citiţi aici, aici, aici, aici, aici, aici, aici, aici, aici, aici, aici, aici, aici sau aici.

Doar că nu mai este timp de argumente, în aceste ultime zile dintr-un război al nervilor. Este o încleştare nebună care poate fi numai preludiul unui şi mai înverşunat război dacă Băsescu revine în funcţie. Şi n-o mai poate face decât la masa verde.

Fiecare parte pune gaz pe foc, încercând să aţâţe suficientă ură. Pentru ca cei care îl urăsc pe Băsescu să se mobilizeze la urne, în ciuda caniculei şi a perioadei concediilor. Sau, de cealaltă parte, pentru ca susţinătorii lui să stea departe de secţiile de votare.

Strâmbând din nas în faţa duhorilor democraţiei – pe care şi-or fi închipuind-o vreo zeiţă fără de cusur?! – unii simandicoşi sceptici zic că nimic bun n-a ieşit din ură şi deplâng faptul că românii iarăşi votează (sau nu o fac) mânaţi de ură.

Dar n-ar fi cazul să ne simţim ruşinaţi de aşa ceva. Dacă acceptăm premisa că mobilizarea masivă la vot este posibilă doar ca urmare a mobilizării urii, ar reieşi că mai nimic de la Revoluţia franceză încoace nu s-a clădit pe altceva decât pe ură.

Toate idealurile măreţe şi principiile generoase au fost scrise după ce au curs valuri de sânge şi s-au adunat stive de capete tăiate. Or, acum nici vorbă de aşa ceva. Românii vor doar să scape de Băsescu, cum au vrut să scape şi de Ceauşescu. Dar nu cu gloanţe, ci cu voturi.

Nici în 1989 nu şi-o fi dorit nimeni din România vărsare de sânge şi asasinarea dictatorului în ziua de Crăciun. Dar au vrut alţii în locul nostru, orchestrând acel proces stalinist. Acum, de ce să ni-l vrea alţii pe Băsescu?

Să fi avut românii şansa de a-l da jos pe Carol al II-lea încă din primăvara anului 1940, poate că acea tragică vară din istoria României ar fi arătat altfel. Poate că încă nu era prea târziu ca pierderile să fi fost mai mici.

Să fi avut şansa de a-l trimite pe Ceauşescu la o blândă puşcărie (ca pe Todor Jivkov) sau într-un autoimpus exil (ca pe Erich Honecker), poate că şi istoria ultimilor 23 de ani ar fi fost mai blândă cu noi.

A-l da pe Băsescu afară de la Cotroceni nu înseamnă că, automat, în locul regimului său fals proslăvit drept unul justiţiar (?!) se va instala un regim injust (?!) controlat de plagiatorul Victor Ponta, cum urlă vuvuzelele portocalii.

Băsescu nu este întruchiparea justiţiei imparţiale, nici garantul democraţiei funcţionale şi nici catalizatorul unei economii prospere. Fără el, poate că ceva-ceva s-ar putea să fie mai bine; dar cu el – sigur nimic nu poate să fie bine.

Cu Băsescu – rămânem în buzunarul Germaniei, iar birul către Marele Licurici va creşte, căci va trebui să pluseze pentru a cumpăra bunăvoinţa Unchiului Sam, care pare (oricum, să nu ne luăm după aparenţe!) gata să-l lase din braţe.

Cu Băsescu – nu avem nicio libertate de mişcare la rangul de al şaptelea stat ca mărime în UE, ci suntem slugoi, arvuniţi deja pentru a face parte dintr-o Eurozonă, de unde unii (Grecia) nu ştiu cum să scape, iar alţii se felicită că n-au intrat (Suedia).

Poate că aceasta este democraţia şi nimic mai mult – un carusel al urii, în care nu suim cu toţii, odată la alegerile la termen sau mai des (în caz de referendum). Ne învârtim ce ne învârtim, ameţim şi, la finalul cursei, îl aruncăm peste bord pe indezirabili.

Nu tăiem capete, nu exilăm pe nimeni, ci doar ne bucurăm că îi dăm afară din terenul de joc pe cei care ne-au devenit nesuferiţi şi le râdem în nas susţinătorilor lor, dintre care destui au profitat din plin cât au fost ai lor la putere.

Este o bucurie primitivă, care nu poate aduce nimănui un plus de fericire, nici nu ne abslovă de vinovăţii personale, cum niciun ţap ispăşitor nu o poate face. Atâta ne poate dărui democraţia, un rău fără de care ne-ar putea fi şi mai rău.

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

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]

Will the Eurozone crack? [Va crăpa Eurozona?]

More than three years after the Wall Street Crash of 2008, the unthinkable demise of the euro and the break-up of the Eurozone has (apparently) become plausible.

It’s getting crystal clear even to the most fanatic euroenthusiasts that any imminent economic cataclysm cannot be blamed on convenient scapegoats anymore.

The lazy Greeks, the irresponsible governments in Eurozone weak links countries (PIIGS), along with greedy bankers everywhere may have played relatively secondary roles in influencing the destiny of the EMU.

Nevertheless, the fate of the European currency has never been – nor is it in these very days of turmoil – in the hands of less important actors like the above.

The devil lies in the details of EU treaties and especially in the chain of misdeeds committed by the political leaders of Europe, whether acting unilaterally, from Berlin, Paris or Rome, or together, from Brussels.

Hardly could the roots of the current crisis be located in Frankfurt, as the ECB has seldom had its hands united by the heads of state and government reunited in the Council of the Union.

More and more independent economists show that the mess engulfing the EU and threatening to blow up the global economy has systemic causes.

The EMU is on the brink of disaster because it lacks several fundamental premises of an efficient monetary union; it is made up of an econimic ‘giant’ (Germany) with 16 ‘feet of clay’ of various strengths from stronger (France) and weaker (Italy) muscles to negligible appendices (Estonia).

The ECB could be reasonably functioning as a central bank (if allowed to act do so), yet there is no effective equivalent of a national Treasury (Ministry of Finances) or Government in Brussels.

For decades, EU leaders have been deploring the lack of a common defence policy (greatly compensated by NATO) or of a common energy policy (whose absence contributes to the fact that Europeans are often ‘energy hostages’ of Russia).

It was fashionable to complain about these issues, however, none was as divisive and able to threaten the survival of the EU as the other skeleton that the current crisis took out of the Union’s closet – there is no common fiscal policy of the EMU.

In its absence, sooner or later, the Eurozone would be doomed to crack, like some analysts anticipated in the late 1990s, if not even longer before, around the dawn of this project.

The flaws of the EMU were known from the very beginning but swept under a carpet of great expectations about increased common prosperity.

For a while, the illusion worked. After the first months of wariness, when many Europeans in euro countries were shocked by price hikes, almost everyone grew accustomed with a stable currency, no need for exchange rates, low inflation and bearable interest rates.

The Greeks, Spaniards, Portuguese and others had access to cheap credit, while their tourist industries cashed in strong euros, instead of weak drachmas, pesetas or escudos.

In the meantime, the euro was weaker than how the Deutsche Mark would have probably been in the 2000s, enabling Germany to be biggest world exporter in 2007, ahead of China.

The success story seemed complete, and many warnings (like the ones about Italy being unfit for EMU membership (+ here, here, here) – see the pics*** illustrating this article!) were bluntly dismissed as nonsensical soothsaying.

Actually, there’s growing evidence that it was well-known to the architects of the euro that the Eurosystem was ill conceived from the start.

This didn’t prevent them from taking a huge gamble on the hope that a severe crisis (like the one the world has endured since 2008) would eventually help establish a “a more perfect union,” like the Constitution of the USA aimed in 1787.

Is this imperfect monetary union perfectible? Are the 17 euro countries willing to take upon themselves the full political cost of making the EMU truly functional?

And could giving up more of one country’s sovereignty guarantee anything for the EU’s citizens (“we the people,” if we were to quote the US Constitution again), apart from helping save the banking system from collapse?

Will a ‘full fiscal union’ work better than the current ailing EMU? The Eurosystem would probably run smoothly, yet the imbalances between the 17 economies would remain as grave as they are today, if not even worsen.

Smothering public deficits from the cradle would not grant choices of more responsible political leaders to European voters; it would merely ignite more vicious political battles and maybe even ‘class conflict’ within nations.

And, riskier than anything else, wouldn’t this ‘EU Treasury’ remain as unaccountable to European citizens as other EU institutions and leaders that created the current ‘euro-mess’ have always been?

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

*** NOTE: Simon Tilford, from the Center for European Reform (London based think-tank), warned that “if Italy fails to improve its competitiveness, it will eventually have to leave the Eurozone” (2006).

[EN] Hail to competing sites / [RO] Salutări siteurilor concurente (18)

[EN] A blog that thrashes the Eurozone (EMU) and everything that an be deemed good in regard to the EU is one kept by this Irish journalist from Brussels. [RO] Un blog care chelfăneşte Eurozona (EMU) şi tot ceea ce poate fi considerat bun în legătură cu UE este ţinut de această jurnalistă irlandeză din Bruxelles.

[EN] Hosted by the conservative and euroskeptic The Daily Mail, the blog has no mercy for pro-EU European leaders. [RO] Găzduit de conservatorul şi euroscepticul The Daily Mail, blogul nu are milă pentru liderii europeni pro-UE.

[EN] In the author’s view, for everything bad in Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal or Italy it’s surely the EU’s fault… [RO] În opinia autoarei, pentru tot răul din Grecia, Irlanda, Spania, Portugalia sau Italia este în mod sigur vina UE…

[EN] Enjoying less success than such a blog are the European Commission’s efforts (here, here, here) to defuse the myths and rumours about the EU. [RO] Bucurându-se de mai puţin succes decât un astfel de blog sunt eforturile Comisiei Europene (aici, aici, aici) de a dezamorsa miturile şi zvonurile despre EU.

[EN] Of which the Brit newspapers (especially but not exclusively) are filled with, often on a daily basis. [RO] De care ziarele britanice  (în special, dar nu exclusiv) sunt pline, adesea zi de zi.

[EN] Where does the truth lie? That’s for my readers to figure out for themselves! [RO] Unde se află adevărul? Cititorii mei să-l descopere singuri!

[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]

[EN] No comment / [RO] Fără comentarii (14) – Dreadful Septembers / Cumplite septembrii

[EN] This is where the mess started four years ago, although the dirt had been swept under the carpet for long before. [RO] De aici a pornit mizeria acum patru ani, deşi gunoiul era ascuns sub preş cu mult înainte.

[EN] In September 2007, Northern Rock (pictured here in Brighton), one of the top five British mortgage lenders, reached the brink of bankruptcy. [RO] În septembrie 2007, Northern Rock (pozată aici în Brighton), unul dintre primii cinci creditori ipotecari britanici) a ajuns la un pas de faliment.

[EN] G. Clown’s Government saved the bank by nationalisation, a process finalised in early 2008. [RO] Guvernul lui G. Clown a salvat banca prin naţionalizare, un proces finalizat la începutul lui 2008.

[EN] The same solution would be applied a year later (October 2008), to prevent the downfall of the entire British banking system. [RO] Aceeaşi soluţie a fost aplicată un an mai târziu (octombrie 2008), pentru a preveni căderea întregului sistem bancar britanic.

[EN] The nationalisation in the UK had been precipitated by the eruption of the biggest crisis of our times on Wall Street (in September 2008). [RO] Naţionalizarea din UK fusese precipitată de erupţia celei mai mari crize din vremea noastră pe Wall Street (în septembrie 2008).

[EN] Then, the fourth American investment bank (Lehman Brothers) was not not propped up but left to die… [RO] Atunci, cea de-a patra bancă de investiţii americană (Lehman Brothers) nu a fost susţinută, ci lăsată să moară…

[EN] These days, more and more economic ‘soothsayers’ foresee a worsening of the ongoing crisis (+ here, here, here). [RO] În aceste zile, tot mai mulţi ‘ghicitori’ economici prevăd o înrăutăţire a crizei în desfăşurare (+ aici, aici, aici).

[EN] Some go as far as naming name the next big victim: Bank of America (pictured here in California) – an alleged ‘target’ of WikiLeaks. [RO] Unii merg până într-acolo, încât numesc următoarea mare victimă: Bank of America (pozată aici în California) – o presupusă ‘ţintă’ a WikiLeaks.

[EN] Ten years after September 11, 2001, it’s apparently the best time for the death of another financial dinosaur, for another dreadful September. [RO] La zece ani după 11 septembrie 2001, se pare că este cel mai bun timp pentru moartea altui dinozaur financiar, pentru alt septembrie de groază.

[EN] Sept 15 (1992) was the Black Wednesday of the pound sterling (GBP), Sept 14 (2007) – the liquidity crisis of Northtern Rock, Sept 15-16 (2008) – the end of Lehman Brothers… [RO] Sept 15 (1992) a fost Miercurea Neagră a lirei sterline (GBP), sept 14 (2007) – criza de lichidităţi a Northern Rock, sept 15-16 (2008) – sfârşitul Lehman Brothers...

[EN] Were all these coincidences? Could we add  Sept 1-3 (1939), Sept 12 (1944), Sept 11 (1973) or even Sept 2-7 (1792) ? [RO] Au fost toate acestea coincidenţe? Am putea adăuga sept 1-3 (1939), sept 12 (1944), sept 11 (1973) sau chiar sept 2-7 (1792)?

[EN] According to Orthodox Tradition, September was the month when the Holy Trinity created the world. [RO] Potrivit Tradiţiei ortodoxe, septembrie a fost luna când Preasfânta Treime a creat lumea.

[EN] In our times, September seems to be the month when someone is trying to re-create the world for the worse. [RO] În vremurile noastre, septembrie pare luna când cineva încearcă să re-creeze lumea în mai rău.

[EN] We can’t be sure if and what exactly will happen; let’s not fool ourselves that anyting to come is undeserved! [RO] Nu putem fi siguri dacă şi ce anume se va întâmpla; să nu ne amăgim că orice stă să vină este nemeritat!

[EN] And if it won’t be Bank of America, could it be the worst (so far) or the last September of the Eurozone?  [RO] Şi dacă n-o fi să fie Bank of America, ar putea fi cel mai rău (de până acum) sau ultimul septembrie al Eurozonei?
.
[EN] And if it’s not another ‘financial blow’, could it be another terrorist attack? Or a war? Which of our idols,  prosperity or peace, be hit this time? [RO] Şi dacă nu este o altă ‘lovitură financiară’, ar putea fi un alt atac terorist? Sau un război? Care dintre idolii noştri, pacea sau prosperitatea va fi lovit de data aceasta?

[EN] Politically speaking, we should be aware that the death of the certitudes mankind has been resting on since the end of the Cold War is unavoidable. [RO] Din punct de vedere politic, ar trebui să fim conştienţi că moartea certitudinilor pe care a stat lumea de la sfârşitul Războiului Rece este inevitabilă.

[EN] States, economies, businesses and people’s lives are no longer based on realities (work, innovation, entrepreneurship etc) but on a big lie – the world of credit. [RO] Statele, economiile, afacerile şi vieţile oamenilor nu se mai bazează pe realităţi (muncă, inovaţie, antreprenoriat etc), ci pe o mare minciună – lumea creditului.

[EN] On spiritual terms, we are haversting the fruits of the ‘paradise on earth’ we dreamed of, turning our backs to our Maker and denying Him copyrights for His Creation. [RO] În termeni spirituali, culegem fructele ‘paradisului pe pământ’ la care am visat, întorcând spatele Creatorului nostru şi negându-I drepturile de autor asupra Creaţiei Sale.

[EN] Let’s see how or science, humanist values, hedonist goals, and moral relativism will save us now! [RO] Să vedem cum ştiinţa, valorile umaniste, scopurile hedoniste şi relativismul moral ne vor mântui acum!

[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]