iPhone 7 audio jack saga

OK, the fallout begins.

Here is a story from VOX about why apple abolished the headphone jack:
How badly is this written? The arguments are if I briefly list them:
(a) Apple has done this before. Initially with the iMac and Floppy + proprietary ports in favour of USB, and then with first Air, and last year with Macbook.
OK. The first time they did it was to move from a proprietary port to what became an industry standard. No one could be that deluded to think that the (proprietary) lightning port will become standard on e.g. Android phones. The first Air probably did not sell all that well, especially after Thinkpad x300 was unveiled. If it sold that well, there would have been no reason for the comprehensively redesigned next gen Air. And Macbook might have sold well, bit there is nothing to compare it to. There is no fanless, light, Macbook with several USB ports and thunderbolt. So, it might have sold well (if), but one that wasn’t as hobbled might have sold better. A surface 4 PRO is similar but it is an actual computer, not a toy. My point here is that Apple is now switching to proprietary technology that locks people in not to an industry standard.
(b) Second reason is water resistance. If we ignore for a moment that there are android phones that are water resistant with an audio jack included, we should look more closely at what water resistance here means. Apple said that this is their most water-resistant phone yet. This is not saying much if the previous generation was a water resistant as a sheet of paper. A business card is more water resistant than the previous iPhone. So the new one is all that (less than 1m for less than 30minutes), but you still cannot drop it in your toilet, because it is not resistant enough. So let’s not include this as an advantage.
(c) Lightning headphones can produce better sound than regular ones. Yah, I bet that Audeze Titanium EL-8 sound better than apple headphones included with iPhone 6S. I am not so sure they sound better than a regular non-lightning pair of $800 headphones. Yes, this is how much the Audeze cost. How would they fare compared to Shures or Beyer Dynamics or Sennheisers in that price range? Apples to oranges much?
(d) The integrated DAC is crap anyway, as it is small. Well if you look at the tests, these DAC’s are actually pretty good. And if you were pinning for a very expensive headphone amp and DAC, you could buy it even before the i7 and combine it with high quality IEM’s and still pay less. I notice even Vox is not insane enough to push Beats as a serious solution.
(e) Apple is “betting that however much you might hate having to buy new headphones, you’re going to love the sleeker look of the new iPhone 7 so much that you’ll buy one anyway”. Are you kidding me? I have thousands of pounds invested in headphones. Why would I switch from my current daily-driver Shure SE535’s to another solution that will potentially cost me more for inferior quality just so I can pad Apple’s bottom line (they charge license fees)? And my IEM’s tend to outlast my phones. I am not happy to buy a product that I cannot use on my iPod Classic, Surface, rMacBook Pro, or desktop, and find out that Apple has decided to junk the port when the fancy strikes them.
(f) Apple can make the new phone sleeker, with better battery life and lower the cost if they cut out the headphone jack. Really? There is only one iPhone storage option (128Gb) that can be compared across 6S and 7. The price in the UK for the iPhone 7 is £699 and for iPhone 6S it was £619 at launch. Thus the same capacity iPhone costs £80 more. Consumers generally like it when lowering the cost of production reflects on their bottom line, not just increase the profits for the company. Yes, yes, Brexit. So, perhaps don’t make the same prices across generations the selling point, Apple.
(g) Why not go wireless? The airpods will only cost £159.
Of course most of us who care will use the included adapter if we decide to go for the new iPhone. You can currently buy almost two Sennheiser ie7’s for that price. And Shure SE425 are also about there. We’ll see how they compare in audio quality. I am betting the airpods are about as good as the regular earpods (which is not very, indeed). And my IEM’s don’t only work a few hours at a time. And have at least twice as many speakers inside each bud.

Mladina about Brexit

I translated an article in Slovene about Brexit from a popular Slovene Magazine Mladina. To be clear, the following text is not mine, it was written by Grega Repovž and the original can be found here: http://mladina.si/175145/cas-za-delavsko-internacionalo/ All the rights are retained by the original author. I only translated it after the article became freely available online (as is the case with all Mladina articles a week after they appear in press).

Time for The Workers International!

The British did not vote against the European Union, but against the free movement of labour. And they are right: the European labour market benefits the rich and the Capital storming Europe weakens and destroys it. Of course you can point the finger, join in, and be appalled at the Brits. Look at them, they really are racist, you’ll be saying, that is what this was all about. They do not like the Poles, they do not like the Slovenes, and they do not like the Pakistanis … But the truth was actually clearly indicated by those Brits who have voted to exit the European Union: The free movement of labour along with the free movement of capital and services, that is presently the foundation of the EU, to them signifies an unfair competition among employees, reduces labour and social rights of the population, and leads all those UK residents who can only offer their labour, into an ever growing spiral of increasing hardship. And the immigrants are victimised in exactly the same way.

Of course, the Brits, who have voted to leave the European Union, do not say that they are bothered about the free movement of labour. Most of them are less politically savvy voters. They believe the immigrants stand at the heart of the problem. But if each of us makes a list of friends and acquaintances, who from 2004 to today went to Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands, France, etc., found a job, and created a new life, a pattern will emerge. If we exclude those in highly skilled positions, whose pay is tied to their specific knowledge, we’ll find that in most other cases these workers’ salaries are lower than average in that country (for that position). In addition, most of these individuals do not hold open-ended appointments and their job security is generally poor. Out of of my acquaintances, in all but two cases (one working at a University, another in a hospital), no one is paid equal wage compared to their British co-workers. Even my two acquaintances are not quite convinced that their status is really the same, although they are reluctant to talk about it at work. Almost everyone who is not extraordinary in some way, works more than allowed to by law, has a lower standard of living and is paid less than their British, German, or Dutch colleagues. The vast majority of those who perform less demanding jobs, does not hold a long-term or open-ended contract, and their workdays are longer than it’s legal. They work Saturdays and Sundays, and their pension plans are minimal or non-existent. Many of these people have been interviewed in various Slovenian newspapers, or on the national television. Their life stories were presented as an umitigated success in Slovenia. While in fact these individuals do not live so well.

Most Slovenians who work abroad, did not get their jobs because they were above average, but because they are simply willing to work more for less pay compared to Britons. In most cases they receive no workers benefits or allowances which are common for Brits and indeed for those Slovenes who remained in Slovenia. Starting with the the paid leave, which for many is significantly lower or non-existent. But these are only the most visible cases.

The easier the job, the less likely is it for employers to observe the EU (or British) standards of employment and the more likely that the job will be held by an immigrant.

The harshest cases can be found among those who work through the various employment agencies. They do not appear on the labour market as employees, but simply as a service that is, for example, offered to a German or a British company by a Slovenian agency. We are very familiar with these cases in Slovenia: TV Slovenia journalist Jelena Aščić monthly discloses the horror stories about abuses that happen through these agencies. Although the spin is usually that this is a shady business practice that only happens to Slovenes, perpetrated by Slovenian companies. In fact this is now a normal standard in the European labour market. European companies everywhere use this cheap labour from Countries that have a lower standard. Slovenian companies do the same thing by, for example, “importing” cheap workers from Croatia. In Germany, several million individuals live and work this way.

Of course, Slovenia is not at all different: Slovenian construction sites are full of employees from former Yugoslavia, as well as from Romania, Bulgaria and other Countries. They are working for substantially lower salaries than their Slovene counterparts, labouring for 14 hours a day and living in (for us) impossible conditions. They receive their money directly through 3rd World shell companies, and this is all tolerated for the sake of increased productivity.

The Capital, the higher classes and partly the middle class, reap the only benefits from the free movement of labour. Everybody else suffers from it.

Let’s look at the issue from the other perspective – from the viewpoint of the resident workers. Social classes hold differing opinions on the precariat. Higher and middle classes across Europe reap benefits from this cheap labour – their lives are more comfortable and affordable. If the shops, cafeterias and other companies that are part of the service industry employ cheap labour, they can lower their prices and thus their customers can benefit. If a local plumber from Manchester gets away by hiring Polish workers, who are paid less (and outside the established Union rules), they can therefore have lower prices and their customers benefit. The richer the individual, the more they stand to gain from the influx of cheap labour. Benefits span various governmental systems too – for example, the health services across Europe are increasingly hiring nurses and servers educated in poorer Countries, because they are cheaper. These immigrants usually come from poor living conditions and are willing to work longer hours for less money, they live in poorer and smaller flats, and are ready to give up many things, which are otherwise completely run-of-the-mill in a Country where they live now. Often these individuals are employed through the “inventive contracts” that allow for lower standards.

Today most of the EU economy is based on this abuse of labour – Slovenes might be used to this kind of movement of labour as it used to be governed by international treaties (for example, between Yugoslavia and Germany in the seventies). Nowadays all of this is covered by the fundamental documents of the European Union. Moreover, that is the essence of the European Union: the free movement of capital, services and labour. However, everything is part of the globalisation process, still one of the inviolable postulates on which the world is founded. This of course benefits the Capital first. It can not be denied, however, that the most underdeveloped countries and their citizens also reap the benefits. But on the other hand we get a shaken proletariat in the Western world.

Great Britain is not a typical European Country, for its standards were the first to decline. In fact, they were the first in Europe to introduce the most ruthless neo-liberal doctrine (under the auspices of the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher). And even after the austerity crisis, Britain has remained committed to the European austerity strategies. All the proposed cuts have been enacted by the British government itself. This coincided with the opening of the labour market, though.

Great Britain is one of the end links of the worker migration chain. I am saying this as young people from Germany, Sweden, or the UK, except for the highly specialised ones, do not leave for greener pastures around the world, as a rule. There is no need for that. This puts them in a stark contrast to young Slovenians who move to the UK in order to improve their lives. The Brits mostly relocate to Slovenia after they retire (especially if they are working or lower middle class), because the cost of living is so much lower here that their pensions afford them a better quality of life.

The European open labour market poses a large existential problem for less educated Brits across all of Europe. Their main difficulties are now largely linked to the open labour market. How, for example, can they compete with a young Slovenian girl who is prepared to share an apartment with four other seasonal workers; who is ready to forget about having a pension scheme, and the usual number of days of leave? How can they compete with a Croatian tire technician whose monthly salary at home was 340EUR and plans to earn some money and return home to Osijek in five years?

Let’s make another step towards the understanding of the emerging unease: How is a normally-situated Brit to compete with a Syrian refugee who has lost everything and is completely destitute? Someone who does not care about a pension plan, and is prepared to work seven fourteen hour days per week, without ever going on a leave? How can a young Hamburg architect compete with a young college graduate from Slovakia, who is perfectly willing to live in substandard conditions, only to gain hands-on experience? In addition, his apprenticeship wages will be only half of the German’s apprenticeship wages, but at the same time they will amount to six times the average wage in Slovakia.

Is it really so abhorrent to oppose this state of play on the European markets? The British, who are today protesting against the European labour market, are not asking for anything extraordinary: they only want to stop the erosion of their social, labour, and general rights that is carried out in the name of allegedly higher goals (which are in fact, just a push for higher corporate profits in disguise).

UK politicians are constantly pointing to the European Union as the culprit in this, although the truth is the reverse: the neoliberal social order in Europe is emerging from Great Britain, and not vice versa. The working class’ frustration is much greater because Great Britain is evidently not a Country in crisis, with its GDP constantly on the rise and with ever increasing corporate profits. At the same time, in the entire post-crisis period (which coincides with the freeing of the labour market), the wages in the UK when pitted against inflation, are declining, social rights are constantly being reduced, and jobs are getting less and less secure.

Things are similar in Germany, even though this a Country rising quickly in the economic sense. Obviously the emerging inequality is not felt by the higher and middle classes, together with employees in the public and state administration. However, all the manual workers and those working in less demanding jobs experience it daily. Their standard of living is falling, despite the good macroeconomic results. They are the ones who suffer the consequences of a single labour market, they are facing cheaper workers from poorer European countries, and from Syria, Turkey, and Iran. In this market there are no longer any rules, and that effectively allows for the justification of any current neo-liberal economics. Are the Brits not in the right to oppose these inhuman conditions? Why should they support something that increases inequality, as it forces them out of the labour market, a system that makes them uncompetitive, and forces them to lose their elemental dignity?

It is unsettling that the anger of the proletariat, who yesterday still belonged to the lower middle class is expressed as a crude racism. It is obvious that a Pole working for a third of a minimum wage, under shameful conditions, in a job that five years ago was done by an Englishman or a German for a normal wage, is not the one to blame. Sadly, the ire of the population, stoked by the media and politicians, keeps getting diverted towards this unfortunate foreigner. In fact, both the disenfranchised Brit and the immigrant are the victims of the system that forms the foundations of modern Europe. This is the EU: an affiliation of 28 states that keeps lowering the taxes for the rich and the corporations, an affiliation where the European bureaucrats do not pay an income tax, an affiliation of Countries where economic growth is based more and more on the destruction of workers’ and social rights. And this union points to the free movement of labour as their crowning achievement.

To reiterate: the free movement of labour in the Western, richer European Countries benefits the rich, the higher class, and the upper middle class. For everybody else, it is an existential nightmare. And to these individuals, the workers who are willing to work for less money than is needed for a dignified life, pose a problem. They are like quislings in a war. They are the strike-breakers. Can we really approve of someone who is willing to work for less (regardless of their personal hardship), and as a consequence take a job of someone else? How was this ever acceptable?

The European labour market plays one worker against another. Exploiting the plight of a Romanian woman, who can not survive in Romania, and is pitted against a distressed Italian woman who could not accept such low wages as that would mean relinquishing their none-too-stellar-as-it-is standard of life. This is the European Union. Why would anyone want to support such a Union? We should not forget that in the previous decades the profits of corporations and enterprises were constantly on the rise, and that the highest classes have never in history been experiencing so rapid an increase of wealth. We should remember that these growing profits are largely due to the circumvention of labour rights and actual reduction of working class wages.

The growing fascism and hatred against immigrants and refugees, which often culminates in hatred against Muslims can be clearly blamed on the European Union and, of course, on all the Countries and governments that still follow the neo-liberal concept. Britain is among the least innocent parties in this respect. This is the only fundamental problem: There are more and more Europeans facing an existential crisis exacerbated by the fear of being unemployed. This fear is caused by the European labour market, where all the rules have fallen, and the golden standard is to exploit the employees. A market where it is permissible to play the poor and needy Easterners and “Southies” (for example, Slovenians) against the existing workforce. Do we really think that opulent xenophobia and the rise of nationalism in Austria has no connection to cheap workers without proper contracts from the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia and Slovenia, who are willing to work more for less money? Of course, businessmen (owners of Capital) are satisfied with higher profits. But why should this seem acceptable to an Austrian who has to accept a lower living standard to facilitate these profits, and is constantly reminded that the Slovenes of Styria, Carinthia and Prekmurje are far cheaper than them?

British withdrawal from the European Union can turn out to be one of the best things that happened to modern Europe. If the intellectuals, and the left-wing and Union leaders are able to seize this opportunity. Brexit should signify the beginning of a new workers’ International, bringing together workers, both domestic and migrant, for we should understand, everyone is disenfranchised, and no one is in a good spot right now.

The European Union, with its corporations and lackadaisical opulence can only be saved by admitting that it has betrayed the Europeans by serving the Capital. It should immediately start to recognize the rights and dignity of all workers by enforcing the same standards for all. Because otherwise the rage will only grow. The rage of employees whose lives are getting worse while profits increase and GDP grows, is growing stronger every year. If nothing happens sooner, it will only be possible to stop the fury with tanks, and an army. That is also a possible European future. Where the immigrants, who are no less victimised by the discriminatory legislature, will quite possibly be the first victims of this anger. This victimisation, where the rulling class under auspices of European treaties and national laws enacts the exploitation of labour and workers is especially true for Britain. The European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker should therefore cease browbeating British sceptics; and the MEPs, another wealthy European caste, should stop applauding him. How shameful it was for them to reveal this week that they understood nothing, and that they do not understand the problems that the offended Europeans are facing.

Great Britain has sent a very clear message to London and Brussels, on behalf of the European working class. The Brits may seem silly, and perhaps we can point to famed British arrogance. But let’s rather not. This behavior is an expression of a long-term hardship, for which the EU is not solely to blame, but it did help the neo-liberal politicians in all Countries to exploit their labour markets in order for companies to benefit to the detriment of their citizens. This is the hardship we need to address.

Brexit postmortem as it is happening




Well. Hard to say anything really. I was ambivalent before and still am. On one hand I am childishly expecting the screws to start tightening, on another I still cannot believe someone could be so insane. The markets are plummeting and will continue to do so.



To spell it out what Brexit means:

  • Renegotiation of trade deals across the board without protection of a larger entity like EU.
  • Renegotiation of entry requirements. Possible visas.
  • Foreign corporations moving to Scotland or other parts of Europe. JP Morgan already announced they are leaving.
  • Possible break-up of UK – Scotland already said they would remain in the EU. Northern Ireland also voted to stay in.
  • No more EU funding for schools and urban development.
  • No more easy student exchanges. Erasmus will be gone.
  • Tuition fees doubling to “international level”.
  • Added strain on NHS from all elderly ex-pats being evicted from Europe (Spain already said they would do that).
  • Financial currents move to Scotland or Germany and bypass England.
  • Pension schemes are taking a beating and some pension accounts have been closed already.

Now, it seems that the English are googling what the possible effects of the leave might be and [sic] what is the EU.

Apart from the obvious irony, I am also bitterly amused by the fact that people need to google what is going on. This can be compared to sitting at home and instead of looking through the window, surfing the Internet to find out what the weather is like. What do you mean “What is going to happen?” It has already started happenning. 2 trillion dollars have been lost in a day, the pound was in free fall, reaching the 1985 levels. Pension schemes are crashing. Tens of thousands of jobs lost in the City alone. And now you wonder what is going on?

Seriously, you wonder what is going to happen? It is already happening, just look outside. England is pushing the world towards recession and if we are lucky, only England will crash and burn, and if we are not, the world will stagger too.

I am angry. I did not realize it before, but we went to the theatre on Saturday and there were several short pieces presented. One of them was about American yokels coming to England and buying National Trust properties. There were passing references to how stupid Donald Drumpf is and I just got more and more upset.

And I did not understand why at first. Then it occurred to me, that the English have lost the right to pretend how suave and “better” they are compared to backwards tribes coming from the rest of the world. After fucking up the world because most of the country got scammed by a few people who seriously lined their pockets on the backs of others, you do not get to feel superior in any way, shape, or form.

After destroying the future of your younger generation, who will now need passports and will be checked at the customs every time they leave the country; the generation who will not be able to freely flow between European Universities on the back of Erasmus, you do not get to call anybody else backward. Are we clear?

Bah, I am upset yes. The smugness did not bother me before, because I bought into it in a sense, but now it is just jarring. Only now you wonder what is going to happen? Truly, some people just want to watch the world burn.

Many of our family friends are apologetic, they tell us they are ashamed and that they are sorry, etc. I tend to ignore this, because there is nothing I can say, really. We are in the same boat up to a point. Only theirs will be rapidly taking on water, and I will still have a European passport in the end. What can I say? “Sure, thank you for fucking up my job prospects? Thank you for making me uproot my child and her losing all her friends? I completely understand that you have fucked everyone over in the name of the illusions of old grandeur?” Should I say: “I know you voted remain, so no need to apologize, we’ll weather this together?” How will that help? Just bloody stop apologizing, since we are both screwed. We are now both living in a country where foreign people get abused the street (no seriously, it is already happening) and where MP’s get shot in the face (and then Nigel says that the leave campaign has won without a shot being fired). We are living in a country that did not deem fit to educate itself about what a colossal fuck-up they were going to commit. Why are you apologizing to me? It is not your fault, and we are both screwed. Apologize to your children, that would perhaps be more effective. Why don’t you explain to them how it was in the past, when we all still had a dream. A shabby and sub-optimal dream of a united continent with free flow of culture and knowledge, but a dream nonetheless. A dream that your nation has seen fit to take behind the shed and shoot in the head. Why don’t you explain the logic behind that to your children?

Why don’t you start the story by saying: “Once upon a time, there was a nation, where people believed in abolishing borders, and equality across gender, race or creed, but we preferred to cling to old glory, and decided to flip them off. We thought the nation would still pine for us and do everything they could for us to remain friends, but for some reason they treated the divorce as a divorce, and not as a master-servant relationship. Now, love, please let me extinguish the candle as energy sources have become expensive since we left the common market.”

How fucking stupid do you have to be to post comments along the lines of:

You LOST. Get it? A majority of the British people disagreed with you and you LOST.


The only change – and it will not come in any great rush – is that the UK will extricate itself from the EU’s extraordinary and opaque system of legislation.

Seriously? What kind of delusion you need to be living under to believe this crap? The Remain campaign lost and Leavers won? I’ve got news for you. You both LOST. We all lost. You continue losing about a month and a half of EU subsidies PER DAY. How, in your wildest dreams, do you see this as victory?

The UK will extricate itself from the EU laws? Well fine, (a) one option is to become like Norway, who has to accept all the laws from EU without a seat at the table. Ask the Norwegians how comfortable it is to have to accept Schengen after they said they did not want to. The EU just told them that this was not a request and faxed them the new rules. Want to be part of the common market? These are the conditions.

The other option is (b) to extricate itself completely. Fine, but do not live under the illusion of accessing the common market then. The commentators and Leavers say that UK is exporting 45% of its goods to EU and therefore EU will need to give them a good deal. This is a bit of putting a cart before the horse. I am betting that right now EU officials are meeting with Canada, US and all other friends and telling them that they have an opportunity to get a 0% tariff on importing to EU if they act now. 45% of UK exports are not the same as 45% of EU imports, see? It is not the UK holding the EU by the balls, but rather the opposite.

I am so interested to see how the government proceeds now. If they stop paying EU subsidies, the EU will invoke article 27 which is in place if a member state does not fulfill its obligations and that will screw UK immediately. If they do continue to pay, the only thing they have accomplished is impoverished its economy and lost all benefits from before, while holding the same obligations.

Oh you want to come back? No problem, say hello to the euro, which is a condition for new member states.

You would like to keep EU financial passports? Why would you get them back? Frankfurt is too busy counting all the money they will be making from financial currents transferring to Germany to bother with you.

The University has run out of paper forms for EU passports. Dozens of EU staff have already handed in their notices in some departments. And this is the second richest University in the world.

And then there are people who were saying that this referendum was not legally binding. It does not fucking matter, don’t you see? The damage to the UK economy has already happened and is continuing to happen. Even if they overthrow it right now, the foreign companies will still leave. Who wants to stay in a country this unstable? They do not trust England any more. The concessions that EU has been giving to the UK and the better terms they have been enjoying are gone. The ratings have been downgraded and will be downgraded further.

This is a total clusterfuck.

Addendum: In a part of Cambridge, in the Polish community, people have been receiving leaflets which state that the “Polish vermin” should now leave. Germany could have used you in the second world war, England. Next time, don’t wait 60 years to blame the Poles.



20160607_105201587_iOS 20160607_105148422_iOSOK, let’s talk about Brexit. I have only peripherally been following this overly politicized storm in a tea cup. It is not that I think it is impossible for Britain to shoot itself in the foot and “leave”. I guess it is possible, but I have some remnants of faith in the preservation instincts of the Brits. The campaign that is in full swing is rife with manipulations. And this is what bugs me.

A leaflet was recently delivered to my door, called: The UK and the European Union: THE FACTS (see image). I naively opened it, expecting to find said facts. They are sadly absent or twisted. It is not clear who wrote this piece of garbage – it seems that the authors would prefer to not be labelled racist bigots, so they stayed anonymous.

First there is a veiled appeal of telling us how when EU started, there were only 9 states, proud and tall, but now there are 28, full of riffraff and uncivilised savages. They do not come out and say it, no, what they say is that in the next round “[…]Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Turkey [will be considered for membership]”. And then they say: [sic] “If they are let in, they will have the same rights as other member states.”

(1) Heh. I have a hard time imagining that the authors think that right now all the member states have the same rights. If they do believe that, they are divorced from reality. Yeah, sure, Croatian minister of finance has exactly as much sway as the German one in deciding policy, riiiight. Or the Greeks, or Italians or Hungarians, they have exactly as much say right now as, say, Britain or France. Even now, the EU is not a union of equal states. Come on, wake up and smell the coffee.

(2) If we disregard (1), then I am wondering why is it surprising that members of a Union would have equal rights? Is that something that needs to be emphasised in order to scare common folk? Wooo, now a dirty Turk or a lazy Montenegran will be able to decide who to vote for in the European elections and then hope that these people will represent them fairly in the European Parliament. Terrifying, I know.

(3) While England used to own most of the known world at one point in time, the idea of indentured servitude is not as accepted now, as it was then. Your Turkish barber will now have a voice, yes. He is not your bloody slave. Rest easy, you will still be able to hire Brazilian maids even if South-Europeans will suddenly need to be treated like people.

I won’t go into every paragraph of this bumpf. Will just comment on a few more.

More than half of net migration to the UK comes from the EU

250.000 people in a year! In a population of 60+ million. Assuming the English stop reproducing now, they will be extinct in only 240 years! The bloody foreigners are stealing our jobs! Taking our women.

I can understand that people would prefer the competition to be eliminated by any means necessary. After all, who do these foreigners think they are? We have enough nuclear physicists, we don’t need any more. Do you? Sure about that? Do you realize that even when you stop training nurses for five years, people will still need them in the coming years, but they may be French now? There is an assumption that if only the pesky Europeans would not come, then everyone will have a job, regardless of their level of incompetence.
“The EU costs us 350 million GBP a week”.
First of all, [citation needed]! How did they come up with this number? Is there a person who knows how much money is actually going to EU and what does this entail? It seems to me as if this was fairly rule of thumb back of napkin calculation, that gets worse later in the text.

That is enough to build a new NHS hospital every week of the year

(1) It is almost as if the authors are suggesting that if we leave the EU, the money left over will be used for building hospitals. Come on, don’t embarrass yourselves, or me. Stop pretending that the money going to the EU now, will later be magically re-purposed to help out the poor and needy. Also, does England need 50+ new hospitals in a year? Who will staff them? That’s right, the pesky trained foreigners, because you managed to screw up the NHS.

We get less than half of this money back, and we have no control over the way it’s spent […]

[CITATION NEEDED!] How do you get to this number? Do you factor in the customs fees you are exempt from? Do you factor in the fact that now the financial market is in essence based in the City? You better believe it that the first thing that will happen on Brexit will be that the European financial currents will be diverted to Frankfurt.

We have not even started with the issue of the UK breaking up. England may want to leave, but Scotland would probably want to stay in the EU. Here is an interesting article on this from the Salon.

You see, the problem here is also the one that happens in large families. Those of you who come from such families know – it is fine for siblings to cross over the nuclear line at will and massacre each other, but god forbid that an outsider would talk shit about their family. Britain “leaves” and it is not rid of the unsophisticated and stinky brother in law, they are just not allowed to talk shit about him anymore.

The island will physically not move, let’s be clear. There may be a divorce but the other aggrieved party will not stop existing. First, there will be a fight over the spoils, which will simply mean:

(a) Customs fees and that will hurt the UK more than it will hurt Europe. After all, what has Britain got to offer as an export that is quintessentially British? People do not buy many Astons and the bananas are dying out anyway. The steel industry is screwed and many of the UK industry giants are not owned by the British any more. The UK pensioners who buy prime real estate in Europe do not count as an export good.

(b) These “ex-pats” all of a sudden will not be European citizens any more. This will be a lot of fun, when all of a sudden they will need to secure citizenship to own real estate in Europe. I am gleefully looking forward to those buying real estate in Slovenia having to pass a language exam (the link is in Slovene, but don’t worry, you’ll need to learn the language anyway as one of the citizenship requirements of showing your dedication to your new Motherland). I can still remember how difficult it was to buy property as a foreigner in Europe, before the Union. Have fun guys and girls. You should especially enjoy the point in time where all your real estate contracts get voided, because you cannot own stuff in Europe any more and the local authorities come with bulldozers to tear down illegal housing. Think I am making this up? It has happened before. My family (who are not Croats) still owns a piece of Croatia coastline where a luxury hotel is now partially built on. The land was seized and our vacation home bulldozed. You are saying this cannot happen in Europe, because it is too civilized? I have two words for you: Syrian Refugees. Still think Europe is friendly to foreigners? Especially after they spat all over it, like you are doing right now.

(c) For centuries now, England has been the centre of academic excellence. In the last decades the tuition fees have gone up, and they have always been double for international students. So, bright Europeans were incentivised to come to England by having to pay “only” domestic tuition fees. The brightest stayed and were offered jobs. If the fees are suddenly doubled (amounting to about 20,000 GBP per year + living expenses), people will be sad but not for long, as there is also Bologna, Sorbonne, Max Planck Institute and many others. Well, these institutions might be slightly less shiny than, say, Cambridge, but they are about 20,000 times cheaper too. So while academics have profited from having access to outstanding institutions steeped in tradition and research excellence, these institutions have also benefited from having the brightest minds in the world at their disposal. This will peter off with Brexit. Have fun keeping up with the rest of the world. To be clear, there are very few English PhD students and postdocs, comparatively. By the time they get to the PhD level they are so far in debt that they figure they’ll work a bit, pay of some of the student loans, and maybe do a PhD later. Most then realize that having a living wage is hard to give up and don’t come back. So, England, you will be driving away the brightest academics and will be left with a lack in the end which will lead into declining research output and into a slide in the world rankings. And then for new academics, Bologna and Berlin will start looking more and more enticing – cheaper and now also academically comparable.

I am in a bizarre position where I am defending EU, although I think the bureaucrats in Brussels have made some very questionable decisions lately and am, frankly, all for destruction of EU in the present form. It does not stand for what I stand for – I do not believe in the same gods they do. I do not worship at the shrine of austerity and I do not accept that since someone decided to play fast and loose with everyone’s money, the taxpayers are now to blame for this. I do not believe that people should be turned away at the door, because they are less fortunate than me. I’d much rather pay for a refugee shelter than for some hedge fund manager’s fuck-up, especially since I am not at all convinced that this wasn’t the plan from the start, i.e. to gamble, and if profits are realized, well, good for the banks, and if they screw up, the people will bail them out.

Thus I find myself in this weird position defending the EU. And I am doing it, not because the EU needs saving, but because I think this pamphlet is such a blatant attempt at manipulation that I am offended by it. If England decides to leave, fine, but they should decide on the basis of facts, not “facts”. I don’t really have a horse in this race in the sense that I am already a resident and probably my rights will not be taken away, so on one hand, I could actually profit from less competition. On the other hand, travel would be more difficult, and England would falter financially.  And that would suck for my standard too.

About nationalism

Recently, I came across posts on Facebook, claiming that politicians are importing refugees and migrants into their countries in order to get their votes. Since this is exactly what I proposed about six months ago I don’t have an issue with it, although I do not think it is happening, at least not in Slovenia. This was, however, not what I wanted to focus on today. I find the attitudes expressed in the comments sections interesting, not because of what they say, but because of what they assume.

The conversation in the comments sooner or later turns towards the ineptitude of the nominally left, but actually fairly conservative Slovene government.

Someone want to challenge my claim about the leanings of the current ruling party and claim they are left wing? Well, what are the prime minister’s positions towards abortion? (He is against it). Towards same sex marriage (he is not officially pro or contra, but the ruling party invested exactly zero effort into the recent referendum campaign). What is his position towards migrants? (Officially not having a problem with it, but building razor wire fencing around Slovenia at the same time). What is his position towards workers rights and benefits? (Austerity measures are the thing. No wages increases, no Universal Pay, etc). What is his position towards religion? (A practicing Catholic). Not incredibly left wing, don’t you agree?

Anyways. The conversation turns towards ineptitude of the Slovene government and how they pander to the members of former sister republics of SFRJ. The arguments given are that the lefties keep offering jobs to migrants in order to secure votes. And the proof? Well go to a governmental agency and see that “most” surnames hint at individuals being from former Yugoslav republics. The fun thing is that people do not assume at all that aptitude might have something to do with it. Now I am not saying that merit always plays a pivotal role in employment in Slovenia, but the fun thing is the deflection, still. The posters do not even entertain the idea that (a) they might be crap at the specific job and that the person filling might actually be quite good at it, and (b) they seem to assume that there are “genuine” natives here, who are interested in doing a specific job. This seems to also be happening in England – there are cases of people I know, who really would like to offer a job to a native English person, but when they advertise, people who apply are either not English, or are English, but do not want to do the job that was advertised (In this case, the guy is a farmer and he advertised for a farm hand. The only native English person who applied told the farmer that he did not drive a tractor and was not prepared to learn).

So, the defeatist attitude is hidden in our collective psyche. No Slovene native wants to be a garbage collector, but if the job is filled by a Bosnian man, that means that “they come over here and steal our jobs“. It is a job that nobody wanted, for God’s sake. I suppose you would be more content if no one collected garbage just as long as the bloody foreigners don’t make a living?

Then there is an idea of separating the ability to work from the ability to be politically active. The neoliberals would prefer this. Why? Seriously, what could possibly be the rationale in allowing someone to create a life somewhere, work and pay taxes and be a productive member of society, but when it comes to making actual decisions, they are treated like underage children? The irony is that England is somewhat similar in this respect. I am a resident, my primary domicile is in England and I am allowed to vote in local, but not general elections. I actually get a voting slip, but they do not allow me to vote (in general elections). This is bizzare. When I asked the nice lady at the polling place why this is the case, she told me that I am not a citizen and therefore I have no say in who gets voted into the parliament. When I asked her whether she did not find it problematic that me and people like me could vote in the local elections, she said that that is absolutely fine. I then asked why she did not worry about us subverting the system from the ground up – i.e. let’s say, we all vote labour. Therefore Cambridge gets a strong labour based city council and a labourist mayor, therefore labour policies get enacted unopposed, therefore the rest of England has a chance to compare the relative success of two opposing sides of governance. Therefore, they get a chance to vote for what works best in the general election. People like me, and me thus influence general elections whether the Brits like it or not. So why does she not find this problematic? And she said that we should have a say, after all we live and contribute here. My point exactly. And we started going in circles. Why do it halfway? Prevent me from voting altogether and be branded nationalist or allow me to vote.

The resurrection of bigotry; and naiveté of the left wing

This is a Home Guard (Slovene nazi collaborators) recruitment poster image, that is now being shared on facebook. The OP says: "For the cultural purposes and art performance".

This is a Home Guard (Slovene nazi collaborators) recruitment poster image, that is now being shared on Facebook to gain support for anti-immigration movement. The OP says: “For the cultural purposes and art performance”. The original post is not as blurry as this one, but I will not enable these people.

I have been thinking about this for a while now. I keep getting exposed to vile facebook posts from sad specimens of human race, who try to disguise their smallness behind ideology and in the same breath try to convince me that I am blinded by my own beliefs. Well, at least I am honest to myself and others about my beliefs. I do not pretend to be something in order to achieve something else.

I feel sullied when I see posts that attempt to revive Slovene Home Guard (nazi collaborators) imagery in order to serve some petty gain.

There is a “big” issue in Slovenia with Syrian refugees and there are demonstrations where people are sporting placards with nazi emblems. The government does nothing, but I, sadly, didn’t expect them to. There is too much deer-in-headlights attitude for comfort, but hey, I suppose keeping your cushy job and putting your cronies on boards of companies has to take priority. The argument that crony capitalism is what the left is always doing in Slovenia is kinda broken, mostly because the ruling party is not actually left wing when we see their attitudes to issues that usually determine political polarity (i.e. stance on abortion, LGBT, religion, unions, working conditions, austerity measures etc). This is not the point of my post, though.

The background is that the plagiarist [SLO link], semi-fresh out of prison, would like to get some power back and thus uses base instincts to incite unrest. Refugees are an issue that he picked – he is, of course, cloaking it as loyalism to Slovenia and its citizens. He gets his flunkies to post stories about how refugees are getting 800+ EUR per month each (here [in Slovene]) which is more than the average monthly pension in Slovenia. This amount comes from some plucked-out-of-thin-air maths – the Slovene minister of finance says that each officially recognized refugee in Slovenia costs 10,000 EUR per year (transcript of the salient session of Slovene Parliament. [In Slovene]), which was then divided by 12 into a monthly sum by the flunkies, not taking into account accommodation costs, infrastructure costs, costs imposed on the police, military, health system, schools etc. In reality, officially recognised asylum seekers get 18 EUR per month allowance and there is less than 10 of them from Syria (90 has asked for asylum in 2015). The migrants get nothing. Surely, we are human enough to not worry about people who lost everything, getting no stipend, although they might get a hot meal from us every once in a while.

The general population, being squeezed and rapidly finding itself below the poverty line is incensed. They feel screwed (which they are, but not because of the migrant issue) and blame the refugees, not the politicians who got them there. They organise protests and basically turn to neo-nazi ideology, rationalising their choices by pretending to care about others, or pretending that being a human being is somehow opt-in (“Anybody who wants to pay for them can, but leave me out of it. I’ll help when I decide, not when there is a need” Copious examples here, for example. Not for the faint of heart. [In Slovenian]).

The sad part is that this is supported by some of the so called Slovene neo-liberals. Why do I say so-called? Well, because the refugees and asylum seekers are mostly supported by cash injections from the EU and UNHCR. Which means that the money is coming from the outside and through refugees gets injected into the local economy. Why is it then that the neo-liberals oppose getting money into the market and allowing said market greater freedom of movement; and higher levels of enterprise? Surely it is better for economic cycle to run, than stall? It costs the Slovene taxpayers nothing and even in the myopic libertarian prism of taking care of oneself and screw everybody else, this is a net positive. Simply put, if you lose nothing and increase turn-around in the markets, which could benefit you in the long run, why not support this?

Because this is not about being a libertarian. This is about having a grudge, and about blindness framed as libertarianism. This is kinda sad. I violently disagree with ideas some of my Facebook “friends” are spewing, but at least, up to this point, I believed that they themselves believed their own ideology. While I disagreed, I was willing to accept that opinions differ and respect, to a certain extent, our differences. Now, since I see that they don’t even believe in their own bullshit, only abuse it to rationalise their own smallness, it is kinda pointless. It is, basically, not worth my time to argue with a person who is so fundamentally flawed that they either (a) know that they are just grasping at anything that lets them keep their bigoted preconceptions and still let them sleep at night or (b) have managed to convince themselves that they actually do follow an ideology and not even realise that they are spitting in its face.

I fully expect a barrage of ad hominem manure landing on me as a result of this post. God knows I have been name called and insulted before. I understand how much easier it is to simply become abusive to someone you have no interest of actually debating. I have been told before that I have my head stuck in my ass, been called reddie or commie before. I have been told that I am haughty and superior when I point out the flaws of an argument. I have been patronised, been told that I should let real men who are in the know talk and not spew my uninformed bullshit on their walls. I have been told that I am dragging arguments out of my ass and when I provided references to my claims and asked for theirs, I have been told that I am abusing my access to knowledge and should not be so elitist. Honestly, why do I bother with these assholes? In this case, I will probably be also told that I know nothing about libertarianism and that I should get out of my Ivory Tower and into the real world before I make a fool out of myself.

This is what it comes to, again and again. The division is not, fundamentally, between left or right wing politics. It is about framing the world. There are those of us who reject the concept of extreme individualism and social isolation as the only way a person may live. I am not about to analyse people who believe in that. I am sure that they have their reasons and their traumas resulting in this outlook. What I will say is that I think (supported by empirical fact) that this is not the only viewpoint one may have and that widening one’s horizons may be beneficial. What I am saying is that those who believe that the world is a cold place that only rewards solo effort and screw the rest are depriving themselves of a whole host of experiences that are out there. Our conflict rests in the fact that I understand that there are those who believe that the only measure of achievement is dependent on egotism, but disagree with that viewpoint; and they do not seem to understand that their premise is not the only one there is. So, conversation is difficult. Especially when these people resort to name calling and telling me how blinded I am to the only gospel truth. It is not that I refuse to see it, I refuse to accept it as the only true path to enlightenment. From my perspective these people are blinded by building on false premises. In the end this becomes the lowest form of a religious debate. “This is the truth, a man is a wolf to another man!,” they say. And I say: “I disagree.” To which the response is, more often than not, a putdown. It is frustrating and unnecessary. In my experience people often stop talking not because they are convinced, but because they find it difficult to excuse spending time on an unproductive debate. Only a fool walks from such a conversation thinking that they won, because the other has stopped arguing.

Whenever there is an argument with libertarians because of some racist, homophobic or misogynistic crap that they vomit, the final argument usually is that we, lefties, should just grow a pair and not be so thin skinned. This actually upsets me more than the previous offensive remarks. I so want to say: “You think I am upset? You haven’t actually seen me upset.” The argument that it is all a bit of fun when someone proposes that the red garbage like me should be taken to the woods and shot, or that every muslim is a terrorist, or that women who seek artificial insemination just haven’t been screwed properly by a real man, is insulting to my intelligence. Sure, the real problem here is me, because I cannot take a joke.

The other misguided idea is that there should be balance and that everybody should have their say in order to weigh arguments. There are any number of rebuttals for this, for example John Oliver: Debate on Climate Change. But we as more left leaning individuals are supposed to entertain bullshit, because this leads to openness and inclusivity. This is a total fallacy. I would listen to arguments against my position if they were not absolutely insane and completely unsupported. “No, no, let the other side speak.Why? There is nothing to be gained by listening to a rabid chinchilla masquerading as a human being. Why would I even entertain someone who is not interested in discussion but only in a platform enabling them to vomit their bigotry on others? The point of discussion is to exchange views based on reality not in using others to provide you with a soapbox giving legitimacy to your irrational ramblings.

The favourite argument of rabid fanatics here is that by doing this the commies show their true intolerant colours. Only now? I don’t pretend to speak for society at large, but as far as I am concerned, I have indulged your petty self-pity that is not based in reality for long enough. Prove to me that you are worth listening to, first. My time is far too precious to indulge in some pathetic bullshit wrapped in the cellophane of reasonableness in order to feed the goal of inclusiveness. In the words of Robin Williams, quoting Oliver Sacks: “I am sorry. I would agree with you, if you were right.” This poisoning of the common well has gone long enough. And I will happily agree in advance with those who tell me that I am intolerant of bullshit and that I am too egotistic because I value myself too much to be at the disposal of those whose only plan is to use and discard me.

Note. In case you were wondering, the original images on this page are not blurred, but I do not want help the cause of neo-nazis.

About stealing articles and free knowledge

sci-hub.blogThere was recently an article about a Russian researcher running an article hub, here. In a nutshell, they made most of the world’s scanned journal articles available online, free of charge. I say ‘made’, because while the site is still live, most of the content is not accessible, people report.

I’ve first heard of it in 2012 when I got cc-ed into a conversation between a librarian and an academic at a particular University. I created a virtual machine. Why a virtual machine? Because if I was building a zombie PC army, I would absolutely run exploit scripts on a site like that and also add malicious code to any PDF’s I was serving. This would also stenghten my network – a student downloads a PDF of an article not available to them, unbenkonwst to them allows me to install a rootkit, harvest their username and password and use their University electronic resources to augment those on my site. In that way, as long as people use my service, I get an endless stream of usernames and passwords to hundreds of world’s universities online libraries. BTW, the smart thing would be to serve something that is not available to well-endowed research Universities – one username from OxBridge and you are pretty much done as far as subscriptions are concerned. This is also the reason why I never saw the need to go sci-hub for articles – I have most of them here. In any case, out of curiosity, I created a virtual machine and visited the site.

I played around with the site and managed to download several articles that I already possessed off it. I then rolled back the virtual machine and deleted all changes. But the hub seemed to work quite well then. If not necessarily actually free of charge.

Be that as it may, the sci-hub founder (S-HF for short) got sued and this sparkled a debate. Should knowledge be freely available? I don’t think this is the real issue here, although I understand how the S-HF would benefit from pushing this. After all if this turns from a case of theft into a case of morals, they can only win, right? Who would support faceless publishers against impoverished academics? Like I said, I don’t think this is the issue, anyway.

I think this is property theft, pure and simple. I think we, the academics, are enabling the publishers and helping them run their racket. But it is our fault that we let them do it, not the publishers fault for following the law. I know this is hard to hear. Academics and PhD Students know how this works: We sign away most material rights to our article in the contract we make with the publisher. They pay us nothing and we take it, because … because Impact Factor and publication record and future employability. Let’s not kid ourselves. We whore ourselves out so that we keep our jobs. We still choose our clients and acts we would like to perform, we have lots of freedom, it is not like it is all bad. But we sign away our articles to a faceless corporation and it owns them. They own our articles, and we do not. And they are free to sell them or give them away, whatever they see fit. We are talking about their property. And it is our fault, that they got it. We cannot pretend we didn’t know that this is how it works.

Saying “duuh… knowledge should be free, therefore I am empowered to steal some private property” does not really fly. If we wanted knowledge to be free, we as academics, collectively, would (a) stop publishing in journals behind paywall or (b) at the very least not publish in journals that do not allow a personal copy/pre-print of the article to be stored on our websites or repositories. There are very few journals that allow neither (a) nor (b). So, the real statement one could make is: “Knowledge should be free. That is why my articles are also freely available and that is why my datafiles are public.” Of course this leave the S-HF out to dry, but I don’t mind that. There are (1) academics who do not want their knowledge to be free and that is fine. There are those of us (2) who make sure that our work is available for free, but at the same time published in journals which improves our employability. And there are those (3) who do not want to publish behind paywall, ever. The S-HF might be in one of these groups or not, it does not matter. Because in any case they are not speaking for any of the three groups. Who the hell do you think you are that you should decide wether my work has financial value and whether I should be paid for it or not? I’ll decide that, for my work and my work only.

On the other hand, all academics get paid for printouts and photocopies of our work. There are governmental agencies keeping tabs. This is not an enormous amount of money, but it could be a few hundred pounds per year. So, a dissatisfied researcher from Russia, who does not want to invest time into contacting authors and asking them for their articles, rather decides that they will directly defraud the people they admire enough to cite them and in the same breath tell them, that they conning them out of their pennies because this is the moral thing to do? Good luck with that defence. And just to be clear – I have never ever been unsuccessful in getting an article from an author that I contacted personally. And among them were PhD students, professors, lecturers and Nobel Laureates. None of them were ever unfriendly or unhelpful. Likewise, I have never not sent out either articles or download links for my stuff when I was asked. Being too lazy or insecure to ask does not indemnify ones criminal activity. So there are ways of getting stuff for free, while not actually breaking the law.

On yet another hand, most of the Universities in the world have accepted this racket and they pay through the nose for subscriptions. Many millions of pounds per year. By illegally downloading from them, you cannot actually say “knowledge should be free therefore I am taking it,” but rather “Somebody else should pay for my access to knowledge, so that I don’t have to.” Universities essentially pay for subscriptions because this improves them – they conduct better research, have more impact, attract better students and academics, which leads to better research, higher impact, etc. I am certain Universities are not ecstatic for paying millions of pounds per year for subscriptions. But they do it. And stealing from them does not make one Robin Hood, it just makes them lazy.

The take-away messages:
(a) If I was a blackhat hacker, I would exploit portals like science hub in a heartbeat. If I was working for computing service of a university I would do all kinds of inventive shit to illicit downloaders too. My proposals have so far been rejected by the Cambridge University Computing Service, but I am working on that (my time will come mostly because what they are doing now does not work).
(b) Knowledge can in fact be free, but not by stealing it after it was sold into slavery. Before that.
(c) Everything can already be gotten for free, if you apply yourself.

After Paris

I actually wrote this some weeks ago. But it is still topical. D

I keep seeing posts on the Internet about how it isn’t good that the person or person(s) responsible for the Paris attacks had their passport stamped in Greece. This supposedly means that we are letting terrorists through our borders (well, doh) and by extension there is a growing belief that this may lead people to equate refugees and terrorists. To a certain extent, this is already happening with people quoting Dawkins about how life would be so much better without religion.

The issue is not religion. One can always find excuses for doing something. If there wasn’t religion, it would have been something else. Deity knows that we always find rationalisations. If there wasn’t religion, there would be other stuff, like sexual orientation, dress code, colour of skin, geographical location or the football club one supports. The point is that looking for a simple answer to a complex question leads to stupid, not the right, answers.

Who cares what the reason was? Will people be less dead if there was a reason? Who will decide what is a rational reason and an acceptable one? What if the reason is a culture that cheerfully sells weapons to anyone that would buy them? What if the reason is us, supporting governments who feel no obligation to abstain from using other countries as giant petri dishes for social experiments? What if people we vote for don’t even think about these things, because they were told how to act and react by those who buy their votes for them?

It is fairly easy to blame religion, because it is very comfortable to do so. It requires no introspection and nothing needs to change for us.

Then, there is the next step – terrorists are religious -> they came with the refugees -> terrorists and refugees are religious -> religion equals terrorism -> refugees are all terrorists.

OK. If refugees were all fanatics then there would be no need for them to leave their homes in the first place. Some rudimentary logic should tell us that. Let’s not insult intelligence by suggesting that it is easy or somehow desirable to leave your home, your friends and social networks in order to live like cattle in tents. Let’s not pretend that telling your kids that they will not be going to the same primary school or nursery as their friends and possibly their parents have, anymore, is something one does light-heartedly. Most people love their children and most will do their outmost to keep them from harm. So, why exactly would these people run with barely more than the shirts on their backs towards an uncertain future from an army that essentially shares their beliefs? Did I hear someone say that there are nuances in any religious practice? Well, hello Sherlock. Why the fuck do you think it is any of your business if someone wants to kneel on a carpet five times a day, while they essentially believe the same things that you do (goodwill and peace to all men, help the needy, support and respect one another, etc), and meaningfully contribute to the society they live in?

Are we clear on why, most of us do not agree to be moulded in a certain image by others who never question that image? Because we have a working neuron or two in our skulls. There is absolutely no doubt that all of us have or will allow someone to imprint how things should be and how we should act. The thing is that experience teaches that blindly following someone else’s ideals may lead to disappointment. Ours, that is. I am not even talking about religion, to be clear. I am not even talking about how wrong someone else is. I am sure people derive utility from their beliefs and this may work for many of them. It just doesn’t for me. So, there is no need to judge, when behaviour of others has no large impact on ours. A little tolerance helps there. I know some people who find Mosques to be a blight on the landscape and they do not want to be hearing Muezzins calling the faithful to a prayer. Well, I personally don’t want to hear the bloody church bells tolling on Sunday morning calling all faithfull to mass. It bugs me and does not let me sleep. But I grit my teeth and let people go about their business, because I live in society and it takes all kinds. I also fervently hope that those who impose on me with church bells will find it in their hearts to forgive those who pray to Mecca in the privacy of their own homes or in the building where this practice is meant to be carried out.

So, we have established that there are different levels of religious fervour. If nothing else, that probably means:
terrorists and refugees =/= religious (in the same way or to the same extent).

From there it shouldn’t be hard to postulate: all (terrorists) =/= all (refugees)

There are some individuals who are willing to abuse the willingness of others to alleviate human suffering? Well, doh. This practice is old as dirt. Same thing happens in fake charity appeals and many other types of fraud. The takeaway message is not to stop being human, because someone is trying to make us pay for it. My personal opinion is that we should continue to help, but be aware of the costs. Contradictory to what seems the majority opinion, I do not believe it is feasible or indeed possible to prevent all of anything (be it ice cream melting, or skipping classes, or terrorist attacks). One can however lower the occurence rates. There are, of course, several ways to do this. One of them, that I like, is to give people plenty of facts and help them decide. But who could do that? Funny you should ask. If only there was some process where all members of a country would get a chance to express whom they trusted and asked them to look after their best interests. This fictional person would then have to think about how to best serve all persons living in a specific geographic location. One of their roles would include *thinking really hard* about hard stuff like could it be that there are some people who want to abuse goodwill of others? And, what happens if these people would attempt to use my people’s willingness to help? Hopefully the conclusion might be that, this person working for all the cities in a given geographical location or “politician” to coin a term, would need to speak to their citizens and explain what the consequences are. Now if this “politician” did not have the mental capacity to foresee that something that has been going on for at least 500 years (we have hard proof of that) might occur again, they are not mentally equipped to wipe their own bottom, much less rule over citizens. If they did not think about it, because they were thinking about how to get to the next pay-check and payoff from a friend from the industry, then they abuse the mandate given by the people and don’t deserve our trust.

One question is when. When does a politician tell the people that there might be hidden costs. Should they wait for costs to be incurred, and then say: “Ah, well… we thought people might die. We just didn’t tell you.” Probably not. Should they do it before? I think so. But then the question is what to say. If one says: “… There is a chance that some extremists might slot in with the refugees and commit atrocities in a large European city”, then they have just insured is that at least some terrorists are going: “AHA! That is actually not a bad idea…”. So, what should be said? A politician would have to go on air and say: “You trust me to decide on this and I will. I want to help these people. Let me tell you why I decided this – Helping those who are in need of help is what makes us human. Being kind is its own lasting reward, so it was a no brainer. However, I am also aware that there are always those attempt to abuse the goodwill of others. So to me, the question is whether the risk outweighs the cost. What do you think we should do?” The alternative is to say exactly the same things but the last sentence which is then replaced by: “You decided to trust me to make those decisions for all of us, so I will. We will help,
because. Just because. If someone takes advantage of that, well, we’ll deal with them, but we won’t stop believing that helping those in need is the right thing to do.”


The human condition

maxresdefaultI wrote this on a trans-Atlantic flight several years ago. I just came across it and thought I’d put it here. DM

I am on this flight to L.A. and it is taking a while. 10.000 mile flights do.  A girl is sitting next to me. She is asleep. She was sort of scrounched on her seat and couldn’t help but lean on me a bit. This is natural, and to tell you the truth, quite nice. It makes me feel good for providing a small measure of comfort. I would tell her that she is welcome to lean on me, but that is of course not the done thing. From this, perhaps nice although impersonal guy sitting next to her, I would possibly turn (in her eyes) into a… I don’t know what I would turn into, but there is a huge chance that the rest of the flight might go down awkwardly if I showed any kind of kindness. I mean, she used a wet wipe to clear her table before she put her lunch tray on it. I don’t think she would appreciate a permanent contact with a stranger who has not been wiped down with a wet towellete, and who would possibly take offence is she tried to wipe him clean, before leaning on him.

No, this is the safe route. Pretend that our bodies are not touching and studiously ignore each other. What could be more natural than that? Somebody invades your personal space as you do theirs, for twelve hours, and the convention is that you pretend that what is happening, actually isn’t. And nothing actually is happening, just two people sitting next to each other, who might get to know each other or not. I do not know anything about this girl – I’ll call her Shrestha, for she seems Indian (or possibly Pakistani or Egyptian, I am not too good with geographical placement according to skin color) and I had an Indian primary school friend whose name was Shrestha.

I don’t know about Shrestha, but I have places to go and people to see and in a way if she does not provide any sort of useful info to satisfy my curiosity, then, I’ll just assume she has stuff to do too and make up what it is. I have to spend about seven more hours with her, after all. I assume three possible scenarios –

(a) She wants to make it big in the film industry and is following her dreams. That makes sense only in a jaded romantic way, and if she is Indian, then Bollywood is much closer and also she might only need to screw Indian people to get parts, whereas in L.A. … Also, possibly, the competition is greater in L.A. I don’t know. … I think this is possibly not the reason for her flight.

(b) She could be a student, although, I would assume not post-grad. I would say Shrestha is in her early to mid twenties, so I guess a post-grad is possible but only barely. Attending UCLA? Kinda doubt it – humanities seem more her style. Her hands are painted, she reads lifestyle magazines. The kind about celebrities.

(c) She is going on a trip of a lifetime, just travelling around, seeing the world. That is feasible. But then, I wonder, is there a love story underneath? Is there a white boy she met in a little village where she is from and spent an unforgettable fortnight with him under the Indian sun? And then the boy who is a son of a senator needed to fly back to his parents, his career and his aristo white WASP girlfriend, whom Shrestha knows nothing about; leaving her behind. And did she write to him, and did he reply? Or did he sort of assume that what happens in Bangalore, stays in Bangalore? Did he tell her one hot spring night that she should come to L.A. and be with him forever? Did he mean it, or just thought that he will get lucky again that evening if he said the right words? I know the bogus stuff I said to summer romance girls, so this is not out of the question. So many unknowns. Did he tell her that she should come and she believed him? Is she flying in blind or does he know she is coming? Will he be there at the airport? I’ll see. I kinda assume we’ll get lost in the shuffle once we land, but I’ll keep a lookout. You see, my problem is that I am a romantic at heart. But, for a great romance you also need a twist, an unwilling protagonist. Otherwise the three sentence structure (i.e. Romeo and Juliet  – Boy meets girls. Boy gets girl. Boy loses girl.), just becomes one sentence story. Boy gets girl. There is no drama there.

So, I am assuming that Shrestha is not pedestrian, she is not run of the mill. She deserves drama. She is Herencia (the movie) kind of girl. If I have to hazard a guess, which I think I very probably will have to do, then I would say that the boy will not be at the airport. He possibly didn’t tell Shrestha his contact details, so she is coming to L.A., a geographic area the size of a small European country, with 10 million inhabitants to find him. Perhaps he attends UCLA? I would think, though, that at the moment it is the Summer break? I don’t know enough about U.S. academia, can’t be bothered to find out and have no Internet access. I am on a plane, remember? Shrestha is sitting next to me.

So, while it gives me no pleasure to say this, I think, that things will not go according to plan – Shrestha will grab a cab or whatever to the campus, she will find Otis (let’s call him Otis), who will no doubt be surprised, but possibly not ecstatic to see her. She will not be able to sleep in his dorm, he will strenously advise her not to sleep in his frat house, because he saw a couple of brothers checking her out, when they went for a coffee (anything to get her out of the room). And, while Otis might be many things, he is not a pimp yet. So Shrestha is out on her own. It is evening and as Tom Waits says, there is nothing that Hollywood loves more than the taste of sweet little dreams and pretty blue wishes.

I mean what the hell? What is going on inside our minds? We are just little creatures industriously crawling from one continent to another and back. In my case, I am spending 24 hours on the planes in the next three freaking days. We spend inordinate amounts of time simply passing each other by. We are all shy, all herd creatures, who would mostly prefer not to spend time in a herd, although we would be sad and alone if we were isolated.

Shrestha is now elbow-touching me. She is still asleep. Sweet dreams.


I have covertly read the imigration card Shrestha was filling out – she is 25 years old, she lives in India and her name is not Shrestha. I was still slightly on the money, though 🙂


Virgin Atlantic flight VS007, 1st of June, 2013.

The Restoration of Sector STE200 part 2

This post is about my efforts to restore my Sector STE200 watch that died because of water ingress. Here is the first part of the post.

So. The parts arrived. Several times. And then the correct parts. And then some more correct parts. This is what I have done:

  • I searched everywhere for a used STE200. I found one listing in Brasil. Hmm… I then found an Italian seller who was selling a Sector movement only. For Sector 155 chrono. It seemedSTE155 similar enough. The diameter was about the same (the difference was 0.2mm). The height seemed ok. So I ordered it. It is an ETA G10.711. Ok. The face and the hands are atrocious, but I figured I would buy another set. Then I read the reviews for G10.711. And they are not favourable. Really, as far as possible away from favourable. The most positive thing people could say about this movement is that ETA managed to cut costs extremely well and still charge through the nose for it.
  • Never mind. I looked up specifics for G10.711. Hand sizes are here and dimensions are here.
  • I went to cousinsuk and ordered the correct hands. Cost me 10 pounds. That is fine. The original hands were beyond repair anyway.
  • I then looked more closely at the G10 movement and look, there is no way to attach the old dial to it. I mean there might be, but not the same as in the previous movement. You can see here  how the dial was attached previously (they even helpfully provided little orange boxes around the important bits). Oh, but then I realised that the previous movement was ETA too. Specifically ETA 251.272 (it says so in the back of the ruined movement). I wonder if I can get ETA 251.272 anywhere… I can! At cousinsuk. And it is not too expensive. about as much as the G10.711 cost. But the 251 is better quality by far. Cool. I don’t want to rush too much though – perhaps the G10 can still be adapted. I mean, it is not like I was planning on using the watch. I just wanted to repair it and put it into the display case. So, it does not much matter what kind of movement is in it, I won’t be using it anyway. I figure I’ll wait and see.
  • I get the movement and I immediately have two issues. (a) The dial is glued to the movement, so I would have to keep the white and beige atrocity. (b) The movement does not fit into the case. Oh well. I buy an ETA 251.272 from cousins the same day but I have another issue. The large chrono hand is not available. So I order everything else (hour and minute hands). I figure I would reuse the seconds hand and the small dial hands. The movement and hands arrive the next day.

Here is the movement.


I put the dial on and realize that the date wheel is not properly aligned. The numbers are not slanted and they are too big. See? Pay no attention to how crappy the dials and the lume looks. I am cleaning that up after I fixed the date.


I replace the date wheel with the old one. I know it was sensible not to throw it away. The way to replace the date wheel is to unscrew the three little screws next to the subdial pinions and then remove the little half discs that hold the wheel in place (it then just falls out). Here is the end product. Old wheel, new movement.


It now looks a lot better. The date. Not everything, yet.


Adding the hour hand and re-luming.



Adding the minute hand and realizing I have a problem.IMG_4460

The minute hand hits the lume and spreads it around. DOh! I re-lume again, and align the hands. This is fiddly. You need to do it several times. The first time the problem was that the date changed at 4am, which I did not like. So I set it to start changing at 24:00 and completely flip at 1:00am. But then I realised that the minute hand and hour hand were not perfectly in sync. When the minute hand is at 12, the hour hand should point exactly to a specific hour not between the markers. So I did that and had to reset it a few times.  But when satisfied, I added the little hands too.


The thing is, I screwed up badly. I have no idea where the hands from the old watch are. The chronograph seconds would be very useful right now. I cannot buy it – can’t get it. And the one from G10 does not fit. So I left the one that came with the movement on, but will be changing it as soon as I can. Now I need to replace the stem crown. The old stem is rusted. Note. I need to thoroughly clean the stem tunnel. First, remove the crown from the old stem.


Then remove the plastic crown from the new stem and replace. Voila.



Put the movement in the case. Screw it in (two half-moon screws), put in the stem, put in the battery.


Put silicone grease on the gasket, put the gasket on the back cover and close it. Turn the watch around and … We have Lift-off!!



I put the bracelet back on. And have it pose for a picture.


I hardly need to point out that the object of the exercise was not to have a perfectly restored watch, but rather to not give up on an object that has been with me for a long time. It works. And they said it could not be done. Sure, it could be made prettier and restored better. But hey, I did it on my own for me. And that is quite cool.

Things still to do:

  • Clean the stem tunnel better.
  • Replace the seconds hand
  • Align the chrono hands
  • Change the battery




Waterproofing replicas part 2

IMG_4379In the previous post, I waterproofed Planet Ocean GMT with DG2813 movement. The ETA2836-2 PO GMT Replica Waterproofing is the next step.

Before I start, a few general comments – I looked in the forums on how to spot an Asian ETA movement. This is a comprehensive, fairly recent post. Either the Chinese have gotten a whole lot better in replicating the ETA’s, or this is the ‘real’ thing. How do I know? The ETA seal on the ebauche is legible. The + and – signs in the micro adjuster are etched and not stamped. The finish on the wheels is not shiny. Hmm… Well, whatever, this is still a replica one way or another. It certainly is not a coaxial movement, it does not have a silicon wheel or main spring (as the Omega 8500 calibre and its variations have). It is an exceedingly nice replica, though, and a lot better than the cheaper one I got. Still not as nice as the genuine Omega and the watch has certainly been assembled in a dirter environment, compared to the gen, but it is still very nice.

I need to do pretty much what I did with the DG2813. The only difference is that now I know how to get the movement out, so I will be sealing the front crystal too. I start by organising the workbench.


I open up the watch with the Jaxa wrench. The gasket is dry as in the DG2813.


I take the gasket out and put it into a silicone bath.


Close the lid.


I remove the three screws that hold the movement in place (with little washers) and the rotor.


I then remove the stem and get the movement out (turn the watch around and tip it gently into my gloved hand). I want to make it clear that while it is true that the movement is face-down, it is (a) on a very soft cushion and (b) the movement is not running, so the seconds hand is not moving and is thus not under strain.


I then apply G-S glue to the front crystal.


I use pegwood and rodico to remove any residual G-S glue.


I then notice (see the pic above) that there is absolutely no opening for the HeV. That is brilliant, because I do not need a Helium release Valve anyway and now I do not even need to close it down with marine epoxy. I now do not need the movement to be outside the case any more. While I am here, I am going to grease everything.

Prepare the silicon grease.


I use the silicon grease and a fine brush to grease the stem tunnel, the crown and the gasket groove.


Before I put the movement in and attach it, I notice that there is a grey smudge on the rotor edge. It was not me! I used cotton gloves and I was handling the rotor with tweezers. I use rodico, pegwood, watchmans brushes and soft cloth to remove the smudge. I was not completely successful, but it is a lot better than it was.


Everything is greased now.


I then put the movement in and re-attach the rotor and the washers.


And the stem, of course.


Before I am done, I need to apply G-S glue to the display window in the back. I do exactly the same thing as I did with the previous watch.


I close the watch down, remove the wrapping … and realise there is a smudge on the inside of the front Sapphire glass. Doh! I know that I must fix this now, otherwise I will never fix it and it will drive me insane. OCD FTW. I open everything up, remove the stem, the washers, the movement and clean the glass. I then reverse the whole procedure and re-grease the gasket. I close the watch up and now the smudge is gone. I need to take the watch into town and have it tested.


UPDATE. Had the watch tested. Water-resistant to 100m! Woohoo!


Waterproofing replicas part 1

IMG_4278I lost my old watch to a swimming incident – see the story here. I almost never take off my watch. I sleep with it, I shower with it, I swim with it. It is there. I feel naked without a watch. The previous one served me for 23 years. I wanted to procure another one that would last me for just as long or longer. I need it to be water resistant and reasonably rugged. I figured that going for an automatic watch would remove the hassle of changing the batteries every three or four years. Also the craftsmanship of these higher-end watches is just amazing. I cannot afford a Patek Phillipe, but I could go for sort of Rolex / Breitling / … category. I do not like Rolexes. It is a personal thing, for sure. I don’t think there is anything wrong with them, the craftsmanship is certainly exquisite. But I just associate them with a sort of gaudy bling. I could  afford a used Submariner but I just don’t like them enough. I also really dislike the magnifying glass over the date window. I understand why it is there, I just don’t like it. A personal thing, as I said. So I decided a Breitling would be the way to go. They are steeped in tradition and have this ruggedness about them that I like. My requirements were: water resistance, automatic movement, date and, if possible, a day indicator. I would like the GMT hand (that is – a second time zone indicator), but all GMT Breitlings I could find were either too expensive for me or not water resistant enough.

I bought a nice Breitling SuperOcean (SO) and was quite content with it. It fulfills my requirements: water resistant to 500m, day and date display, automatic. It also has a chronograph which I could do without – I don’t much care about them. The previous watch had a stopwatch too, but I probably used it twice on purpose in 23 years I had it. But the only SO that had a day display also had a chronograph, so I figured, why not. My SO is quite cool and stylish at the same time. Certainly worth the investment.

I then started worrying – I am about to go to Brazil on a consulting gig and I just attended a Conference where Bob Arno presented his stuff. I saw him literally steal a shirt from someone’s back in front of a live audience! In that process he also ‘stole’ a large number of watches, to demonstrate how easy it is. And it seems very easy. Takes a few seconds. I noticed he only ‘stole’  the watches with a a buckle, not the ones with a steel strap or a deployment clasp. So at first I thought, well, as long as I have the steel bracelet I am fine, right? Right? So, I went and asked Bob. It turns out I was wrong. Watches on steel bracelets are also exceedingly easy to steal, but you need to break the bracelet lugs to do it. It is not hard, but mr. Arno does not do it in demonstration settings. I realised I was screwed. Well, I figured, I need a replica watch to wear while I am in Rio. It makes no sense to walk around with 5000 GBP strapped on my wrist in slightly shady places. So, I started looking into replica watches. I figured I do not have to buy another SuperOcean, I can buy whatever I pleased. I can actually go for a GMT watch, because replicas are pretty much the same price in the same category, regardless of what you pick.

The journey starts
I googled replica forums and to my astonishment discovered that this is a huge market with many message boards and millions of users. It was surprisingly difficult to find “reputable” replica sellers. I then found two sellers with good reputation among forum dwellers, went to their websites and looked around. I could go for anything I wanted, there are literally thousands of options.

I had to decide on a brand. I thought I wouldn’t go for a Breitling, I have a genuine SO already. I decided not to go for Rolex because that is just sad. If I don’t want the genuine, I certainly do not want the fake one. I excluded Patek Phillipe because the whole point of PP is that it is practically forever. It is something you hand down generation to generation. What would be the point of having a replica of an eternal watch that will die in a few years? Also, I would feel really fake wearing a PP replica. I cannot afford the genuine one. And even if I could, how could I justify it? They cost as much as a new luxury car. You could buy a house in rural Slovenia for the same amount of money. No, I did not want PP. And I excluded any of the boutique brands, or brands where the genuine watch would not cost a lot more than a replica (for example Nomos). So I came across Omega. I was not enchanted by their regular offerings. The speedmaster has a chronograph, meh. The Seamaster is kinda quirky. But the Planet Ocean series, that is very nice. And what is more, they have a GMT version. Hmm. That could work. In the end I ended up buying two watches in the space of a month from two different sellers. They are both Omega Seamaster Planet Ocean GMT (PO GMT, for short) replicas of varying quality.

The first one I bought was quite cheap. It has a DG2813 movement (23 jewells, 21,000 bph). This particular movement was made by the Beijing Watch Factory (or so the seller claimed. No way for me to check). It keeps time well enough (-5s / day) and they cut some corners making it – the steel bracelet does not have screws but pins, the lugs are 22mm instead of 21mm (as in the original PO GMT), the crystal is mineral glass, not sapphire and the lume is sub-par. Still, it cost only $150 (compared to the genuine PO GMT which costs about $8000). I read about the movement and realised that you probably get what you pay for. So, I figured, why not get another, they are cheap anyway. As a spare, so to speak. I got to another reputable site (the first one did not have what I was looking for) and got a slightly more expensive replica with many perks.

The more expensive one has the ETA2836.2 GMT (26 jewells, 28,800 bph) movement inside. The seller has been very firm in claiming that this is an actual ETA movement, but I suspect it was not made in Switzerland, because almost none of the movements in replicas are. For those of you interested in this kind of thing, ETA is a Swiss manufacturer of movements. It is part of the Swatch group and produces about 5 million movements per year. Most swiss makers use their movements (Breitling for example used ETA movements until recently. Omega too). There are two issues, though. ETA is clamping down on selling their movements outside of the Swatch group and they want to know where their movements are going. They certainly would not like to put them in replicas that infringe the copyrights of ETA’s own partners. So, the Chinese have started making ‘perfect’ replicas of ETA movements. They are not perfect, really, but they are quite close. You can look at in-depth comparison here (The post is made by Christian Danneman a master watchmaker). So my ‘ETA’ is probably a Seagull , but it could be still quite well made. This replica also keeps adequate time (again, the timekeeper shows -5s / day), but that one is also a lot easier to adjust, which I will do soon. It has screws in the bracelet and sapphire crystal and is nicely lumed. Not as nicely as the genuine watch, but there are almost no watches that are as bright as genuine Omegas.

Both watches are nice for the price, and they have one function that I find very very useful for my use case – they have a GMT hand. Once I got them, I almost stopped wearing my Breitling. I have so many meetings with people from the States that I really need the GMT ability.

It is one of those things – once you start using it, you cannot imagine how to do without. I realised that I don’t need the Breitling after all, but I do need the PO GMT. So, I went and bought the genuine Planet Ocean and am selling the Breitling (see my listing on eBay).

In that way, I am solving many issues at the same time. I felt slightly uncomfortable wearing a replica and not having the genuine watch – In my head, I can rationalize wearing the replica in situations where the genuine should not be used, but only if I have the genuine watch. In that respect, I figure I am not defrauding Omega nearly as much, just protecting my investment. I mean, by law, I was in the clear before – The UK law prosecutes the sellers, but not the buyers of replicas. But now all is fine, I think. I still need to sell the Breitling, though :).

On a side-note. I do not know what people have been smoking, but there is absolutely no way one can mistake the PO GMT replica for a genuine one. Even by simply looking at the face. The crystal is brighter, the hands movement smoother on the gen. If you try to wind it, it becomes clear as day which is which (genuine is buttery smooth. You almost doubt you are winding it, whereas the DG2813 feels as if you are dragging something through broken glass). The bezel on the genuine is (a) liquid metal and (b) bidirectional which are both no-shows on the replica. Once you turn the case around it also becomes clear which is which. The markings of the Omega 8605 are there on replicas, but there is no mistaking things like the Silicon balance wheel and spring, etc. Also, mine keeps perfect time. 0 seconds gained or lost in the past six days. It is a marvel of engineering.

I still have a problem, though.

I am still going to Brazil in the (Brazillian) summer and I will probably do at least some swimming in the sea. The genuine watch is water resistant to ridiculous 60ATM (600m) meaning that I would probably be crushed by the oceanic pressure much sooner than my watch would be. But the replicas are about as water resistant as paper towels. So – I am going to Brazil where I will be swimming in the sea, but my genuine watch will be waiting for me at home. Hmm… The only solution: WATERPROOF ALL THE WATCHES!

What do I need to do? I need to do a bit of reading. Check. A very good guide is here.

I need to:
1. Seal the (front and back) crystals with G-S Glue.
2. Seal the Helium release valve with marine Epoxy (I don’t need the HeV and frankly neither does the 99.9% of the worlds population. If you are interested in what its purpose is, look here. As is usually the case, if you have to look it up, then you probably don’t need it).
3. Rub silicon grease on the crown and stem of the watch.
4. Immerse back basket in silicone.
5. Have it tested.

Off we go. I need the following:

  • Case opener
  • Tweezers
  • Screwdrivers
  • Marine epoxy
  • G-S glue
  • silicon grease
  • silicon pad
  • fine brushes
  • pegwood sticks
  • movement cushion

The DG2813 PO GMT Replica

Let’s start with the DG2813. Here is my workbench at the lab, with everything I need nicely arranged.


I first need to open the watch. I use the Jaxa wrench, displayed on the right in the picture above. The back comes off easily enough. And sure enough the gasket is completely dry.


I remove the gasket with tweezers and put it into silicone grease to soak. I remove the rotor, the stem and the little screws holding the movement in place.


I then realise that I have no idea how to remove the movement. It usually just pops out in the videos I’ve seen. Not here, though. Hmm. I attempt to pry it out, but to no avail. I do not want to use too much force. I then google disassembly of DG2813 but find very unhelpful posts (mostly with the movement already out). I google disassembly of replica watches, but cannot find any that show my particular model. I am stuck. Oh well, I figure, I will not glue the front glass, hoping that it is already tight enough and that I will fill the HeV with movement in place. If testing shows that the watch is not water tight, I will have another go at removing the movement.

I mix the marine epoxy.


I prepare the watch by putting sellotape over the movement, being careful not to touch any moving parts. Let me be clear – if this didn’t cost less than a hundred Euros, I would be more careful, but I figure, why not, even if I break it, I have a spare replica. I would not dream of doing that to a genuine watch, but then again the genuine does not need this treatment anyway and also has a 5-year warranty, so if anything happens to the gen, I am straight to the Omega service centre.


I use a bamboo stick to fill the HeV with epoxy with the valve unscrewed. Then, I screw it back in and remove the excess epoxy before it hardens. I remove the tape and end up with a nicely filled hole with not too much epoxy residue.


I need to clean up the epoxy that is stuck in the gasket groove. I use the pegwood sticks for that and after it is almost clean, I use the little watchmakers brushes. I then grease the groove with Silicone and put silicone grease into the stem tunnel. Here is a photo of the epoxy seal from a different angle and the grooves are nicely greased.


I then turn to the display glass in the back, which I can seal with the g-s glue. I apply the glue with a needle applicator, but it still flows a little too freely. You can see the residue on the glass and a little spiderweb tendril of glue crossing it.


I waited a bit for the glue to settle and then used pegwood sticks to clean the excess glue. Looking a lot better now.IMG_4329

I then greased the crown and the o-ring in the crown with silicone grease…


…inserted it back into the movement, re-attached the rotor, and took the gasket from the silicone bath and put it into the groove.


And screwed the back back on.


I checked whether the stem is sitting nicely and whether it still works (it seems that many people are too forceful with the clutch holding the stem in place and they disrupt the winding or the date mechanism when they take the stem out. Luckily that was not a problem for me. Everything still works.

The only thing still needed is to take the watch to the watchmaker to test for water resistance.

UPDATE 1. Next day, I went to a local watchmakers. They first said that they do not have the equipment to test to 600m. I assured them that 10ATM / 100m would do nicely. It passed! The watch is resistant to 100m, which means I can go swimming with it. Yay!

UPDATE 2. I searched for a while on how to remove the movement from the case. It turns out I was almost there. You need to remove the three screws, but also the three oblong washers and then the movement falls out. To see what I am talking about, check this thread on replica-watch.info.


In the next post, I will do the same for the ETA2836-2 replica. Stay tuned.


The Restoration of Sector STE200 part 1

IMG_4274I used to have a watch. It was (is) an old quartz Sector STE200. I bought it 23 years ago and it was on my wrist, day and night, for most of that time. When I was a teenager, I worked with computers and the first paying job I got, netted me quite a lot of money (for my age and the times). The day I got paid, I went into the store in Slovenia and bought this watch. It is not worth much by horological standards, but it is worth a lot to me.

This summer (2015), we went to the island of Losinj for our holidays and I wore the watch as always when I went swimming. On the second day, there was condensation on the inside of the glass. This happened before (about ten years ago), so I was not too upset. I figured, I could get it dried and repaired as I did before. Two days later, it stopped working. Hmm. When I attempted to set it, both hands moved at the same time. Hmmm. The date wheel didn’t move. Hmm. Ok, I thought, it needs cleaning and perhaps the battery needs to be changed. I had the battery changed about three months ago and then it was also tested for water resistance – it was still fine for up to 10ATM (100m).

We finished the vacation and we went back to Slovenia. I took it to the watchmakers (the official Sector seller no less) and they had it for a few days. They called me and I spoke to Marko, a very friendly watchmaker. He told me that the watch was corroded and that the movement is shot. It would need replacing, as well as the hands and probably the dial. I said fine, do it. He told me that he was worried about the cost, but I did not care about that. Whatever it costs. He told me that it is August and the Italians (Sector is an Italian company) have the ferragosto (I hope I spelled that correctly) – the national vacation time. Nothing happens in Italy during August. Well, I said, try to get the parts and I will leave the money with my mother in law and she’ll pick it up for me (I was due to come back to Cambridge). He agreed and I left the watch with him.

He called me a week later and told me that Sector does not have the parts for the watch any more and that I am shit out of luck. I said thanks, took the watch and went online to buy myself another long term staple of my wrist (there is another story there, but that comes in another post). When we came back home to the UK, I thought that simply chucking the watch into the drawer would be giving up, somehow. I went online and checked whether there was a used Sector STE200 for sale anywhere. No luck. Well, I found one for sale in Brazil, but it would be hard for me to procure it (no international shipping, a site in Portuguese, prices in Real’s etc). I was not ready to give up just yet, though.

I registered at Cousins UK, a watchmaker’s site specializing in providing spare parts and movements. I knew that they would not have Sector, but they would sell Japanese and Chinese quartz and mechanical movements. Sector has a swiss ETA movement, by the way, but they are (a) very hard to get as the Swatch group (who owns ETA) is reluctant to sell the movements outside the group and even spare parts are really hard to source.

So ETA was not an option, but there are catalogues of different movements at Cousins. I needed to find the movement that had the right small dial positions at the right places. I figured I would repair the hands and the watch dial myself. When I say repair, I mean relume, essentially. The dial is fine, but the hands are pretty bad (see the photos). So I went searching. I found a Miyota movement that would probably work, but the dimensions need to really match, so I needed to get the movement out of the case. A jaxa type wrench is used for that, which I didn’t have, but that is what eBay is there for. I bought a wrench on September 4th and 24 days later, they still haven’t delivered it. Damn. In the meantime I bought another wrench from another seller, they delivered next day, but without the pins that you need to attach the wrench to the back. I complained, they promised a replacement, but I am still waiting 14 days later.

In the meantime, I discovered an italian watchmaker selling a sector STE155 movement. Used, with a butt-ugly dial, but what do I care, I will replace the dial and hands anyway. I just need to see whether the dimensions match. As soon as I get the wrench, I am opening the watch up and we’ll see. UPDATE. I got the wrench. It seems that the movement should fit. I ordered it. If it does not fit, I will be buying an ETA movement (when I opened the watch up, I found out I am looking for ETA 251.272. I can get those for about 100 pounds).

In the meantime I started preparing for the movement swap. I bought the following:
– new hands (they are luckily very similar to Rolex hands and thus I can get replica rolex hands fairly easily. I still don’t know whether the hole diameters match. I’ll find out when I get the bloody movement out).
– Rodico (cleaner)
– casing cushion
– bracelet tool + lugs
– movement holder
– hand remover
– hand setter
– luminous paste for the dial
– pegwood sticks (cleaning)
– digital measuring tool
– bezel remover
– silicon grease and paste (to grease the orings and gaskets)
– fine brushes
– watchmakers tweezers
– watchmakers screwdrivers
– G-S Glue (to seal the watch crystal)
– gasket and crystal tool (looks like a little hand press with different attachments).
– Watchmakers hammer

I still need to buy:
– the movement
– gaskets
– o-rings

While I am waiting for the case opener, I can still do some stuff. I started by taking the bracelet off. The lugs were heavily distorted. They either used 22mm lugs (it seems that this is a 21mm width) or they just got destroyed by 23 years of use. Luckily, I have about a 100 spares.

I cleaned the bracelet with soap. It is stainless steel, and I am not looking to make it look like new. Having it functional is just fine.

I removed the bezel, because it did not turn any more. The inner grove was just full of gunk. I brushed that out, cleaned it and re-set it. It now turns freely again. I put the watch in the movement holder and waited.

UPDATE. The Jaxa wrench(es) arrived today. I got two wrenches now. But hey, two is better than none.

Front. As you can see, it is badly badly corroded. The hands are really destroyed.





A bit of wrenching later, the case opens. There does not seem to be much damage. No discoloration or rust.


I need to buy a new gasket. 32mm seems to be the right size (0.5mm thick). Off to eBay I go.




Ok, gasket ordered. Now, I need to remove the hands (they have been corroded together). I cannot move them to a position where all of them would be aligned. when I tried (with tweezers, I am not a complete tool), the minute hand just fell apart on me.





Ok, hands are removed, the dial is now exposed.




While I wait for the movement and the new hands, I can re-lume the dial. I use pegwood sticks and slowly remove the old paint.













Then re-lume and this is what I end up with.




Now, I need to wait for the parts to arrive. I will revisit this, once I have everything. Hope the movement will fit. If not, well, I’ll have an extra movement :). To be continued.

About academic fraud


Image downloaded from Keble College Oxford’s web-page

I have done a presentation for a web-security firm in 2011. The presentation is here, and it is live, my voice and picture included. I talked to a crowded room. I was nervous but it went fine.

Recently, I needed to find a reference about Steve McQueen using the word scam for the first time. There was an interview, it was published in Time Magazine in 1963, but I couldn’t recall who the author of the article was. So I googled Steve McQueen and scam and Time Magazine. There was a hit and the wording seemed familiar. So I clicked on this link. If the link is removed, as I suppose it will be, after this becomes public, here is a screenshot of the page and here is the locally stored pdf (fun starts at third slide).

Interesting, right? Amon even took the pictures from my presentation, not only the text. I would be interested to know what the Royal Holloway has to say. I shall contact them later and post their reply here. If we ignore the first two slides, the only thing Amon did, was replace my name with his and changed the background. Not bad, right? Certainly much easier than going to the trouble of researching this.

Let’s look into Amon Sanniez, the plagiarist. Here is his linked-in page. It seems that years of expertise in security and in ownership (heh) have landed him a job a company that does pest control. He used to work for security firms and has lots of qualifications, but not much academic clout (a BSc was the end of the road). He does list my presentation as his publication on linked-in. Here is his blog. The subset of the things he writes about is in my field of expertise and he is not completely on the ball there. The things he writes about there are presented with a simplistic point of view and they are often bounded by a lack of knowledge of the field.

The biggest irony is that Amon replicated my presentation but I now know where I was mistaken and he does not. Several of the things I say are just plainly not true now, and were problematic then, but we (the real scientific community) didn’t know it at the time.

Oh well, best of luck with your future prospects Amon, I am not too bothered about you stealing my work, because I moved forward since, and you, well, not so much.

Note: this is what I sent to the Royal Holloway:


Name is dr. David Modic, I am a research associate at the Security Group, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge. I apologize for simply contacting you out of the blue, but I think you should be aware of the following:

In June 2011 I gave a talk at BAFTA for the company Websense on the topic of Psychology of Internet Fraud. Here is a link to my talk: http://www.websense.com/assets/webinars/speakup/speakup-live/psychology-of-scams/ (with my photo and audio narration).

Two days ago I was looking for a specific reference and I googled it. I found the reference in a presentation by Amon Sanniez, here: http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/dl/weekendconference2011/presentations/Amon-Sanniez–The-Psychology-of-Scams-and-Malware.pdf

When I looked a bit closer, I realized that this was my reference and the whole thing to be a direct copy of my presentation with only my name replaced and the template background changed. The first two slides are not mine, but all the others are, word for word, including the clipart. Feel free to check both links above.

 I looked at the event and it turns out it was held by the Royal Holloway Security Group in September 2011, if I understand correctly. The slides are hosted on the Royal Holloway pages. Your group was of course not to know that Amon Sanniez plagiarised my research and in the grand scheme of things it does not matter much anyway, but I thought you should be aware of this. If you paid anything to the presenters you were also scammed, in a sense. I guess there is irony in talking about fraud by committing academic fraud. I also realize that mr. Sanniez has no affiliation with RHUL.

Anyway, I just thought you should know. I don’t have any expectations about what happens next, it is completely up to you if you want to pursue it in any way. Please note that if I found plagiarized work hosted by Royal Holloway in about 30s  through google, others might too, and that may reflect badly on the RHUL, even though I don’t think any of this is in any way the security group’s or the University’s fault.

I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Kindest regards,

— David


Improving the science

Here is a post about how science could be improved. To sum up:


(c) The New Yorker

  • Stop people from hitching themselves up on work of other, junior, researchers (stop ghost or honorific authorship).
  • Rethink REF and implement other measures of academic merit
  • Support replication and move away from positivistic science.

I like this. First of all, I agree that things need to change.

I am worried that it will never happen, though. Or, if it does it may be at the expense of junior research staff – Let’s say that someone is on a grant. The Principal Investigator (PI) for the grant got the money in and is employing them. If the researcher publishes their research and cites the PI as a co-author, what does that mean? Is it an honorific authorship or a ghost one? Even if the PI did nothing much to contribute to the article, should they be removed from the paper? If they did not secure the grant, there would be no salary for the researcher and the research would not happen. So, the PI is instrumental to the research in a very concrete way, even if the data collection, experimental design and write-up was not primarily (or not at all in some cases) done by the PI. I am not talking about myself, to be clear. I have absolutely nothing to complain about in this respect. 

Furthermore, if PI’s are removed from the publications that they enabled but did not invest much work in, that would mean that they would have to do much more research by themselves and not have much time to spend on preparing grants and thus there would be less opportunities for junior researchers to be employed. In the climate where it is hard to get a postdoc as it is, this is nothing to wish for. 

We know how these things work. As a junior researcher the options of securing grants on your own are fairly slim to non-existent as it is now. So, taking away the incentive to be employed by more senior researchers is not a brilliant move. Ah, I hear you say, you only need to be excellent and it all works out. Right? Well (a) at my place of work, everybody is excellent, otherwise we would not be here. So beating the internal selection process is a bitch and your work that receives worldwide recognition would not necessarily secure your future here. And (b) What good is your excellence if the only job you can hold is to be a nightwatchman at Tesco, because there are no grants available? That job does not offer many opportunities for you to showcase your research skills. Or leave you much time to practice them.

In my opinion, the notion that doing research for research sake and not in order to keep holding a job or increasing your viability for grant success is very nice and something to strive for. In the current climate, I think that it is somewhat romantic, though. How do you get the grant giving bodies to stop assessing the grant proposals on the strength of publication counts and Impact Factor (IF)? What would a replacement metric be? How often you appear in the newspapers? We already know from some Dutch research that personal fame is a stronger indicator of getting funds than publication count. That is even worse than trying to estimate merit, even if the current measure is flawed. It just makes you more likely to media whore and also introduces large inequality across applicants. I have been solicited by the BBC a number of times to do stuff with them. And we do collaborate every once in a while. How likely do you think it is that I would have been contacted by the Beeb if I wasn’t working for Cambridge? So, those of us who are in some ways in a privileged position, would really have a leg up on those who do not get those opportunities based on location or (lack of) prestige of the institution.

So, what should we do? Things are broken now, but they function to a certain extent. From a purely economic perspective, we should think about incentives offered to Universities and their senior research staff. Only people who do not work in academia in 1st world countries make the mistake of thinking that University Teaching Officers (UTO) are doing their jobs out of love. Most of us like and enjoy our jobs, make no mistake, but the discrepancies between the industry and academia are already huge. My starting salary in the industry would be about 2-3 times higher than it is in academia. The job security is about the same in both places at least until you are an UTO. After, it is slightly harder to get fired from a University, but you can still manage it if you mess things up sufficiently. So telling senior researchers that their jobs will be less secure (as a consequence of lower performance ratings, which is a consequence of lesser ability to secure grants, which is a consequence of their names being dropped from the grant publications), but that is OK, because they should simply love science, would not be unopposed, in my opinion. Saying that something should be done and proposing these measures without wrapping them in a bullshit sandwich is not a good way to go. If something makes logical sense, it does not mean that it will be accepted. Perhaps this is what scientists should actually learn.

O družinskem zakoniku

(c) http://rs1img.memecdn.com/amazing_c_2910943.jpgKo grem na Facebook, se srečam z različnimi mnenji o noveli družinskega zakonika. Tisti, ki ne veste, novela družinskega spomenika je bila sprejeta 51:28. Bistvena sprememba je, da so istospolne družine in tradicionalna družina izenačene. Slovenija zdaj pozna samo še družino.

Nasprotniki tej izenačitvi pravijo, da to ni naravno, da bodo geji in lezbijke ukradli naše otroke, da to ni po božji volji. Da se bodo Slovenci od zdaj naprej poročali z živalmi in da bodo lahko imeli po več žena in da se bodo bratje lahko poročali s sestrami. In tako naprej.

Pri vsem tem mi je nekaj všeč. Všeč mi je da to spomni da teorija zavesti (theory of mind) še deluje! Včasih se ujamem pri prepričanju, da vsi mislijo tako kot jaz. In potem preberem komentarje na Facebooku in vidim, da smo še vedno različni. Super.

Argumenti nasprotnikov zakona me sicer ne prepričajo iz več razlogov. Še najbolj ker so zvečine butasti (argumenti, ne pozamezniki, ki jih reproducirajo), ampak ne bi zdej modroval. No mičken vseeno bom.

Mene istospolne družine ne motijo.

(a) Če bi oba s Kim umrla in bi z nama šla tudi širša družina, verjetno itak ne bi imel kaj dosti besede pri tem kdo bo skrbel za mojega otroka (predvsem, ker bi bil mrtev). Bi pa stokrat raje videl, da moj otrok odrašča v ljubečem družinskem okolju kot pa v kakem vzgojnem zavodu. Katerakoli družina, kjer si otroka res želijo in zanj ne skrbijo samo zaradi rente mi je bolj všeč. Tko da fantaziranje o tem, kako bi urejal življenje svojega otroka še iz groba verjetno ne bi obrodilo sadov, moje preference pa so jasne (ljubeča družina, sestavljena iz poljubne mešanice spolov: JA, vzgojni zavod: NE).

(b) Moja moškost ni načeta s tem, da si kakšne ženske tud ne želijo met otrok z mano ampak na primer s kom drugim, recimo z drugo žensko (lohk tut moškim, da ne bo pomote. Da ne bo zgledal kot da mislim, da je edini razlog zakaj me ne ljubijo vse ženske na tem svetu lahko samo to, da so lezbijke).

(c) Poznam take in drugačne heteroseksualce. Poznam tudi takšne in drugačne homoseksualce. Menim, da osebnost ni vrednostno zaznamovana s spolno usmerjenostjo. Če malo karikiram, recimo, da dva geja posvojita sinčka. Je to, da ima sine kasneje izostren okus za notranje oblikovanje res tako zavržno? Kot pravim, poznam idiote, ki so geji in idiote, ki so ravni. Verjetno mi ni treba posebej ilustrirat kaki zagovedneži so lahko strejti. Dovolj je verjetno če pregledamo komentarje o dotičnem zakoniku. Kar se tiče gejev… Par let nazaj s Kim stojiva v intersparu, kjer čakava, da nama bojo stehtal zelenjavo. Pred nama dva tipa (recimo jima A in B), v jeansu, srednjih let, ravno tako čakata v vrsti.

A: Joj, Bjči a sva morala sem v Šparčija? FULLL majo slabšo zelenjavo tuki.

B: Bova že potrpela.

A: Ampak Bjči, v Merkiču vedno vse dobiva, pa tut veš kooolk stresno mi je it v drugo trgovino, ker pol nič ne najdem.

B: Zdaj sva tukaj, kupiva pa pejva.

A: Ampak, glej te jabke, sam poglej jih, to je vse gnilo. Pa v Merkiču nikol ne čakava ampak sama stehtava.

B (mu je mal nerodno).

David (se zahahljam). A se obrne proti meni.

A: Kaj pa je tako smešno?

D:  Mal mi je smešno ker pač niste šli v Merkator, če vam tukaj tolk ne ustreza.

A: A se norčuješ iz mene?! A se mi posmehuješ? A?!!

D: Čisto malo se vam smejem ja. Ker se mi ni zdi vredno bit tolk razburjen.

B: Nehi, A, no.

A: Ne bom nehal! A vidiš tole? A vidiš? (Kriči, proti meni moli bedž v obliki rožnatega trikotnika, ki ga ima na džekiju).

D: Vidim, ja.


D: Rožnate?


D: Da mislite, da se vam ne smemo smejat, ko ste smešni, zato ker ste gej?

B se začne smejat. A se užaljeno obrne stran in v tišini čakamo, da nam bojo stehtal zelenjavo.

(d) Vsi, vsaj tisti, ki smo iz foha, vemo kako neskončno lahko je izgubit otroka. V tem pogledu, ko gre zame in moje bi se boril proti temu ne-glede na to, kdo naj bi ga dobil. Kdo je prejemnik je v tem primeru zame čisto brezpredmetno. No pa saj zakon nič od tega ne določa. Otroka je enako lahko izgubiti kot prej.

Anekdotičen resničen primer: Psihoterapevtska skupina nekje na psihiatriji. Sam sem opazovalec. Skupino vodita dva terapevta (namenoma ne opredeljujem spola). Ravno smo sprejeli gospoda srednjih let, ločenega, ne najbolj bistrega, ki ima šest let staro hčerko. Čez vikende je hčerka pri njem, čez teden pri mami. Nekako po pol ure gre pogovor nekako takole.

Terapevt A: A vi imate radi svojo hčerko?
Pacient: Ja, najraje na svetu jo imam. Ona je edino kar še imam. (joka)
T: A pa ji kdaj poveste da jo imate radi?
P: Ja, kar naprej. Včasih ji prinesem rožice v šolo med tednom.
T: A pa jo kdaj tudi objamete?
P: Seveda.
T: Tudi ko sta sama?
P: Ja.
T: A pa ji date kdaj lupčka?
P: Ja. Velikokrat. Veste ona je tko lepa in pametna.
T: Kaj pa ona pravi, ko ji date lupčka?
P: Nerodno ji je. Pa reče: Oči, dej nehi, no.
T: Pa takrat nehate?
P: Ne, sej ji je sam nerodno, sej nič ne misli s tem.
T: Aha, otrok vas prosi, da ga pustite pri miru, vi pa ga še kar naprej poljubljate?
P: Sej ni to nič takega. Samo rad jo imam.
T: Pa kdaj prespi hčerka pri vas?
P: Ja seveda, med vikendi.
T: Ali ima svojo sobo pri vas?
P: Ne, veste nimam denarja. Ko kaj zaslužim, gre za preživnino, pa za hrano. Samo garsoniero imam v najemu.
T: Aha torej spita v isti postelji?
P: Ja. Jaz sem s kmetov, tudi mi smo po štirje spali v isti postelji in včasih sta nam ata pa mama pustila da spimo pri njiju. To je blo fino.
T: Torej pravite, da sta skupaj brez nadzora, spita v isti postelji in če vam reče da jo nehate poljubljat, vi ne nehate (pomenljivo pogleda Terapevta B in mene)?
P: Vsak starš je kdaj sam s svojim otrokom. Saj se ima fino z mano. Tako jo imam rad.
Terapevt B zamenja temo.

Po skupini se pogovarjamo. Terapevt A reče:
T A: A sta videla, kako je bil izmuzljiv?
T B: Vem kam napeljujes, samo jaz nimam istega občutka kot ti.
T A: Ne. Tega otroka je treba zaščitit! Takoj moramo poklicat socialno. Meni se zdi, da so indici za zlorabo jasni.
T B: Glej, nobene zgodovine zlorab. Pacient ni dovolj brihten, da bi se delal zabitega. Če bi otroka zlorabljal se ne bi tako inkriminiral.
T A: Pa saj nista normalna. Uboga punčka pa trpi!
T B: Pacient je pri nas na oddelku. Edino otrokovo trpljenje je, ker ne ve zakaj je oči ne pobere čez vikend. Je mama kaj namignila?
T A: Ne, pravi, da je pacient super oče, da ima zelo rad hčerko in da izredno lepo skrbi zanjo. A vidita kako je se svoji bivši ženi opral mozgane? On je psihopat, vama rečem.
T B: Kaj pa če mama govori resnico?
T A: Nemogoče! Saj sta na skupini slisala kako je priznal zlorabo. Zdejle grem klicat socialno.
T B: Jaz sem proti. Kaj pa ti misliš, David?

Jaz mislim, da je treba bit skrajno previden, ko se pogovarjaš s socialnimi delavci/delavkami in podobnimi profili, ker je skrajno lahko naletet na koga, ki si je vbil v glavo, da bo zaščitil otroka pred nadaljnjo škodo, pa naj stane kar hoče. V danem primeru rečem, da se bolj strinjam s terapevtom B, vendar ne bi rad bil v poziciji kjer naj bi odločal, ker sem le gost na tem oddelku. 

Ironija je, da se ta situacija absolutno nič ne spremeni, ne glede na to kakšne so spremembe družinskega zakonika. Če koga skrbi za njegove in tuje otroke, potem bi bil neprimerno bolj efektiven če bi lobiral za bolj uravnoteženo vodenje podobnih primerov, ne glede na to kakšnega spola sta starša. Na primer tako, da so v takih odločitvah udeleženi starši, otroci in sorodniki, zadnja beseda pa je tista strokovnjakov, ki delujejo v več-članski skupini. Otroci do določenega leta ne lažejo. Kasneje morda lažejo, ampak z razlogom. Vse to se da izprašat in to se včasih tudi zgodi. In ne prepuščajo odločitve zunanjemu opazovalcu samo zato, da bi se drugi strani zameril on, ne pa člani komisije. Te odločitve morajo biti tudi obtežene – ja, za otrokovo dobro gre, torej dejmo mal razmišljat o tem kakšne bodo posledice zanj v različnih scenarijih. Zlorabljan otrok verjetno profitira, če je umaknjen iz take situacije. Ne-zlorabljan otrok morda profitira, morda pa močno izgublja. Izgubi ljubeče okolje in morda gre v drugo ljubeče okolje (če ima srečo), vendar še vedno živi jezen in žalosten (morda na starše, ker ga niso obranili pred iztrganjem iz njegove primarne celice. Morda na državo, ki ga je odvzela. Morda na krušne starše, ki jih vidi kot nezadosten surogat pravim staršem). Lahko, da komaj čaka da gre iz primarne družine in nič ne izgublja. Lahko, da komaj čaka, da gre, ker se ne zaveda v kako sranje lahko šele pride. Lahko da biološki starši komaj čakajo, da gre. Lahko, da biološki starši nočejo, da gre, vendar ne vidijo drugih možnosti. Tega se ne odločamo na podlagi ene  skupinske seanse s podpovprečno inteligentnim očetom (njegov IQ je dejstvo, empirično preverjeno). Ne vemo, če ne vprašamo vseh vpletenih. Popreproščanje, da je družina dobra ali slaba glede na njeno biološko sestavo, pa je točno to, popreproščanje.







Imam to smolo ali pa morda srečo, da sem periodično izpostavljen viharjem v žlici vode na temo cepljenja. Obe strani sta dodobra vkopani. Sam sicer cepim svojega otroka, ker ocenjujem, da je zanjo tveganje dovolj majhno, da se izplača biti pro-socialen in pomagati tistim, ki nimajo izbire. Se pa ponavadi ne spuščam v debate na to temo, ker mislim, da je to bolj stvar vere kot argumentiranja in ne verjamem, da bom lahko verjetje spodkopal z argumentom. Če bi se to dalo, potem bi bili na svetu sami ateisti.
In potem moji znanci in bivši sošolci vsake toliko časa nalepijo kak link (ki ga tu ne bom delil, ker ne verjamem, da je treba norcem posojati megafon samo zato, da bomo na videz vsi enako glasni), ki me malo užalosti. Žalosten sem, ko sploh moram preletet take nebuloze. Saj ne da jih natančno berem, ampak že tisto kar vidim. Ajme. Pa tako rad bi verjel, da je človeška rasa v povprečju razgledana in čuteča.
In potem berem komentarje. Clickbait. In moja bivša sošolca (eden iz osnovne in eden iz srednje šole) se zapleteta v debato. Eden meni, da je izogibanje cepljenju kriminal in nemoralno, drugi meni, da je narobe da nima izbire. Sicer je načeloma morda za cepljenje, ali pa morda proti… v vsakem primeru pa hoče on biti odgovoren za svoje otroke in dokler mu nekdo ne garantira, da je tveganje za njegov rod nično, toliko časa bo proti cepljenju, tko nominativno, na ravni ideje.
Moj komentar v tistem postu:
Močno priporočam v branje: Schneier, B. (2012). Liars and outliers : enabling the trust that society needs to thrive. Indianapolis.: Wiley.
Nekje v knijgi Schneier oriše kako je cepljenje t.i. tragedy of the commons. Za tiste, ki jim ekonomija ni blizu: Tragedija skupnega je pojav, kjer skupina ljudi “čisto malo” izkorišča skupno dobrino, racunajoč na to, da je ostali ne bodo. Temeljni primer je vaški pašnik, kjer lahko 10 kmetov uporablja 2/3 zemljišča 10% časa, 1/3 pa se medtem obnavlja. Pa si reče en kmet: “Če kravo pasem 10% časa na 2/3 in potem se 10% časa na prepovedani tretjini, se ne bo nič hudega zgodilo, saj ima prepovedana tretjina še vedno 90% časa na voljo za obnovo, moja krava pa bo še enkrat bolj rejena kot sosedove.” In potem si isto reče se ostalih 9 kmetov, kar pomeni, da na koncu travnik propade in vsem pocrkajo krave.
Schneier vleče parallelo s cepljenjem – če en posameznik reče: “Boli me za tiste, ki se ne morejo cepit, ne mislim tvegat svojega otroka, ne glede na to kako majhno je tveganje zanj v primerjavi. Sej ostali tvegajo zame s cepljenjem svojih otrok.” Ta stav deluje samo dokler večina cepi svoje otroke. Ko družba začne razmišljati v lastno korist in ne v korist skupnosti (ob ne-prehudem tveganju), dobimo tragedijo skupnega.
Hecno se mi zdi dvoje: (a) Da moj sošolec O sicer načeloma kritizira individualistično logiko in neoliberalizem (v drugih postih), medtem ko je tukaj ekstremno libertaren (češ, ne bom tvegal za druge, ne glede na posledice zanje in majhno tveganje zame).
Racionalizacija zakaj ne bi tvegal, je tu poljubna. V našem primeru pac očitek, da nekdo ni pripravljen tveganja prevzeti nase (zdravnik, ki ne podpiše, da bo z O-jevim otrokom vse v redu). Kar nas pripelje do (b) Kot je že moj sošolec A nakazal, je v življenju bolj malo ne-tveganih odločitev. In seveda ne-prepoznavanje tveganja ni isto kot odsotnost tveganja. Zanašanje na to, da mi “lahko nekdo zagotovi” da je nekaj brez tveganja pa mi itak jemlje moč odločanja. Če se odločam samo za stvari, ki nimajo nobenih potencialnih negativnih posledic in vedno izbiram samo izbire z gotovimi pozitivnimi posledicami, potem se itak ne odločam. Moja izbira je jasna in vedno ista. Mirno bi me lahko zamenjal robot. Trik človeškosti je to, da se odločiš med dvema bolj ali manj bednima opcijama in živiš s posledicami. Kar nas seveda pripelje nazaj na cepljenje. Moje mnenje je, da je lahko opletat z lastno odgovornostjo takrat, ko meniš, da ne bo ta nikoli igrala vloge. Ker ze po Frommu vemo, da je odgovornost 1/številom vpletenih.

Heh, to me spomni na veliko debato v Kaliforniji pred par leti ali naj motoristi nosijo čelade ali ne. Pro-nosilci rečejo, da je to varno in fer in razumno, Kontra-nosilci rečejo: “To je moja lastna izbira, nihče ne bo kratil moje svobode in vetra v laseh”. Problem je sicer to, da če človek brez čelade ne umre v prometni nesreči, potem jaz kot davkoplačevalec plačujem za njegove zdravniške posege, oskrbo in nego, s čimer krati mojo svobodo razpolaganja z lastnimi sredstvi in mojo pravico do odločanja. Obenem tudi, kot rastlina, postane izdatek za proračun in ne priliv (kot davkoplačevalec), tako da njegova odločitev ne vpliva samo nanj ampak tudi na ostale državljane. In enako velja če umre – ne prinaša več dodane vrednosti, pritisk je večji na nas ostalih. Na mikro nivoju je seveda problem tudi če se je svobodnjak razplodil. Verjetno ima potem njegova družina tudi kaj za dodat o tem, koliko časa bi radi še preživeli z njim. Zelo podobno, ne, kot cepljenje? Na žalost predlagana rešitev v primeru čelad ne deluje pri anti-vacci brigadi – v Kaliforniji so predlagali zakon, kjer je nošenje čelade neobvezno, ampak vsak, ki je ne nosi, je avtomatično zaveden kot darovalec organov in nima pravice do oživljanja. Na žalost ne vem, če so zakon sprejeli ali ne, se mi pa zdi kar ustrezen. Pač tvegej če hočeš, samo sprejmi odgovornost za svoje tveganje.

O nadpovprečnosti

mladinaV Mladini (19.02.2015) je v izjavah tedna tudi tale:

“Čedalje več je takih ljudi, ki so nadpovprečni” (Vlasta Nussdorfer na Valu 202 o inflaciji nadpovprečnosti)

Na prvi pogled je to smešno. Sej ne more biti več kot polovica ljudi boljših od povprečja, ne? Ne?


Polovica ljudi je na vsaki strani srednje vrednosti, ne aritmetičnega povprečja. Zmedeni?

(1) Primer:

Imamo 10 ljudi in merimo njihov npr. uspeh od 0 do 100%. V prvem primeru je 5 ljudi doseglo 25% in 5 ljudi 75%. Aritmetična sredina je:

(25 + 25 +25 +25 + 25 + 75 + 75 + 75 + 75 + 75) / 10 = 50

Torej 50% je povprečje in 5 ljudi je boljših in 5 slabših. OK.


(2) V drugem primeru doseže 5 ljudi 10% in 5 ljudi 20%. Aritmetična sredina (povprečje) je:

(10 + 10 +10 +10 +10 + 20 + 20 + 20 + 20 + 20) / 10 = 15

Torej tistih 5 posameznikov, ki so dosegli 20% je nadpovprečnih! V absolutnem smislu so skrajno neuspešni, vendar v primerjavi s svojimi vrstniki dobivajo nadpovprečne ocene. In še huje:


(3) V tretjem primeru imamo takole razporeditev: 5, 1, 1, 1, 5, 6 , 6, 6, 6, 6. Aritmetična sredina (povprečna vrednost) je:

(1 + 1 + 1 +5 +5 + 6 + 6 +6 +6 +6) / 10 = 4.3

Od 10 posameznikov jih je 7 nadpovprečnih v tretjem primeru. Torej več kot polovica.


Ampak, ampak, kako je lahko več kot polovica ljudi nadpovprečnih, vas slišim spraševati. Zato, ker povprečje (oz. aritmetična sredina) ne označuje nujno srednje točke v populaciji! Nabolj pogosto, prelomno vrednost, ki deli skupino na dva dela, označi mediana. Mediano izračunamo tako, da razvrstimo vrednosti po vrsti  in tista, ki je najbolj pogosta, je mediana. Če sta dve številki bolj pogosti kot ostale, potem ju seštejemo in razpolovimo. Mediano uporabljamo predvsem v ekonomiji, ko recimo želimo vedeti kaj o plači, ki je najbolj pogosta. Če vzamemo aritmetično sredino, potem tisti, ki zaslužijo ogromno in tisti, ki ne zaslužijo nič izkrivijo porazdelitev. Če npr. vzamemo nekega pro-rektorja neke angleške univerze, ki ima plačo 500.000 funtov+ na leto in nekega pomivalca posode, ki ima plačo 8.000 funtov / leto, zraven pa dodamo še 8 delavcev, ki zaslužijo 18.000 na leto, potem bi lahko mislili, da je povprečna letna plača v Angliji 65.200 funtov. Vrednost mediane je v tem konkretnem primeru 18.000 funtov / leto, kar je tudi v resnici blizu najbolj pogosti angleški plači in nam pove precej več o stanju ekonomije, kupni moči, revščini itd). 

(1) V prvem primeru je mediana: ( (25 + 75 ) / 2 ) = 50 (== aritmetična sredina)

(2) V drugem primeru:  ( (10 + 20) / 2) = 15 (< aritmetične sredine)

(3) V tretjem primeru :  ( (5 + 6) / 2) = 5.5 (> aritmetične sredine)

V vseh treh primerih je mediana na sredini (5 ljudi na vsaki strani).

Na dva načina je torej lahko zgornja izjava povsem točna.

(a) Ker povprečje ni mediana in je možno, da je čedalje več ljudi nad povprečjem.


(b) Ker je razmerje lahko isto (pri fiksnem povprečju), pa imamo kljub temu vedno več nadpovprečnih posameznikov.

Ne vem o čem konkretno je Vlasta N. govorila v oddaji, ampak recimo, da je govorila o inteligenci in ne o izpitni uspešnosti. Povprečna inteligenca je določena. Povprečen IQ po Wechslerju je 89 – 109. Če vzamemo izjavo samo, potem je vedno več Slovencev, ki imajo IQ > 109. Malo verjetno je, da je prav v Sloveniji normalna distribucija inteligentnosti drugačna kot po svetu. Če je, potem ni treba nič več dokazovati, ker izjava logično (ne pa nujno faktografsko) že stoji .

V primeru, da Slovenija ni izjema in da je vrednost povprečne inteligence po vsem svetu podobna, je Vlastina izjava še vedno lahko pravilna. Kako? Če hočemo ohraniti fiksno povprečje, potem moramo kontra-obtežiti populacijo. Kako? Za vsakega genija, rabimo dodatnega morona, pa povprečje in razmerje ostaneta ista, obenem pa imamo več nadpovprečnih. Torej, če hočemo preveriti ali je izjava resnična ali ne, potem pogledamo rezultate inteligenčnih testov šolarjev (ne vem če jih še delajo, v mojih osnovnošolskih časih so jih) in hitro vidimo ali je res vedno več genijev in vedno več butcev.

Seveda gre vse to na račun povprečno inteligentnih.

Nič smešnega ali čudnega ni v izjavi tedna. Morda izjava ni faktografsko resnična, vendar tega ne vidimo iz izjave same.

On Deception and Conflict

Israeli children signing rockets going into Gaza (c) PressTV

Israeli children signing rockets going into Gaza (c) PressTV


My research area is psychology of: persuasion, deception, fraud etc. I have an interest in other connected areas – decision making under risk, altruistic punishment, self-regulation


I am not an expert in politics or psychology of war. I am, however, a thinking person and I wanted to apply some of the stuff I work on daily to the conflict in Gaza. I will try as hard as possible to not take sides, although my opinion will come through what I write.





I should point out that my position is not the position of the University of Cambridge. I have no clue what the University’s position is. There usually isn’t a unifying one as there are tens of thousands academics working here with wildly different religious and political views, so the University usually stays out of the fray and thus does not risk angering a portion of its staff.

What are the official positions of both sides?

The Israeli
Israelis say that the violence against them must stop and that they have the right to defend themselves. Full support of international community is claimed.
They say that the Israel Army Forces deserve the Nobel peace prize for restraint.
They say that they need to kill everyone in Gaza in order to prevent violence against their people.
They say that history is written by the winners and thus the end justify the means.
In the same blogpost they say that they do not target innocent civilians because they have precision-guided munitions that only kill bad guys and collaborators.
They say that the gloves should come off and enough with the soft treatment of Palestinians.
They say that Hamas has a network of hidden underground tunnels leading in Isareali territory.


What do reports from Palestine say (mostly not from Palestinians – no electricity, water or limited Internet access. Hard to write.)
Israelis drink beer and cheer bombing of Gaza.
Violence against civilians is not stopped or restrained.
Flechette shells are being used on populated areas.
A father opens a plastic bag: ‘This is my son,’ he says, killed by an Israeli shell.
Israel indiscriminately bombed The Shijaiyeh neighborhood in Gaza City. Heavy shelling prevented ambulances from reaching the wounded for hours.
In first three days of gaza bombing 95 children are killed.
Israelis are using white phosphorus.
Four boys killed by a bomb while playing footbal in the Gaza stripIt is fairly hard to not be cynical at this point, and ask questions about where the terrorists using the boys as live shields were hiding in this case and just how precise the precise munitions are.
A Palestinian boy forced to drink gasoline and then set on fire as a revenge for someone else killing three Israeli boys.


What do observers say?
77% of Palestinians killed are civilians.
Israelis bomb hospitals and injure civilians, many of whom are children.
Live coverage of Israelis cheering explosions in Gaza.
Timeline of violence.  Kill ratio of 1:7 in favor of Israel.
By July 21st According to UN – 25 Israeli soldiers were killed and 2 Israeli civilians. Estimated 86 Palestinian militants and 406 Palestinian civilians were killed (69 women, 129 children) 
Israel accused of war crimes by UK MP’s.
Israel bombs el-Wafa hospital. Red Cross international calls after shelling starts to ask how long to evacuate before the start in order to not hurt patients.
South America (Bolivia and Venezuela) condemn Israel.
CNN journalist pulled from Gaza after criticizing Israeli celebrations of shelling of Gaza.
NBC Reporter pulled out of gaza after blogging about murders of four Palestinian teenagers playing soccer on the beach.


There is a slant to these stories
Israelis would tell you that Palestinians are forcing their children into areas that would be bombed in order to elicit outrage. They would also tell you that the underground tunnels pose a clear and present danger because of suicide bombers swarming out of them. They would tell you that they have not been killed en-masse for two reasons only: (a) because they preemptively striked first and (b) they are protected by their missile shield.

Palestinians would tell you that their rockets have no explosive, because of the embargo, they would tell you that that they live in an open air prison, where there is no electricity, not enough water, no medical supplies. They would ask where were they supposed to get weapons to attack Israel. They may ask whether throwing rocks at tanks might be seen more a move of desperation than real murderous intent.

So, there are two stories here – Either the Israelis are fighting for their lives and the Palestinians are wickedly good at spin plus very high in Machiavelianism (willing to scarifice and maim their children and wives in order to prove a point). Or the Palestinians are being mass slaughtered by Israelis and fighting back with stick and stones out of desperation.


On Lying
We therefore have two opposite views and at least one of the sides is engaging in deception. In the lab setting we are not much better than chance in detecting deception (c.f meta analysis by Bond & DePaulo, 2006). In layman’s terms – if we know nothing about the real situation and are observing a person and asking them questions about the situation we are about as accurate as flipping a coin is. When it comes to high stakes lies (i.e. lies where getting caught matters to you), we are a bit better (around 70% accurate). Still, we cannot be sure. And we cannot be sure in the context of this conflict. I suppose it is possible that Palestinians are lying, but I believe it is extremely unlikely, as deception is engaged when there is some benefit to be gained by it, usually. And here the benefit (the outrage of the world) does not outweigh the cost (thousands of people dead from the start of the conflict, 50 years of siege, destroyed infrastructure and no hope for the future generations). Now, I know that Nietzsche said that the rich have power and the poor have morals (paraphrased) and one could argue that Palestinians are saying: “Well my kid has lost his legs and my daughter is blind, but at least the West knows who is the moral victor here.” I find that implausible and more than slightly cynical, though.

In thinking about how to approach this mess, it occurred to me, that who is lying and who is right may not be the main issue at all.


Semi-objective facts

If we leave to one side the question of who is right and who is wrong. And avoid the spin and moral outrage we may justifiably feel, then we are left with probably not completely accurate, but still ballpark figures. What do we know:

– The conflict has been going on for 47 years.
– As a consequence of (in)direct military action 7000 Palestinians and 1000 Israelis died during this time. It is hard to estimate how many people died from the consequences of the armed conflict (hunger, suicide bombings, lack of medicines, etc) so let’s not go there and stay with reported facts.
– In the “Protective Edge” about 30 Israelis died (2 civilians) and about 500 Palestinians died (406 civilians, but may be more, depending on your definition of a “militant”) according to the U.N.
– There are video tapes of Israelis using white phosphorus (linked above) on Palestinians. Phosposhorus is hard to control and causes burns on people regardless of whether they are “militants” or children playing soccer.
– The whole “Protective Edge” operation started because three Israeli kids were killed (and we do not know by whom, to be clear).

Here is my question.

When is it enough?

When you kill 10 people for every one you lost? 20? 50? 100? 500? Everyone? When can you stop kicking a dog that is down, because you are sure they learned their lesson? When does the fact that you are the most macho, ubermenschian race in the region come through clearly enough? How much dehumanization is needed for the lesser race to understand their place? Make no mistake, Israel spends $18 billion on arms every year. There is no question who is better funded in this conflict. So, I am asking, when does one feel that they have successfully prevented the buzzing fly from ruining their breakfast? When you have vastly superior infrastructure, army, defense capabilities etc, do you have kill *every* Palestinian child or is 1 out of 3 enough to prove a point? In what world is it justifiable to force a kid to drink gasoline and then set him on fire, regardless of his innocence?

My point is. Let’s forget about who is moral and who is not. Let’s forget about pain and death and help me answer this simple question. When is it enough? When are you satisfied?

From reading the comments under blog posts, I have no doubt that many Israelis would answer this by saying: “When every last Palestinian is eradicated.” Mostly from the comfort of Internet anonymity. To which I will say: “That is your prerogative. But do not be surprised to then be treated like the fucking bullies you are. The civilized world has learned that there is no percentage in kicking an opponent when they are truly down and out. They are throwing rocks at you, for God’s sake, doesn’t that tell you something about their ability for retribution?”

Let’s be clear about something here. This is neither a pro-Palestine post, nor an anti-Israeli one. I have accepted the premise that each side has their own position and am working inside those parameters, regardless of whether they are objectively true or not and whether I agree with them or not. What I am saying is that if we accept that there are reasons for retribution, well, how much retribution is needed to satisfy?

Let the flaming begin.



Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of Deception Judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214-234.

O malih ljudeh in malih politikih

SDS opozarja (po Twitterju, mensezdi), glej zgodbo, da se moramo varovati (parafraziram) “instant strank, z instant politiki in instant programom”.

Ja, ker instant stranke z instant programom so nekončno slabše kot etablirane stranke z vedno istim programom, ki ga nikoli ne izpolnijo? Naposlušal sem se predvolilnih obljub, ki potem nekam izginejo in “prvakov strank” ki vedno znajo razložiti zakaj nič ne delajo, ko so enkrat izvoljeni. To, da veš kaj boš naredil, če gre vse po tvoje in ne kaj boš naredil, če se ti nekaj sfiži, je (po Ericu Berneju, očetu transakcijske analize) definicija zgube. Zmagovalci vedno vejo kaj bodo naredili če ne gre vse po njihovo, in zgube nikoli, po Berneju. In potem že pred volitvami poslušam kako se kandidati dajejo v oklepaje, v smislu, “No tole bomo naredili, seveda, če bomo izvoljeni in če bomo v koaliciji in če bomo… “. To ni t.i. realistična drža. Realistična drža bi bila, če bi kdo rekel – “Naš program je takle: tole so naši maksimalni cilji, ki jih bomo lahko dosegali, če bodo izpolnjeni tile pogoji. Tole so naši minimalni cilji, ki jih bomo dosegali v slabših pogojih.” In tako naprej. Do sedaj še nisem slišal človeka, ki bi v Sloveniji rekel – takle je naš plan, taka je časovnica, taka je SWOT analiza, tole so naše omejitve, tole naše prednosti, tole bomo naredili v situaciji (a) in tole v situaciji (b). Hočem reči, da ni videti, da bi imele stranke kake stratege, ki razmišljajo korak dlje od točke, kjer dobi stranka mesto v parlamentu in lahko začne prej nezaposlene ključavničarje nastavljati v nadzorne odbore bank in državnih podjetij. Ni videti,da bi svetovalci “prvakom” znali vbiti v glavo, da izpolnjevanje kratkoročnih ciljev ni nujno daljnoročno najboljše.

Stranke pri nas so kot komunala, ki jo vedno preseneti sneg sredi zime. Na primer. “Ne moremo izvajati programa, ker sami nimamo večine!” Jah, to je za vas novost, da morate delovati v koaliciji in sprejemati kompromise? Zakaj začnete o tem razmišljat po volitvah in ne med oblikovanjem programa? Ni umetnost mesarit s polno ritjo vpliva, umetnost je nekje popustit in nekje pridobit, v vedenju, da so vse te igre dolgoročne. Danes imam vec moči jaz, pa se nekje prilagodim, čeprav mi ne bi bilo treba, v naslednjem parlamentu ti, pa se takrat ti prilagodiš meni. Ne? Obema nama je cilj izboljšati stanje za državljane, ne? Razlikujeva se pač v ideji tega, kako to storiti. In dokler to ne bo jasno, ne bomo nikamor prišli. Moj najljubši fanatični libertarec zelo rad citira Churchilla in pred kratkim je navajal njegovo krilatico, da naj bomo neizprosni v porazu in radodarni v zmagi (v prostem prevodu). No, tega se pri nas nekako ne moremo navaditi. Niti tega, da priznamo poraz, niti tega, da je taktično pametno, če se ne posmehuješ in zaničuješ nekoga, ki si ga premagal.

About fleecing them for all they’re worth

by DavidM 2014-06-09 at 12.21.08


There is an initiative by the Slovene tax authorities to tax … carpooling, essentially. Here is the link to the article (in Slovene language): dnevnik.si

There is a platform similar to uber operating in Slovenia. People advertise where they will be going and how much they would charge and others accept those offers. And so people cover the cost of the petrol, lower the overall emissions and run a service that helps those who are socially less fortunate.

It turns out that the Slovene Tax authorities want in on that action. The official explanation is that the passengers need to pay taxes, since they are essentially paying for petrol and and there is a petrol tax that needs to be accounted for.

Predictably this elicited an angry response by pundits on the street. There were criticisms along the lines of: “Those greedy swines, once they smell money, they quickly suck it out of regular people” and “First they bleed us dry and leave us no alternative but to engage in secondary adjustment, because we can’t afford to go on a bus or train, and instead of making public transport more accessible, they tax our adjustment strategy”.

But it makes me wonder. It seems to me that they are after people’s money, but how far have they thought this through?


OK. So petrol dues need to be paid according to the tax authority rationale. The dues were paid by the driver already at the petrol pump. So, it seems that what the tax authorities are proposing is to either (a) pay the same tax twice, or (b) pay it once, but at the time of hitching the ride.


Because (a) is clearly illegal, I’ll chose to believe they meant (b). How are they hoping to enforce this? It seems to be highly elaborate scheme that is completely un-implementable. Let’s play around with it – I go to the pump, where I claim that I will be driving people around so I don’t want to pay petrol dues? Will the guy at the till be accommodating or not? In case he is familiar with the scheme, and let’s say they do accept my premise. Is it not likely that they would ask me what proportion of the tank I will be using for driving people around and what proportion will I be using for myself? How would I know? Why wouldn’t I say I would be driving people around for 100% of the time?

So, I don’t pay any dues, but when people accept my offer on prevozi.org, I then submit the required amount to the tax authorities. Wouldn’t it be the best incentive for me to not offer any rides and thus pay no petrol dues? Will they be keeping track of people like me and follow-up if I do this? Let’s calculate the costs and round them up.

(a) They will need, at the very least, to change the tax software to add a table which will keep track of when any Slovene national bought petrol, how much and whether they paid dues. In addition they will need a table which would scrape prevozi.org + gather personal data, where it would be clear when any person offered a raid, how much they wanted, what car they drive (to calculate average mpg for that particular model, vintage and mileage) and the destination.   From that they could calculate the amount of petrol that was used and the amount of dues needing to be paid.

That may cost 10,000 EUR + 500 EUR per month for technical support and maintenance in the first year. that comes to 16,000 EUR per year

Then they would need let’s say 5 full time employees who would  keep track of two million people and their transactions on prevozi.org. Let’s say their average salary is 1000 EUR per month + contributions which would come to about 2200 EUR per month. This comes to 5 * 12 * 2,200 = 132,000 EUR per year

Then there is the cost of office space and the additional retraining cost for gas station attendants. Let’s say that petrol companies will shoulder the cost of training,  but they would still need to cover the cost of office space and infrastructure for their workers. Let’s say that there are two offices + machines + phone cost + bandwith. Let’s assume that comes to 300 EUR per month, so 3.600 EUR

So first year cost of the project comes down to: 151,600 EUR

So, what happens here is that the Slovene government would be spending 150k Euro to get people to pay taxes they would already be paying if things stay they way they are right now.

Ah, I hear you say, but what if taxes are paid in addition to already existing taxes. Well, the cost of the project stays roughly similar, but let’s say we need a few less people and a simplified software package. Let’s say, back of the napkin calculation, that it would cost half of the initial budget, so roughly 75,000 EUR.

Let’s assume that the drivers would be paying 30% of their invoice. And let’s go ahead and assume that people will not cheat and that they will not raise their prices and that, as a result, those looking for service will not make other arrangements. This is a tall order, but let’s pretend that supply-demand curve is not actually a curve (as probably the tax authorities assume).

Today, in June 2014, there seems to be 810 offers for today to various destinations. Mostly going to Ljubljana. The average price is 4.6EUR per ride, depending on the distance, prices go from 2 to 10 EUR. Let’s assume that half od the rides are taken and let’s assume that the price does not influence the preferences. So, the takings per day are approximately 1,800EUR. Let’s assume that there is a certain amount of fluctuation per day but this averages out. 30% of 1,800EUR comes to 540EUR per day, which comes to 197,000EUR per year. That means, after taking away the project costs, 122.000 EUR profit per year.

This is peanuts. Slovenia’s GDP is (according to Wikipedia) roughly 41 billion EUR. The profit would amount to about 0.0003% of the GDP. There are two things to think about here, considering how this money is in the realm of a rounding error in the overall GDP: (1) Why do the tax authorities bother with this money, and why do they consider it worthwhile to upset a large amount of people and (2) why do people allow themselves to be upset over such miniscule amounts.

I think the answers are: (1) The Tax Authorities do not do any kind of research, they just see a niche and think of exploiting it, without any in-depth analysis of what they would gain in terms of money and what they would lose in terms of trust and reputation.

(2) The people get upset not because of money, but because they feel screwed. They feel screwed because they came up with this cool thing that helps them and makes their lives more bearable and now somebody wants to take it away or wants to gain profit from it without any kind of previous participation. This has mostly to do with the psychological contract (i.e. the informal, non-written expectations we have when we sign a formal contract. For example when we enroll into University we the contract we sign with them specifiy that they will give you an opportunity to learn and earn a degree, and our expectations may be to learn from great scholars, gain some of the reputation from the reputation of the University, and be better positioned in the job market because we went to a high prestige University).

The psychological expectation in the contract we have with the state is that it will help when times are tough and we will help it when we are doing OK. When the government does not help but actively deters people who think of ways to help themselves this is a clear breach of psychological contract. And that is what angers us. And the government is angry when the people are doing ok, but fail to help out the country. It is like two kids standing on their own hillocks and screaming about the other not wanting to play ball.

The classical economists would think about incentivising people to pay taxes, but they would not think about why they are failing to pay taxes (if they are) in the first. So this is an old dilemma of inventing ways to force people to do something they don’t want to do vs. changing their frame of mind and making them want to pay taxes. The assumptions are problematic here. An economist will usually tell you that people are self-centered and that there is no incentive for them to be “good” and “moral”. This is based on the ideal that there are no morals, there is no consideration of future consequences of ones actions, etc. And at the very least we know that the ignoring premeditation is a foolish thing to do. In a recent study we did here, on susceptibility to persuasion, the ability to consider future consequences (i.e. premeditation) accounts for 25% of the variance (see: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2446971) if you want to know more about this.






About educational policy

American Education is in the Dumpster

American Education is in the Dumpster (Photo credit: brewbooks)

There is an article in the Guardian, titled: “Advent of Google means we must rethink our approach to education”

I generally agree with the premise that we could change the education process, but I think this article is somewhat skewed.

1) There is a difference between replication and synthesis of knowledge. It might be OK for the vast majority of the population to be unable to think for themselves and just rely on others to do their thinking for them, but – for example Stephen Hawking cannot google his findings, before he discovers them. In order to push experimental physics forward, he needs to to understand the theory behind it and in order to do that, he needs to be familiar with it and perhaps not on the level of Wikipedia (my additional question is – what if Wikipedia packs it in after an unsuccessful funding campaign? What happens with all functionally illiterate people who have not written a wiki page in their life, and, honestly, also couldn’t write it to save their life, if all they can do is to replicate what is already there). My point here being that it is just fine if a person is literate and can multiply 6 by 7 without using either pen and paper or a mobile phone. And, oh horror, you need to learn this by heart. How the hell would making people completely and uncritically reliant on technology make them more advanced? The suggestions here seem to me to lead to the absurd position where, in order to read a webpage, you would need to consult somebody who could actually read (for example, the village seer). And how is this progress? And what happens when the last of the ancient folks who still learned how to read, dies?

To keep Stephen Hawking out of this mess – what about a more personal example? I use a bibliographic manager for referencing. I don’t penalize my students if they use it in their essays, but I certainly do not encourage it and I don’t tell them that software like that exists (and they mostly don’t know it does). Why? It is not because I am a sadist pig bent on making these poor kids suffer. It is because I know how to cite without help from software. As a consequence of this ability, I can tell when my bibliographic manager gets something wrong (sometimes it does) and I can fix the mistake, because I know how to do it correctly, by hand. And my students don’t. Yet.  If they start by using crutches from the get go they will never be able to rely on their knowledge and ability. What happens if the referencing manager they use stops being actively developed and disappears from the market? What if it changes significantly? The students ability to produce academic writing will be severely impaired. My won’t, though.

You see this is not even the difference between being able to adequately play Bach’s Brandeburg concerto nr. 1,  and composing the said concerto. It is actually the difference between learning to play every note by listening to the composition and watching youtube videos on how to do it; and being able to read musical notation. I am not even at the creative part yet, I am saying that getting people to read digests and summaries of stuff and making them believe that this is all there is to human knowledge, is sad and misguided.

I am talking, therefore, about blind faith in technology and about reliance on somebody else’s ability to think. I am talking about Google search algorithms that are not necessarily constructed in a way which would give you optimal results, but are more probably constructed in a way that maximizes profits for Google. Lots has been written about that. But, hey, people educated in a way proposed by Sugata Mitra will never know about it, because they will be learning about freaking mobile phones, when they are nine years old. I realize I am simplifying a bit.

2) Mitra writes about how the teacher encourages kids to learn through situation and through interaction in-group and over the Internet. Well. My question is – does the teacher study the subject they teach in a classical manner or do they also simply Google it during class? Ok, how does this work? In the Guardian Column the subject is signals in mobile telephony and the teacher starts by having students look at electromagnetism. How can you make sure that the teacher will start with electromagnetism? Does the teacher even know about the connection? Where from? Isn’t this a case of blind leading the blind? If the teacher actually has a semblance of knowledge about the subject they teach, are we then saying that some people should be educated and some don’t have to be? Are we saying that it is suddenly not a problem that some people will be left uneducated? And is the idea that I as a parent should decide that my kid will be left to do menial jobs, where the ability to reproduce, but not actually create will be the only thing required? I think testing the validty of  this idea would be quite simple – I propose two observational experiments:

a) Let us see whether Sugata Mitra is content to let his kids not have a classical education but are instead taught how to google and how to wait for others to come up with ideas (i.e. work in a team, where individual performance is not assessed and where the accolade is shared regardless of input).

b) Give the parents a choice where they can either send their kid to school where they are actually taught something or a school where they twiddle their thumbs and sorta vaguely learn about how mobile phones work. And let them decide.

3) What the Mitra does not seem to get is that teamwork is effective when people in the team are capable of independent thought, not when they all wait for somebody else to provide an idea. Clueless people in a group are a herd, not a synergy. That is not progress, it is a regression. If you skip the step of enabling people to be creative on their own, you will only get drones. And I am not content to do this to my kid.

4) There is a nice slant to this – These kinds of programs are run out of UK into India and Africa. The underlying current is that the kids there are not expected to attend top level UK Universities or prep schools in the first place. Thus, you see, these kids are ripe to be experimented on. This will not be foisted on British kids, oh no, but these poor savages deserve their chance, right? They will never be as good as us, but they are good for a few papers and for the feeling that we are doing something  good for them. Oh wait, there could also be a grant in this. Right?

Enhanced by Zemanta

O plagiatih in odgovornosti

Univerza v Ljubljani

Univerza v Ljubljani (Photo credit: aikijuanma)

V Dnevniku je 25.02.2013 objavljen tale članek: Plagiat je najprej huda sramota za mentorja

Mislim, kako je to najprej huda sramota za mentorja? Malo treznega razmišljanja, prosim.

Kot sem že večkrat rekel: npr. na področju psihologije na leto izide 60.000 člankov v angleščini (ki je privzeti znanstveni jezik. Na univerzitetnem nivoju pač moraš biti opravilno sposoben v angleščini). Revija Science denimo izhaja od leta 1880, pa bodimo dobrohotni in štejmo, da se psihološki članki v znanstvenih publikacijah objavljajo od leta 1950 (čez palec recimo še, da se sicer objavljajo dalj, ampak ne v takem obsegu. Tako s trajanjem kompenziramo obseg).

Hiter izračun: 63 let * 60.000 = 3.780.000 člankov samo s področja psihologije. Recimo, da nas ne zanima celotna psihologija, ampak nekaj bolj specifičnega, nekaj kar obsega 10% objavljenega. Ostane nam torej bazen 380.000 člankov (knjig in zbornikov sploh nisem štel), ki jih ima kandidat na voljo, da napiše dizertacijo (torej diplomo/magisterij/doktorat). Laična javnost in novinarji menijo, da bi a) morala mentor in študent bodisi prebrati vse iste članke (torej njun presek bi moral biti popoln) ali b) da bi mentor moral znati na pamet vseh 380.000 člankov in takoj prepoznati, če je bilo kaj prepisano. Niti A, niti B nista realna.

Zagovor diplome / magisterija / doktorata je namenjen točno temu, da kandidat dokaže, da je do rezultatov in analize prišel sam. Seveda to posredno pomeni tudi dokazovanje, da dela ni prepisal od koga drugega, ni pa to tisto glavno. To, da nisi prepisal svojega dela je samo po sebi umevno, je stvar pogodbe, ki jo skleneš z univerzo, ko se vpišeš nanjo. Popreproščeno povedano – univerza se zaveže, da ti nudi znanje, okolje in vire iz katerih lahko črpaš, ti opraviš analizo nekega pojava in (v skoraj vseh znanstvenih panogah lahko) opraviš raziskavo, ki potrdi hipoteze, ki si jih zastavil na podlagi analize stanja. V zameno za to delo ti univerza podeli naziv. Če se izkaže, da si pogodbo kršil, jo univerza razveljavi in ti odvzame pridobljen naziv. Dolžnost univerze ni nič več kot to. Seveda, če si akademsko pot nadaljeval in delal še magisterij ali doktorat, pa se izkaže, da je diploma neveljavna, potem pač ne izpolnjuješ pogojev za pridobivanje magisterija / doktorata in je tudi ta naslednja pogodba nična. O tem se sicer odloča tvoja naslednja institucija (če nisi vsega delal na isti). Če si na delovnem mestu, ki zahteva določeno stopnjo izobrazbe in je ti naenkrat nimaš več, je to kršenje delovne pogodbe in delodajalec to sankcionira. To ni stvar univerze. Za univerzo je stvar zaključena, ko re-evaluira svojo pogodbo s tabo in izvede sankcije (če so potrebne).

Zagovor dizertacije mora vsebovati načine na katere preiskovalci preverijo ali veš o čem pišeš. Ne preverjajo ali je nek stavek nekje že bil napisan, ampak ali ti je jasno kaj ta stavek pomeni. Raziskave je težko prepisovat. Dovolj je, da komisja vpraša nekaj o tvoji metodologiji ali kakem konkretnem rezultatu pa je hitro jasno ali poseduješ podatke ali ne. Če nekdo v celoti prepiše uvod, raziskavo pa naredi sam, bi to moralo biti problematično zato, ker uvod ni povsem po meri raziskave in je to očitno. Če je prepisan zaključek je to še bolj očitno, če ne govori o tvoji raziskavi. Povsem teoretične diplome so v tem smislu bolj problematične, zato se jim večina fakultet tudi izogiba.

Da ne bo pomote, ne zagovarjam plagiarizma. Nikakor ne. Mislim, da je to predvsem bedno in kaže na intelektualni potencial kandidata. Zbanalizirano rečeno – nije žvaka za seljaka. Sej ni treba, da ima vsak človek univerzitetno izobrazbo ali še kaj več.

Spotikam se torej ob besedo najprej. Najprej je plagiat sramota za kandidata, ne za mentorja. Tisto kar mora narediti univerza je tole:

1.) Mentor mora slediti razvoju dizertacije, vendar je ne razvijati sam. Tisto kar lahko in mora narediti je, da kandidatu pove ko in če ta odkriva toplo vodo. Svetovati mu mora pri izdelavi raziskave (vendar je ne oblikovati sam). Prebrati mora izdelek in komentirati s stališča strokovnosti ali je izdelek ustrezen ali ne. Njegova dolžnost preprosto ni, poznati vse vire, ki jih kandidat uporablja, ampak oceniti ali je kandidat razvil misel v pravo smer. Mentor mora dobiti podatke na vpogled in, če je pameten, narediti vzporedno analizo, seveda lahko ob prisotnosti kandidata.

2.) Komisija mora prebrati izdelek in ob zagovoru postaviti vprašanja, ki nedvoumno kažejo na to, da kandidat ve o čem govori. Tudi oni ne preverjajo naravnost ali izključno tega, ali je bilo delo prepisano. To se vidi posredno iz odgovorov kandidata. Tako mentor, kot komisija, privzamejo, da je kandidat pošten.

3.) Kandidat mora skozi šolanje doumeti, da je naziv spremljajoči pojav procesa učenja. Ni bistvo naziv, bistvo je kako si ponotranjil znanje, kaj si se naučil o nečem in kako znaš to uporabiti v praksi. Naziv pride sproti. Na voljo imaš kar nekaj let, da se priučiš nekih specifičnih znanj. Temu je namenjena univerza, da na koncu procesa veš nekaj več. Pirova zmaga je če imas naziv, pa še vedno pojma nimaš.

Govorim torej o odgovornosti do vede in do sebe. Univerza ti mora ponuditi možnost, da jo razviješ, ni pa zanjo odgovorna. Za to, da je nekdo nemoralen, ne odgovarja nihče drug kot on sam. Niso krivi mentorji, ni kriva komisija in ni kriva Univerza, dokler korektno opravljajo svoj posel. In posel univerze ni, da te tretira kot kriminalca ampak, da ti omogoči, da si lahko pošten. Če te priložnosti ne izkoristiš, je to tvoja krivda. In ne najprej, oziroma sploh ne, mentorja.

Enhanced by Zemanta

O visokem šolstvu in begu možganov



Retards (Photo credit: Bob.Fornal)


Polno potovalko imam analfabetov in ludistov, ki se čutijo poklicane za to, da nam povejo kako bi moralo funkcionirati šolstvo in kdo je tisti kader, ki ga pa res potrebujemo. Celo vrsto zmot in zablod najdem v dnevnem časopisju in twiteraških izbljuvkih vodilne elite.


Umetna delitev 1: naravoslovje / družboslovje

 O tem sem že večkrat pisal vsepovsod. Gre samo za taktiko divide et impera. Škoda, da se v Sloveniji taka idiotija prime. V praksi in v svetu ta delitev ne igra kake hude vloge. Samo naši politični giganti se lahko spravijo v situacijo, kjer naj bi ekonomistom odrekali sposobnost upravljanja s financami ali pa zdravnikom odrekali koristnost, ker so oboji družboslovci. Sladka ironija je, da so politične vede zagotovo družboslovne. V tej točki se moje mnenje in mnenje politikov o koristnosti njihove družboslovne izobrazbe popolnoma pokrivata. Seveda izobrazbe tistih, ki jo imajo in niso prepisali diplom/magisterijev/doktoratov ali ponaredili svojih spričeval.

Če se dotaknem svojih področij – veliko glavnih raziskovalcev na Microsoftu ali Googlu je psihologov. Microsoftu kot kaže še nihče ni poslal dopisa, da je računalništvo dosti bolj znanost, kot ti tisto kar izvajajo ti družboslovni pocarji.

Koristnost družboslovne izobrazbe se bo morebiti pokazala kaj kmalu, ko bodo ljudje v skladu z zgodovino in skupinsko dinamiko počeli kar vedno počnejo in presenetili tiste politike (kaže, da večino), ki konfuzno in nejasno mislijo, da je masa z njimi.


Umetna delitev 2: javno / privatno šolstvo

 V Sloveniji se javno in privatno šolstvo financira iz javnih in evropskih sredstev. Tu ni nobene delitve. Delitev je v tem, kaka merila morajo za financiranje izpolnjevati javni in privatni zavodi.  Zagovarjam idejo, da se sredstva vsem ustanovam delijo po jasnih (identičnih) kriterijih – vrstnem mestu univerz na svetovnih lestvicah, količino in vplivnostjo raziskovalnega dela v svetovnem merilu, kvaliteto obstoječe infrastrukture in akademskega kadra, številu zaključenih doktoratov… Na kratko, zagovarjam rahlo spremenjeni anglosaški sistem.


Zmota 1: Znanost = kratkoročni profit

 Ludistična teza, da vse kar jutri ne prinaša dobička ni vredno raziskovanja je tako primitivna, tako abotna, da skoraj ni potrebe po tem, da bi navajali primere, ampak dajmo vseeno, za vase zagledane intelektualne pritlikavce tam zunaj – cepivo proti črnim kozam, dinamit, najlonke, plastika, Internet, itd, itd. Nič od zgoraj naštetega ni bilo izumljeno zato, ker bi nekdo hotel izumiti točno to.


Zmota 2a: Če si nezaposlen, je to zato, ker si nesposoben / se ne potrudiš dovolj

Ta fantazija deluje v družbi, kjer delodajalci zaposlujejo po meritornosti, po objektivni oceni znanja in sposobnosti posameznika. Pri nas se zaposluje po principu nepotizma in vez ter poznanstev. Redki so posamezniki, ki zaposlujejo na podlagi sposobnosti. Seveda tudi pri nas obstajajo, četudi, ali pa ravno zato, ker vodilne klike praviloma ustrahujejo ali grenijo življenje tem posameznikom, ki prej ali slej ne zaposlijo kakega nesposobnega nečaka ali otroka tistih pri koritu.


Zmota 2b: Če si nezaposlen, je to zato, ker si nepotreben / nekoristen

Jah, ali pa nisi prave barve, si preveč prodoren ali nevaren, ali pa preprosto nočeš delati za arašide. Sigurno si nekoristen tistim, ki bi se radi poceni kitili s svojim znanjem, se strinjam.


Zmota 3a: Če te pozivamo k odhodu, ker nihče ne potrebuje tvoje neuporabne riti tukaj, potem ti ne boš šel, ker si preveč nesposoben.

Tukaj gre za smešno situacijo. Mislim si, da marsikdo razmišlja tako kot jaz – brez veze se mi zdi grozit in napovedovat temno usodo in ne vem kaj. Pač, ko bom dobil službo v tujini, bomo spokal kufre. Enkrat smo jih že, z lahkoto jih bomo še enkrat. Razpisi so zunaj, moj profil je za tujino zanimiv. Ne vem zakaj bi se moral pregovarjat z bedaki in jim obljubljat kako bo potem ko enkrat gremo prepozno in ne vem kaj. Pač, vso srečo, srčki. Tudi pes odide, ko ga dovolj dolgo brcaš.


Zmota 3b: Ker smo preveč zabiti ali prestrašeni, da bi te znali uporabiti, mislimo, da si univerzalno nesposoben.

Ta zmota spet deluje v hermetično zaprtem svetu. To, ali sem nesposoben, je z lahkoto preverljivo v globalnem kontekstu. Do sedaj empirija ne podpira zmote 3b.


Zmota 3c: To, da nekdo izven Slovenije dobi za isto delo 4x več denarja, je laž / se nas ne tiče, ker so tujci bolj naivni kot mi, ki vemo kaj je zares dodana vrednost.

Ja, ja, glej zmoto 3a. Moja plača na istem delovnem mestu je v Angliji približno 3-4x večja kot v Sloveniji. Stroški življenja v Angliji so nižji. Angleži so dojeli, da je raziskovalno delo dober biznis. Top 10 Univerze v Angliji obrnejo vsaj 25%+ BDPja Slovenije. Vsaka. Ker imajo kvaliteten kader, lahko dvignejo svojo reputacijo, kar privabi kvaliteten kader iz celega sveta, kar pomeni, da imajo na razpolago svetovno smetano, kar pomeni, da opravljajo kvalitetno raziskovalno delo, ki ima velik vpliv na svet, kar pomeni da za svoje delo lahko mastno zaračunajo, kar pomeni, da zaslužijo dovolj, da najamejo svetovno smetano, kar pomeni, da imajo kvaliteten kader…


Zmota 4: Ko rečemo, da smo šolstvu dali dodatnih 16M Eurov za zajezitev bega možganov , računamo, da nihče ne bo dojel, da smo prvotno šolstvu odvzeli 30 milijonov.

V bistvu Turk pravi, vzeli vam bomo 14 milijonov (in 71 milijonov  za raziskave) ampak to bomo prikazali, kot da smo vam namenili dodatnih 16M za mlade raziskovalce. Ne vem kdo vam še verjame? Kdo je dovolj zabit, da ne zmore niti malo pogooglat dejanskega stanja?



Enhanced by Zemanta

David Modic, PhD


Štiri leta. Štiri leta! Če vštejemo prijave, čakanje, organizacijo financiranja, intervjuje.., potem šest!

Od trenutka, ko sem prvič vstopil v svojo pisarno in se instantno spričkal s sistemcem, ker mi ni hotel dat mrežnega kabla za moj leptop (“Univerza ne nudi podpore za računalnike, ki niso last Univerze” “Ampak sej jaz nočem podpore za svojo mašino, sam kabl mi dej, da se povežem v mrežo.” “Kup si ga” “OK.”).

Do trenutka ko so mi po dveh mesecih bivanja v Exetru povedali, da je podjetje, ki delno financira moj doktorat, bankrotiralo in da sva s Kim kar naenkrat brez sredstev in da kmalu ne samo da ne bova mogla plačevat najemnine, ampak tudi ne bova mela za avionsko karto domov.

Do trenutka, ko mi je moj supervizor uredil financiranje (saj smo te mi povabili, seveda te ne bomo zdej pustili na cedilu).

 Do trenutka, ko sem oddal prvo seminarsko. Ko sem naredil prvi podiplomski izpit tukaj. Ko sem napisal prvo poglavje in so ga raztrgal. Ko sem prvič zagovarjal ekspozicijo. Takrat, ko so rekli, da niso razumeli zakaj me je Stephen sploh vzel, dokler nisem svojega dela predstavil v živo. Takrat so Stephenu rekli, samo do zagovora ga moramo spravit, pa bo zdelal z lahkoto.


Do trenutka ko sem prvič učil in popravljal izpite.


Do trenutka, ko so me prvič povabili da predavam na MBA študiju tukaj.


Do trenutka, ko so me prvič povabili na mednarodno konferenco.


Do trenutka, ko smo mednarodno konferenco organizirali mi (pet ljudi iz Exetra. cca. 300 udeležencev iz celega sveta. http;//2011.iarep.org).


Do trenutka, ko se je rodila Sofia.


Do trenutka, ko sva s Kim dojela, da nam v Angliji več ne znese živet.


Do trenutka, ko smo se vrnili v Slovenijo in sem jaz začel iskat kako spodobno službo in naletel zvečine (ampak ne povsod) na akademsko apatijo in hohštapleraj, ki mu ne sede, da je nekdo mogoče v resnici sposoben.


Do trenutka, ko mi je profesor s Cambridgea rekel, da bi oni mene radi zaposlili in da se bo že kaj našlo, seveda če bom takrat še zainteresiran.


Do trenutka, ko sem doktorat oddal.


Do trenutka, ko sem sedel pred kabinetom in čakal. Ko je prišel ven dekan in rekel, pridi, pripravljeni smo nate.


Do trenutka, ko so mi rekli, OK, nimamo več vprašanj. Počakaj zunaj na našo odločitev.


Do trenutka, ko so mi povedali, da mi bodo podelili naziv. In sem šel, po tradiciji, z zamaškom od šampanjca naredit vdrtino na strop in se šel zraven podpisat, tako kot mnogi pred mano in mnogi še za mano.


Do zdejle, dan po tem, ko sedim v svoji pisarni in diham.


Vmes je neskončno trenutkov, lepih in manj lepih, žalostnih in veselih. Veliko druženja, brezveznih pogovorov, sprehodov po podeželju, gledanja vider in divjih ponijev. Veliko nežnih in nepozabnih trenutkov. Fino je bit v Exetru in fino je imet prijatelje in ljudi, ki te z razlogom cenijo.


Divja vožnja je tole.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Tags: , ,

No Pasaran!

¡No pasarán! Resistancia - Non aux réacs _DDC0...

¡No pasarán! Resistancia – Non aux réacs _DDC0017.JPG (Photo credit: Abode of Chaos)

Ko sem l. 2008 odhajal v Anglijo delat doktorat se mi je zdelo, da je Slovenija v dobrih rokah. Majer je bil poražen, levica je prišla nazaj na oblast, ljudje so dali vedeti intelektualnim pritllikavcem in nemoralnim apartčikom, da jih ne marajo, pa čeprav so jim ti dajali bonbončke – dvigali plače in uvajali vinjete.

Zdaj, ko se vračam, prihajam s kislim priokusom. Znanje ni več vrednota v naši družbi, ravno tako ne poštenost (če je ta kdaj bila). Ljudje v stiski ožajo svoje delovanje na skrb za sebe in bližnje, ostali pa naj se znajdejo. To nas vse siromaši. Meritornost nima pomena. Vlada nam kriminalec in psihopat, ki mu njegove zveste oprode mazilijo noge medtem ko on planira kdaj jo bo popihal v Avstralijo skupaj z otrokom in pretepeno ženo.

Ljudstvo čaka kdaj bo kdo (ki ni oni) kaj naredil, da se ta propad vrednot in družbe ustavi. Novico imam za vas – nihče ne bo delal ničesar namesto vas (nas). In svet bo skomignil, češ, škoda, pa tako perspektivni so bili, potem pa se bo vrtel naprej. Edino rešitev vidim v tem, da prestopimo svojo lastno pritlehnost in nehamo razmišljati o tem kako so drugi sami krivi za to, da so tokrat na tnalu. Iz dveh razlogov: a) Ker na tnalo pridete prav vsi, ki še ostajate pasivni in ker b) je to manipulacija političnih “elit”. Ljudje ki dobro delajo, naj bodo tudi dobro plačani za svoje delo. Če so dovolj neumni, da nasedajo neoliberalni retoriki katastrofe, pa naj bodo vsaj spodobno plačani. Ne nasedajte bluzakanju o “privilegiranih” posameznikih , ki so v resnici žrtve sistema, kot npr. Saj visokošolski učitelji delajo samo tri ure na teden. To a) ni res in b) ni pomembno. Važno je, da se delo opravi v določenem času in kvalitetno. Učenje ni manufaktura, ne delamo na kvote. Raje delajmo butično. Naš proizvod naj bo kvaliteten, ne pa masoven.

V Ameriki, tako slišim, imajo direktorje za obdobje miru in direktorje za obdobje vojne (War CEOs). Tisti mirnodobni direktorji znajo oplajati pridobljeno in skrbeti za blaginjo. Tisti za obdobje vojne pa znajo raztrgati konkurenco in zmagati. Morda je čas, da civilne združbe začnejo voditi tisti, ki so se pripravljeni boriti in ne tisti, ki bi radi še malo klepetali. Ne delajmo si utvar. V vojni smo. Psihopat si izbira tarče, enkrat ene, drugič druge in obenem manipulira z ostalimi: “Tile so zares krivi, za vašo bedo, glejte kako slabo vam gre. To je zaradi njih.” In raja zaniha – pa so res oni krivi, prasice izkoriščevalske. Nič jim ne bomo pomagali, pa naj se znajdejo sami. In ko pride vrsta na drugo skupino, so spet krivi oni. Medtem politiki sebi dvigajo plače, malo hodijo na morje in malo twitajo. Obenem živijo v iluziji, da se lahko odločajo denimo o višini pokojnine na način kjer nam dajo vedeti, da gre za njihovo dobro voljo, ker nam nekaj podarijo. To ni vaš denar, to je denar ljudi, ki so ga sami nalagali v skupno dobro dolga leta. To ni nekaj kar lahko podarite, ker ni vaše. Lahko pa nehate krasti. In potem klasičen argument – ja, nimamo, kako tega ne razumete. Nimate? Kaj pa ste naredili s tem bogastvom, ki ste ga upravljali? Zakaj ne odgovarjate za vaše špekulacije, vašo nesposobnost da bi ustavili moralne hazarderje? Zakaj se delamo, kot da niste popolnoma, kriminalno nesposobni. Za gnjat ste se prodali. Za drobtinice z mize bogatih. In zdaj si želite, da bi vas reševali? In to tako, da nam pljuvate v obraz? Da si privoščite biti vzvišeni. Da medij, ki opravi raziskavo o begu možganov (podprto z empiričnimi dokazi), označite kot tako neverdostojen, da še osmrtnicam v njem ne verjamete (še tule)? To mislite, da je pot, kjer vam bomo ustregli? Ne vem kako naj bom bolj jasen kot tole: “Fante, malo preveč si predrzen. Ne bomo mi tebe prosili, ti boš prosil nas, da ti odpustimo tvoje sranje, tvojo nesposobnost, tvoje laži, tvoja kazniva dejanja. Glej, nihče si, majhno kolesce v svetovni shemi. In bolj ko rovariš, bolj ko stresaš s kanglico in ograjuješ svoj peskovnik, bolj si osamljen. In bolj te ne cenimo. Moči imaš samo toliko, kot ti jo pustimo in skrajni čas je, da ti to postane jasno.

Dovolj je tega nabijanja o tem kako moramo plačati, ker smo živeli preko svojih zmožnosti. Mnogi, upam si reči, da velika večina, izmed nas ni živela preko svojih zmožnosti. Živeli smo tako kot prej, kdaj kaj prihranili, včasih kaj zapravili. Skratka, živeli smo v potrošniški družbi. Dovolj imam moralistov, ki mi razlagajo kako moram zdaj plačati tisto kar sem si sposodil. Zakaj? Tako kot mnogi drugi, si nisem nič sposodil. Tisti, ki so si sposojali ogromne zneske in špekulirali z našim denarjem, pa mi sedaj govorijo, da bo treba stisnit. V svetu ni dileme kdo je krivec za nastale razmere, edina dilema je ali so krivci igrali na srečo brez izhodne strategije (torej ali so mahali s tujim udom po koprivah v upanju, da bodo špekulacije uspele, če ne bodo, pa ne vemo kako naprej) ali pa so igrali igro na srečo z izdelanim načrtom (torej so mahali s tujim denarjem po koprivah vedoč, da bodo njihov neuspeh krili davkoplačevalci, njihov uspeh pa si bodo razdelili sami). Dilema torej ni ali je trg racionalen. Trg je bodisi neracionalen, torej nihče nihče ne razume kakšna je logika za njegovim delovanjem. V prid temu argumentu govorijo raziskave, ki kažejo da so borzni špekulanti uspešni malo manj kot v 50% primerov, kar preprosto pomeni, da bi bil investitor še malo bolj uspešen, če bi pred vsako investicijo raje vrgel kovanec. Dodaten argument je ponarodela izjava, da se borzni posredniki imenujejo brokerji, ker so more broke than you are. Drugi možni odgovor pa je, da je trg racionalen, ampak do obisti izprijen. Špekulanti in investicjski bankirji so torej nori ali pa pokvarjeni. Ni kaj, in to svojat naj bi imel dovolj rad, da bi jo reševal?

Ne govorim o tem, da se naša mnenja krešejo. To bi bilo poniževanje razuma. Razhajamo se v temeljih. Politična elita misli, da ima mandat, da se okorišča. Tu je srž problema in popolen poraz politike kot umetnosti kompromisa. Politike, ki ne razume korena besede politika. Politike, ki verjame, da je od Boga poslana in da je nemoralno dejanje v imenu (lažnih) moralnih interesov kar naenkrat moralno. Politike, ki misli, da je njena moč v tem, da dela proti interesu ljudi, za lastno dobrobit in da je dovolj, da nam kdaj pa kdaj kakšno govno zavije v celofan ali pa nam grozi, češ brez nas vam bo še slabše. To zadnje je sicer do konca izpet in zlajnan blef, ki mu nihče več ne verjame. Tudi zato naš ljubljeni vodja nima dovolj poguma, da bi z zainteresirano, inteligentno javnostjo komuniciral direktno. Raje daje intervjuje svojim konkubinam, situiran v svojem dvorcu, na tronu svoje cone udobja ali pa preverjenemu občinstvu, kjer ve, da mu ne bodo nastavljali ogledala.  Vsak narcis rabi, da ga obožujejo, in tisti ki ga, naenkrat nimajo nobene vrednosti v njegovih očeh, saj misli, da ve da so tisti ki ga cenijo ničvredni, ker ga niso spregledali. Tako narcis vedno znova poskuša prepričati tiste, ki ga zaničujejo, da je nekaj vreden in če mu to uspe, niso nič več vredni. Če ga skušajo ignorirati bo pa ustanovil lastno partijsko trobilo v obliki televizije v upanju, da ga bo vsaj potem kdo poslušal.

Dovolj je tega sranja. Dovolj leporečja, dovolj jokanja o tem, da moramo vsi malo potrpeti in stopiti skupaj na stran mentalnih ubožcev, lažnivcev in kariernih politikov. Malo bomo potrpeli, ko bomo videli, da ne favorizirate sebe in svojih pajdašev. Malo bomo potrpeli, ko boste v prvi vrsti sankcionirali sebe in svojo kratkovidnost. Malo bomo potrpeli, ko ne boste v prvi vrsti hlastali delovnih mestih za svoje otroke in ljudi, ki ste jim dolžni usluge. Malo bomo potrpeli, ko ne boste cenzurirali tiskane besede.

Dve stvari:

– Ne razumem kako je mogoče, da bo vladajoča srenja, ko enkrat odleti, še vedno v določenih primerih lahko računala na delovno mesto na javnih univerzah. Zakaj rektor to dopušča? Ok, rezi. Najprej odrežemo delovna mesta politikom, ki so pripeljali do tega stanja. Saj je treba šparat, ne? No, začeli bomo pri vas. Več kot to, da nas uničite tako ali tako ni mogoče in to počnete že sedaj. In ne razumem politikov, ki imajo obraz, da se vrnejo v okolje, ki so ga osiromašili in zatrli. Kako lahko gledajo sodelavcem v oči?

– Nekje je nujno povleči črto. In ta črta mora biti tu. Niti koraka več naprej. Nobenega popuščanja. Referendum za vsako najmanjše dejanje, dokler ga sploh še imamo.





Enhanced by Zemanta

Janša ne bi razlagal kolegom iz tujine zakaj imajo njegove akcije posledice


Flag of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia (19...

Flag of the SR Slovenia (1945–1991) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

J. Janša v Dnevniku: “V zadnjih dneh imam težave razložiti svojim kolegom iz Evrope, kako je možno, da je Slovenija v treh letih padla praktično iz vrha na dno in drugič, da tudi sedaj, ko še imamo možnost, da se iz tega rešimo, ni toliko zdravega razuma, sposobnosti in sodelovanja, da bi to tudi storili.“

Mogoče bi razlago lahko začel tako, da bi pojasnil zakaj on in njegovi ministri menijo, da ni teba spoštovati sodb evropskega sodišča in na kak način nas to povzdiguje.

Vinko Gorenak

…Sodba iz Strasbourga je seveda dokončna. Mnogi pravijo, da je direktno izvršljiva na proračun. Še posebej glasni so tisti, ki so na temo tako imenovanih “izbrisanih” naredili z državnim denarjem magisterije in celo doktorate. Vse lepo in prav. Toda že star ljudski pregovor pravi, da tam kjer ni še vojska ne vzame. In v proračunu denarja preprosto ni….



… Predsednik vlade Janez Janša je včeraj v odgovoru na poslansko vprašanje Tamare Vonta (PS) med drugim ocenil, da naj za odškodnine izbrisanim odgovarjajo tisti, ki so 20 let zavirali poskuse SDS, da bi jih z ustavnim zakonom preprečila…


Ali pa bi jo lahko začel tako, da bi pojasnil na kak način uničevanje javnega šolstva veča blaginjo državljanov.

Dekani 11 fakultet: vladne namere vodijo v nacionalno katastrofo

Na mariborskih fakultetah avgusta brez plač? Turk: To ne more biti posledica zakona.

Obsojamo namero privatizacije javnega šolstva na račun kakovosti javnih šol.


Ali pa mogoče tako, da bi pojasnil kako grožnje z odstopom ali izjave lansirane v Evropo o tem kako v podnu so naše finance ojačajo naš mednarodni sloves.

Financial Times

Premier Janez Jansa himself, after all, first prompted the bailout talk the week before, warning Slovenia could “see a Greek scenario” if the opposition failed to back legislation to stabilise public finances.


Jože P. Damijan

…slovenske javne finance [je] nespretna in preveč iskrena komunikacija predsednika vlade stala natanko 1 milijon in 273 tisoč evrov, kolikor bo Slovenija morala odplačati več obresti na novoizdane zakladne menice…


Fantastično bi bilo tudi, če bi obenem še pojasnil kako je možno, da ga opozicija “blokira”, če ima 55 glasov v parlamentu in ignorira vse pomisleke javnosti, ko sprejema obsežne zakone brez kakršnihkoli analiz.


Mogoče bi lahko obenem še pojasnil Evropski in naši javnosti kako poizkusi revidiranja zgodovine in poveličevanja fašizma blagodejno vplivajo na percepcijo Slovenije v tujini.


Enhanced by Zemanta

O (ne)zaupnici

18.07.2012 Tole pišem pred glasovanjem o t.i. zlatem pravilu.

Janez Janša ponovno postal mandatar, dobil 51 ...

Janez Janša ponovno postal mandatar, dobil 51 glasov podpore (Photo credit: Šiško)

“Če ne boste glasovali kot jaz hočem, obstaja možnost, da vežem zaupnico na taisto glasovanje.” Kako prozorno.

Ta besedni konstrukt, “obstaja možnost da” je približno tako prepričljiv kot vsa sprenevedanja do sedaj. Če malo naštejemo:

Dvig davkov
25.10.2011 …Predsednik SDS-a je poudaril, da dvig davkov ni pot k rešitvi. Kot pravi, je treba predvsem poiskati rezerve, ki jih ima država pri svojem delovanju. Po njegovih besedah je država s 40 tisoč manj uslužbenci ob svojem nastanku delovala enako dobro kot danes. “Ni rešitev, da damo teh 40 tisoč ljudi na cesto, ampak da se za njih najdejo delovna mesta v gospodarstvu,” je dejal.

9.11.2011 … SDS drugače kot nekatere druge stranke nasprotuje dvigu davkov, razen davkov na luksuz in na špekulacije, na primer pri prometu z zemljišči. …

5.3.2012 Evropski fiskalni pakt namrec določa, da morajo države v svoji zakonodaji zagotoviti avtomatski stabilizator, torej ukrepe, ki v primeru primanjkljaja v naslednjem letu avtomatsko uravnotežijo proračun. To pa je mogoče storiti na dva načina, in sicer s povišanjem davkov ali zmanjšanjem izdatkov, je še rekel predsednik vlade [Janez Janša]. Napovedal je, da bo vladi še v tem mandatu uspelo uravnotežiti proračun.

5.3.2012 …To pa pomeni, je poudaril Janša, da lahko porabimo le toliko, kolikor zberemo. Če izdatki v kakem letu presežejo prihodke, izračunane v skladu z zlatim pravilom, se jih naslednje leto v celoti nadomesti z dvigom davkov, zapoveduje predlog ustavne spremembe….

Javna agencija za knjigo
24.11.2011 …Žiga Turk je govoricam o predlogih za ukinitev agencije navrgel, da je bila ustanovljena v prejšnjem vladnem mandatu in da je strah pred ukinjanjem odvec…

5.3.2012 … Minister Žiga Turk napovedal zmanjšanje števila »šefov, tajnic in fikusov«. JAK in SFC zopet pod okriljem pristojnega ministrstva…

Pokojninska reforma

19.04.2011 Janez Janša: “… Pokojninska reforma ali smrt, pokojninska reforma ali nestabilnost, pokojninska reforma ali ne vem kaj … To je zgolj propaganda.”

25.05.2011 SDS MO Kranj: … Glavni problem Slovenije v tem trenutku ni pokojninska reforma, temveč nizka gospodarska rast, brezposelnost in visoka zadolženost države.

23.11.2011 … Da je Pahorjeva vlada pokojninsko reformo razglasila za najnujnejšo reformo, je po oceni SDS cista demagogija. “Reforma je sicer potrebna, zagotovo pa to ni kratkorocen protikrizni ukrep,”

2.3.2012 … “To pomeni, da rešitev ni samo pokojninska reforma, to je en delcek tega, kar je treba narediti zaradi strukturnega prilagajanja trendom v prihodnosti. Še zdalec pa to ni edina rešitev, kot se je v Sloveniji dolgo prodajalo,”

Varčevanje v javnem sektorju

Pahorjeva plača v letu 2010: 6021 EUR na mesec (bruto)
Janševa plača v letu 2012: 6784 EUR na mesec (bruto)

In potem je tu še obljuba o obisku avstrijskega sodišča v primeru Patria:

27.02.2012 … Je pa Janševa tiskovna predstavnica Mateja Erčulj za avstrijsko tiskovno agencijo APA pojasnila, da bo Janša na Dunaju z veseljem pričal, če bo na sodišče povabljen, pri tem pa se ne bo skliceval na svojo diplomatsko imuniteto, ki jo uživa kot premier. …

14.3.2012 [Janša] “bo z veseljem pričal, če dobi vabilo”.

30.04.2012 Premier Janez Janša se ne namerava udeležiti četrtkove obravnave v zadevi Patria na dunajskem sodišču

3.05.2012 Plagiatorjevo vabilo je bilo založeno in s težkim srcem ne pride. Najprej se sklicuje na diplomatsko imuniteto, malo kasneje na to, da vabila ni dobil (ker je Slovenijo potovalo več kot en mesec. Poslano je bilo 27.03.2012, dobil pa naj bi ga 2.5.2012).


In še in še je tega.

Samo popolni naivneži lahko nasedejo plagiatorju, da bo res vezal svojo usodo na voljo opozicije. Sej ni zmešan, plagiator. Konstruktivna nezaupnica bi tako ali tako pomenila, da se mora parlament še enkrat konstituirati s kakim drugim mandatarjem. Kaj pa naj bi počel sedanji “premier””? Kako ironično, da par dni prej začne napletati zgodbice o lobijih iz ozadja. In tudi če bi dobil nezaupnico, poslanci ne bodo izglasovali predčasnih volitev. Virant in Erjavec zato, ker ne bi več prišla v parlament, ostali, ker vlečejo plače in bi jih radi še malo.

To prazno šopirjenje je dolgočasno.

Seveda mi ni treba verjeti na besedo ali pa se strinjati z menoj. Počakajmo do petka in dejstva bodo govorila zase. Moja napoved: O glasovanju o zaupnici ne bo ne duha ne sluha, razen v primeru, kjer bo slovenska “levica” izvedla obrat za 180 stopinj in kar naenkrat začela pleteničiti podobno kot Pahor, češ zlato pravilo pa res rabimo v ustavi (pa pustimo ob strani, da ga Francozi ne bodo pisali v ustavo in ga Angleži sploh ne bodo sprejeli. Pustimo po strani tudi, da je v Nemčiji v ustavni presoji. Pozabimo, da EU ne zahteva vpisa zlatega pravila v ustavo, ampak je dovolj, da je uzakonjeno). No, bomo videli.


 20.07.2012 Tole pišem v petek, po roku za glasovanje o zlatem pravilu.


Potem ko je štirinajst dni stopnjeval pritisk na koalicijske partnerje in opozicijo, ta teden, v času izredne seje državnega zbora, pa iz dneva v dan bolj očitno izsiljeval z namigovanjem na zaupnico, se je predsednik vlade Janez Janša sinoči nepričakovano dal prepričati. O fiskalnem pravilu, slovenskem državnem holdingu in menda celo zamenjavi vodstva AUKN naj bi poslanci tako glasovali šele jeseni.



V zadnjih dneh se je še okrepila možnost, da bo predsednik vlade Janez Janša na sprejem fiskalnega pravila vezal zaupnico vladi. V zvezi s tem je Janša ob prihodu na sestanek dejal: “Vse ob svojem času.”



Enhanced by Zemanta

Skrajno kvalitetni maturanti

… Kot vedno so bili najuspešnejši gimnazijci, ki so maturo opravljali prvič: od 6.248 jih je naporno preizkušnjo, ki je včasih veljala za zrelostni izpit, opravilo 6.715 ali h 93 odstotkov, kar je za odstotek bolje od lani. … [Dnevnik.si]

Kako je lahko naredilo izpit ~500 dijakov več, kot jih je sploh prišlo in kako je to 93% uspešnost (po podatkih podanih v članku gre za 107.5% uspešnost)?

O statistiki nezaposlenosti

The lunatics have taken over the Asylum

(Photo credit: phill.d)

Enhanced by Zemanta
“LJUBLJANA – Zavod za zaposlovanje se je pohvalil z nižjo junijsko brezposelnostjo že peti mesec zapored, brezposelnih pa je po uradnih evidencah 105.630, kar je dobrih deset tisoč manj, kot jih je bilo januarja.”
…”Za osebe, ki niso aktivni iskalci zaposlitve, menimo, da s svojimi dejanji izražajo, da ne potrebujejo storitev Zavoda in bodo svojo brezposelnost rešili na drugačen način,” so še napisali v zavodu.Narobe: nižja nezaposlenost v Sloveniji
Prav: manj uporabnikov storitev zavoda za zaposlovanje v Sloveniji.

Ko zbrišeš človeka iz evidence to ne pomeni nujno, da je dobil zaposlitev (niti, da je ni). Glede na razmerje med razpisanimi delovnimi mesti in številom črtanih posameznikov z Zavoda v juniju 2012 (776: 10.000), bi lahko predvidevali, da je večina tistih, ki jih je zavod izpisal, ostala nezaposlena. Vem, da narahlo primerjamo jabolka in hruške (10.000 izpisanih na mesec proti 776 zatečenim prostim delovnim mestom), vendar vseeno lahko sklepamo, da se v Sloveniji ne odpre 10.000 delovnih mest na mesec, vsak mesec. Torej, gre še vedno za diskrepanco, ki je vsaj reda velikosti prevelika, da bi lahko sklepali, da so črtani posamezniki vsi našli službe. Funkcija Zavoda sicer ni to, da prikaže koliko ljudi so se znebili vsak mesec ampak, da posreduje med delodajalci in delojemalci. Ker gre v marsikaterem pogledu za totalno institucijo (Goffman, 1961)  jim (tako kot zaporom) ni v interesu, da bi našli vsem prosilcem službe, ker bi potem ostali brez dela in navidez nepotrebni. Najbolj verjetno zavod, tako kot zapori, vzgojni zavodi in bolnišnice (Foucault, 1977) išče tisto točko ravnovesja, kjer imajo toliko uporabnikov storitev, da je očitno, da so nujno potrebni in obenem ne toliko uporabnikov, da bi imeli preveč dela. To homeostazo pa najlaže dosežejo tako, da periodično iz evidence zbrišejo višek. To je precej bolj nenaporno, kot iskati nove zaposlitvene modele in kontaktirati podjetja in jih spraševati če potrebujejo kadre. Ne gre torej za to, da bi delali tako kvalitetno, da bi lahko obvladovali naval brezposelnih, ampak za to, da dajo videz da nekaj delajo, in obenem vržejo kako kost novinarjem. Škoda, da novinarji tako nekritično objavljajo vse, kar se jim servira.

Sicer od Piana naprej ne berem več prav veliko plačljivih vsebin v slovenskem časopisju (sem pa se naročil na Mladino, ki jo z veseljem plačam, če že moram za novice plačevati), sklepam pa iz naslovov in prvih par vrstic plačljivih člankov (ki so tisti, ki vsaj približno spominjajo na raziskovalno novinarstvo – jasno, novic povzetih po STA ravno ne moreš zaračunati), da smo bolj na ravni teorij zarot, kot dejanske analize stanja, podprte s podatki. V bistvu kaže, da gre za še enega izmed vrste pokazateljev, da v Sloveniji znanje ni nič vredno. Ne vem, se urednikom res zdi, da ni dovolj bralcev, ki bi si želeli kvalitetnega raziskovalnega novinarstva; da so pri nas samo taki, ki bi se z gnusom obrnili stran od članka in rekli soprogi: “Fej, pravkar sem bral članek o atomski energiji in niti z besedo niso omenili atomik harmonik!”

Če se vrnem k temi, sicer to, da Zavod ne opravlja svoje funkcije ne prinaša toliko političnih točk, kot če razglasiš nižjo nezaposlenost, je pa bliže resnici.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish : the birth of the prison (1st American ed.). New York: Pantheon Books.
Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums; essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates (1st ed.). Garden City, N.Y.,: Anchor Books.

Karlova igra

“Po mednarodnem pravu uživajo predsedniki vlad, držav in zunanji ministri popolno imuniteto, ki jih odvezuje tudi pričanja v sodnih procesih,”  Dagmar Albegger, tiskovna predstavnica avstrijskega ministrstva za pravosodje. 

Sedaj je torej igra malo bolj jasna. O Plagiatorju ne bi izgubljal besed, razen mogoče pohvale, da pridno napreduje v akademskem smislu (najprej plagiira, kasneje prepisuje z wikipedie (brez navedbe vira), sedaj pa le še napačno navaja vire. Še malo pa bo skoraj na nivoju študentov prvega letnika fakultete).

Ampak, Karl, človek za vse čase in vsa ministrstva…. Desusov zunanje-politični program praktično ne obstaja, Erjavec je popolnoma nesposoben voditi zunanjo politiko, ampak Janša ga vseeno nastavi na to mesto, kljub splošnemu posmehu javnosti. Sedaj je jasno tudi, kaj je Erjavec pridobil s prehodom na desnico. Mesta zunanjega ministra mu verjetno Janković ni ponujal, pa tudi če bi mu – Plagiator mora biti premier, drugače je Erjavec še vedno v riti. Osebnostne strukture kot je, po mojem mnenju, Janševa, ne skrbijo za druge kar na lepe oči, zagotovo pa ne na lastno škodo. Erjavcu ne bi nič pomagalo, če bi imel imuniteto, Janša pa ne, ker bi ga Janša mirne duše vrgel volkovom. Tako pa se lepo vse pokrije – Erjavcu ni treba hoditi na sodišča v tujino in izblebetati kaj neprijetnega za Plagiatorja ali sebe.

Tako zanimivo je to, gledano od daleč – ta igra, ki jo Plagiator igra, se ne more končati srečno. Vedno več ljudi mora obvladovati, da lahko naprej ribari v kalnem. O vsakomur mora izvedeti kaj, kar jih kompromitira. Seveda z ozvočenjem parlamenta in dostopom do posnetkov tajnih vladnih sej to postane lažje, ko gre za politike. Z nastavitvijo svojih ljudi na čelo obveščevalne službe tudi. Pa vendar. Enkrat domine padejo. Bolj, ko je obširna mreža, več je možnosti, da se kdo zlomi. Pa sploh ne nujno zlomi – dovolj je, da se nekdo odloči, da bo reagiral tako kot bi Plagiator sam v taki situaciji in s sabo pokoplje tudi njega. Z mojega, rahlo psihopatskega stališča, je to tako ali tako najboljši odgovor na izsiljevanje – takojšnje javno sprejetje odgovornosti in posledic svojih akcij. Saj je to svoboda, ne? Odgovornost za svoje akcije. Da ne bo videti kot da nekaj moraliziram in se delam visoko moralnega – gre za preprosto oceno tveganja. Če sem (hipotetično) počel stvari, ki niso bile OK, sem, upajmo, razmišljal tudi o tem, kakšne bodo posledice. Običajno so neprijetne, ampak, hej, kaže, da se mi je vseeno izplačalo (ali pa sem preprosto preneumen, da bi razumel kaj počnem). Sedaj imam izbiro – pogoltnem juho, ki sem si jo sam skuhal in s tem preprečim, da bi me psihopat lahko manipuliral ali pa mu pustim, da zasadi kremplje vame in naredim zanj še kaj, kar ni OK. Psihopat ima sedaj na zalogi dve stvari, ki me lahko pokopljeta. Vedno bolj me drži, in če je dovolj inteligenten potem gre impliciranost samo v eni smeri, torej proti meni. To se nikoli ne neha. Kako Plagiatorjevi lakaji tega ne dojamejo? Seveda boš nagrajen, dokler boš koristen ali dokler ne boš nevaren ali pa nič več uporaben, ampak za Plagiatorjevo vladavino bo ostalo pogorišče. Če bo padel ali pa ne. Če ne bo padel, bo to v končni fazi na račun njegovih oprod, ker, grešni kozel bo vedno nujen. Če bo padel, bo vzel kopico ljudi s sabo. Zato, da mu ne bo dolgčas in zato, ker lahko. Kako lakaji tega ne dojamejo? Nihče od vas ni poseben, ko gre za odločitev “Jaz ali drugi”. Nihče od vas na koncu nima nobenega pogoja, da bi skupaj z generalom stali po bitki. Na koncu ne. Zakaj ne razmišljate o svojih strategijah umika? Tudi plagiator se bo utrudil in spodrsnil. Samo takrat bo z družino živel v Avstraliji, vi pa boste ostali tukaj, s prazno vrečo v rokah, besom ljudi na plečih in razkrinkanimi mahinacijami za leta nazaj.

Predstavitev superministra

Le redkokdaj dobimo sleherniki tako lepo priložnost, da se spoznamo z razmišljanjem velikih. Tokrat imamo priložnost videti prezentacijo samega superministra, Žige Turka – do nje nas vodi povezava na njegovem blogu.


Z zanimanjem sem predstavitev odprl, da bi videl kako se reči streže. Svoje komentarje bom razdelil v nekaj kategorij (kliknite na slike za povečavo).



Kultura je gotovo pomembna in prav je, da se zavzemamo za karkoli se pač zavzemamo. Ko bi vsaj obstajal kak strokovnjak ali organizacija, ki bi imela izvršne sposobnosti. Lahko bi ji rekli, kar izvršna oblast, npr. To bi bilo skrajno v redu. Ti ljudje bi potem lahko izvrševali tisto, za kar se mi zavzemamo. Kakšna škoda, da pri nas ne poznamo takega koncepta. Še bolje bi bilo, če bi obstajal kak človek, ki bi nadzoroval posamezna področja, lahko bi jim rekli kar resorji, in bi usmerjal človeško silo, da bi izvajala tisto, za kar bi se drugi zavzemali. Lahko bi takemu človeku rekli kar minister, po zgledu iz tujine – njemu zagotovo ne bi bilo treba reči, da se za nekaj zavzema, on bi to izvršil. Ne?



Gotov sem, da se je minister tu zatipkal in namesto računalnikov napisal kompjuterjev. Saj imata besedi približno isto znakov in črke so relativno blizu skupaj. Oh, ta sladka ironija, kjer v alineji o varovanju Slovenščine uporabiš anglicizem. Mogoče pa je tudi to zgolj taktika, ki naj nas predrami iz naših utečenih kolesnic: Angleščino spravimo z ulic v predstavitve! O naslednji alineji – spravimo tujke v slovarje, pa sploh raje ne bi izgubljal besed.


Tudi tu se navdušujem nad prefinjeno ironijo v povezovanju kulture in PR izjav o umetnosti avtokratskega diktatorja, šefa multinacionalke, ki o umetnosti najbolje ve, s kakšno maržo jo bo lahko prodal naprej. Obenem sem navdušen tudi nad nacepljeno ironijo enačenja umetnost = industrijsko oblikovanje = kultura. No sej, važno, da imamo iPade, pa ne bo nihče jokal za gledališčem.



Tu smo pri srčiki zadeve. Če prav razumem ta diagram, je dobra umetnost tista, ki je izdelana z uporabo tehnologije (upam, da recimo šteje, če tekst za predstavo napišeš na prenosniku) in ki se dobro proda, ali pa, še bolje, je izdelana po naročilu kakšne korporacije. Pronicljiv se mi zdi impliciten stav (prisoten v prezentaciji in tvitih ministra), da je prava umetnost ali kultura tista, ki je všečna ministru ali vladi. Kako preprosto je potem življenje. Sicer lahko pozabiš na recimo, Opero za tri groše ali kakrsnokoli družbeno kritično stvaritev, ampak hej, kdo pa sploh še bere, recimo, Hlapce ali Pohujšanje v dolini Šentflorijanski od Cankarja? To je passe. Najvišja umetnost v tem hipu bi verjetno bila instalacija, ki bi jo naročil Apple Slovenija in bi se sestojila iz video projekcije fotografije Steva Jobsa, v ozadju pa bi tisoč otrok iz vsega sveta pelo: “Deus Gratia“. Vsaj pol ure.

Sploh pa, kdo se ne bi strinjal s stavom ministra, da pač tisto, kar njemu ali vladi ni všeč, pač ni umetnost in tako posledično ni nobene potrebe po financiranju tistih, ki morijo. “Kaj, a zdej pa pričakujete, da bom plačal za to, da me boste lahko kritiziral? To že ni kultura. Povejte mi, da sem faca, al pa združite vašo predstavo z delom za tekočim trakom pa boste zraven opravili tudi kako zaresno delo. Če boste med predstavo izpolnili kvoto, seveda. Pol lahko financirate sami sebe.




O tem nimam reči kaj drugega kot to, da me zanima kako bo superminister to spremenil. Dokler bo edina možnost akademske zaposlitve v Sloveniji ta, da bo kandidat moral počakati, da obstoječi nastavljeni profesor umre, toliko časa se verjetno ne bo kaj dosti spremenilo. Tujina tukaj ponuja kar nekaj odgovorov, ki pa nikakor niso samo rožnati. In obenem ne vključujejo ustanovitve nove univerze.


Stavek spodaj levo je dvoumen in nejasen. Sliši se zanimivo, vendar nima nobene resne vsebine.

Spodaj desno pa pridemo do resnične težave – utilitarističen pogled na znanost je sicer legitimen, vendar obenem tudi strašljiv. Marsikaj v človeški zgodovini je bilo odkrito po naključju – (npr. penicilin, najlonke, teflon, velkro, DNA…). Samo bistvo znanosti je, da odkrije; da pripomore k napredku celotne vrste. Ja, v tem pogledu je sama sebi namen, njena odkritja pa so uporabna v našem vsakdanjiku.

Mislim da Feynman lepo povzame ta čisti odnos znanstvenika, ko govori o užitku odkritja, zadovoljstvu ob tem, da ga ostali kolegi potrdijo in o tem zakaj ga ne zanima Nobelova nagrada, ki jo je dobil.

Obenem je tu problem v dvoličnosti – minister težko napoveduje, da bomo Slovenci razvijali vrhunske znanstvenike, obenem pa bo poudarek na uporabnosti odkritega in tisto kar ne bo imelo uporabnega potenciala, pač ne bo podpirano. Hec je v odkrivanju – če veš kaj boš odkril vnaprej, potem to ni odkrivanje ampak replikacija že odkritega. Če se bomo osredotočali zgolj in samo na gotove zadetke, potem ne bomo napredovali tako hitro, kot bi, če bi kdaj tvegali z nečim nepreizkušenim.

Seveda je stav, da smo premajhni, da bi lahko financirali znanost, ki bo sama sebi namen, čisto legitimen. To, da v isti sapi trdiš, da boš postavil slovenske raziskovalce ob bok svetovnim, pa tako postane navadna floskula.


Ko smo že pri znanosti in akademskih spretnostih, moram reči, da z zanimanjem opazujem način znanstvenega citiranja, ki ga minister (ki je obenem tudi doktor znanosti in profesor na Univerzi v Ljubljani) uporablja. Sklepam, da nam sporoča, da je koncept navajanja letnice in strani publikacij pri citiranju preživet, važno je le, da je misel tako resnična, da je ponarodela. V tem smislu se da razumeti tudi veliko število citiranih trditev v predstavitvi, kjer avtor vira sploh ne navaja. Alternativna razlaga bi bila, da minister za visoko šolstvo ne zna citirati, to pa je gotovo nemogoče.

Paradigma spremenljivosti in dinamike predstavitve se kaže tudi v zgornjem posnetku. Skozi celotno predstavitev lahko vidimo, kako minister drzno spreminja paradigmo seznamov. Enkrat je po piki velika začetnica, enkrat spet ne. Saj ni važno, bo že kdo, ki je zadolžen za razvoj, promocijo in ohranjanje slovenskega jezika poskrbel za to….


Verjetno so ene stvari tako pomembne, da jih je treba večkrat ponoviti. Sprašujem se, kolikorat je šel minister skozi prezentacijo, da mu je tole ušlo? Poteguje se za dobro plačano službo z ogromno formalno močjo, pa vendar je videti, kot da se v prezentacijo ni močno vložil.


Minister, profesor in doktor znanosti bi moral vedeti, da se viri ne navajajo tako. To je pljunek v obraz akademski skupnosti s strani človeka, ki bi jo rad vodil.


Pojavna oblika
Slogovno gledano se mi zdi predstavitev izzivalna, polna skrite dinamike, še sploh, če upoštevamo, da gre (med drugim) tudi za ministra za kulturo.

Kljub temu, da imamo Gutenberga radi, bi ga tu morda vseeno navedel z malo (ški, ski…).




Od povprečnega človeka je morda preveč zahtevati, da bi uporabljal vejice, kot na primer v stavku: …ni več dovolj, ustvarjati je treba… Minister nam verjetno sporoča, da je človek ljudi, da je tak kot mi, ki ravno tako kdaj spustimo kako vejico (na koncu koncev, če se to dogaja kmetu kot sem jaz, se lahko tudi ministru za kulturo, ne?). Tudi lektorjem je odklenkalo – pozabite na vaše udobne službice, pejte raje počet kaj bolj pomembnega in se nehajte delat, da je pomembno kakšen jezik se uporablja, važno je, da se nas razume, ne? Ne?

Tudi v drugi alineji gre za izziv preživetim dogmam uporabljanja celotnih povedi ali pa pisanja smiselnih logičnih enot. Tekma je svetovna? Katera tekma? Kdo so igralci? Gre morda za slang (t.j. Tekma je ful carska, stari) ali kaj drugega? Kdo je najboljši v svetovnem merilu? Je to prihodnjik? Je minister najboljši? No, to tako ali tako že vemo. Bi si on želel, da bi vsi postali najboljši v svetovnem merilu? Kako bo to dosegel? Če smo vsi najboljši, smo vsi povprečni. Gre za vse Slovence? Ali samo izbrane, torej tiste, ki nimajo trenirk in lahko svojo čistost dokažejo vsaj za pet generacij nazaj? Recimo, da gre za vse prave Slovence. Svet verjetno z zadržanim dihom pričakuje priliv kakega milijona najboljših strokovnjakov na vseh področjih. Če so pametni, se bodo umaknili temu tsunamiju.


Tudi tu gre za preživete floskule o tem kdaj uporabljamo s ali z kot predlog. V resnici nam ta lapsus pove zgolj to, da je bila ta prezentacija napisana bolj z levo roko. Vsak študent, če ne srednješolec, pozna ta pravila. Ne pa doktor znanosti. Ob tem dobim občutek, da minister ni prezentacije niti enkrat prebral za sabo. To se mi zdi bistveno bolj problematično kot lapsus sam in nam daje vedeti, kako (ne)pomemben je program bodočega ministra v njegovih očeh in očeh odbora.



Kot je stil razgiban in raznolik, tako tudi vsebina poskrbi za prevetrenje utečenih smernic.

Zelo poglobljen in prefinjen posnetek. Logika, da moraš vsaj enkrat v prezentaciji uporabiti bejbo v kopalkah, ki stoji pred sončnim zahodom, tukaj obrodi sadove. V eni sami sliki vidimo celoten program tega ministra. Kaj je bolj logičnega kot to, da, če govoriš o glavah, srcih in prihodnosti, da nalepiš sliko glave, prsi in sončnega zahoda v svojo prezentacijo. Ko bi na sliki vsaj bilo jutro. Ampak pustimo zdaj te neprijetne detajle. Občudujem to drznost, ta korak stran od znanstvene doktrine, ki a priori ne enači ohranjevalcev zaslona s strokovnim pristopom. Pozabimo te floskule! Raje poglejmo bejbo, ki je v kopalkah, saj na koncu koncev je to le strokovna prezentacija (torej ne sme biti naga), ne, in moški bolj pogosto volijo, ne?


 Vsebina na splošno

Na splošno o vsebini težko kaj zares povemo, ker je bolj kot ne, odsotna. V zamenjavo zanjo dobimo veliko citatov in novo-veških klišejev.

To me še kar nervira. Namreč to, da o tem pišem jaz, relativni nihče, vsekakor ne-izvoljen ali izbran od ljudstva. Zakaj o tem ne piše opozicija? Zakaj si ne vzamejo časa, da bi si pogledali predstavitve ministrov, in jih uporabili kot temeljno postavko preverjanja njihovega delovanja? Za časa te vlade, bi morala levica vsakič, ko minister naredi potezo ki ni v skladu z njegovimi obljubami, dvigniti glas.

Vsakič, ko odgovarja megleno in neprepričljivo, bi ga bilo treba na to opomniti. Ko se čez štiri leta približajo volitve, bi morala levica reči:  “Z zanimanjem smo sledili delovanju ministrstev, z mnogimi temeljnimi postavkami programov se strinjamo, ne strinjamo pa se z izvedbo, ki jih je mnogokrat zanikala (npr. takrat, takrat in takrat). Da se temu izognemo v temu mandatu, bomo storili X. Tukaj je naš plan dela. V njem, čudežno, ni besednih zvez, kot npr. “zavzemali se bomo” ali “stremeli bomo k”, temveč izdelan načrt kaj in kdaj. Naš program ni nastal tri tedne pred volitvami, nastajal je sproti med tem mandatom. Zato v njem ni praznih obljub, so le tiste realistične. Populistom bomo prepustili teorije zarote in blebetanje o hobotnicah in odsotnosti Boga, mi pa se bomo osredotočili na vsebino.”

Zakaj opozicija ne ustanovi vlade v senci? Zakaj nimajo predstavitev ministrov v senci – interno? Zakaj ministri vlade v senci ne objavijo svojih predstavitev na Medmrežju? Zakaj vlada v senci ne pripravlja zakonov po svoji meri, ki bi jih predlagali parlamentu za časa odsotnosti večine koalicije (torej, skoraj vedno, če lahko sodimo po prejšnjih izkušnjah)? Če nič drugega, bi to prisililo poslance da bi bili na sejah prisotni. Če ne bi bili, bi kaj kmalu ugotovili, da jim vodenje države polzi iz rok. Kar je pravilno – niso plačani za to, da hodijo na golf na Kajmance.

Najbolj preprost odgovor na zgornja vprašanja bi verjetno bil, da se opozicija boji, da bi potem, če bi se vlada zamenjala, zdajšnja koalicija delala natančno isto zdajšnji opoziciji. S čimer a) ni nič narobe, saj si želimo, da bi vlada funkcionirala, ne glede na to kdo je na oblasti in b) se ne bi v resnici nič spremenilo – saj desnica to dela že sedaj, ko je v opoziciji.

Bolj me skrbi, da levica gleda na čas bivanja v opoziciji kot na tak mini oddih – štiri leta mal jamramo kako nič ne moremo in se praskamo po okončinah. Potem, par tednov pred volitvami, pa res zagrabimo. Tokrat gre zares fantje! Skupi stopmo! Ma kdo program? Nima veze, prevedmo enga iz tujine, pa vzemimo tistega izpred štirih let pa ju skupaj skopi-pejstamo pa je! Zdej majo ljudje itak plagiatorja polno potovalko.

Če se vrnem k prezentaciji – počutim se ponižanega, da univerzitetni profesor in minister za kulturo/izobraževanje/etc od sebe da tak zmazek. Neprijetno mi je, da si deliva isto državljanstvo in skrbi me, da me bodo tujci ocenjevali po njem. Kar srh me spreleti, ko si predstavljam odbor v tisti sobi po prezentaciji ko se en aparatčik nagne k drugemu in reče: “Ja je pa lepo povedal, hudiča kako mu jezik teče… (kratka dramatična pavza)… dobr je on, dobr, stručko. Svaka čast. Pa tko jasn je blo vse, kaj je že blo tist s 43 letnim računovodjo pa Harlijem… super, super.”

Obenem se težko izmaknem misli, da je superminister edini ministrski kandidat, ki je svojo prezentacijo javno objavil. Sklepam, da je menil, da je vredna objave. Morda tudi v primerjavi s prezentacijami drugih kandidatov. In to je tisto kar me straši – kaj če je ta predstavitev res najboljša izmed vseh tokrat ponujenih? To pa ne pomeni, da je ta tako dobra, ampak da so ostale še toliko slabše.

O mehkem udaru

(c) http://maxink.wordpress.com/2009/10/

Tisto, ker ne gre neopaženo mimo nas, pa vendar se nam na videz neizogibno približuje, je prikrit vojaški udar. Janša, skupaj z ostalimi “partnerji” jemlje tisto, kar mu ne pripada – oblast. Dobra četrtina volivcev je volila zanj, ostali, ki so volili njegove priležnike, pa še niso povsem dojeli, kaj se jim dogaja. Empirično dokazljivo je, da so denimo tako volilci Desusa, kot DLGV, razočarani nad makiavelističnimi potezami, ki jih oba predsednika dotičnih strank vlečeta. Niti DLGV, niti DESUS ne bi bila več v parlamentu, če bi bile volitve danes (17.01.2012 bi DLGV podprlo le še 37% njihovih prejšnjih volivcev in 22.01.2012 bi jih podprlo le še 1.4% vseh volivcev), iz Desusa  izstopajo njihovi člani – to je verjetno zadosten pokazatelj, da se volivci počutijo pretentani.

Od poze sredinskosti se je DLGV odmaknila in se jasno profilirala kot stranka oportunizma, morda še to ne – le malo verjetno je, da bodo pod plagiatorjem kaj več kot satelit, ki ga bo na koncu strl in zavrgel, tako kot je to storil že v preteklosti – glej upad popularnosti SLS in N.Si na volitvah leta 2004 in štiri leta kasneje – N.Si je za časa kraljevanja SDS izgubila prib. 6% glasov (od 9.09% na 3.25%) in leta 2008 ni prestopila parlamentarnega praga, SLS je izgubila prib. 2% in se za las še uvrstila v parlament (s 6,82% v 2004 na 5,23% v 2008). Glede na to, da je desnica požrla samo sebe takrat, ko je bilo vladati lahko, težko pričakujemo, da bi tokrat Janša blagohotno delil moč z drugimi, ko je korito bolj kot ne, prazno.

DLGV igranje na srečo – volili so nas desničarji in levičarji. Karkoli naredimo, razen, da smo v opoziciji, nas bo stalo enega pola in stavimo, da je bilo desničarjev več, se bo morda izkazalo za preplitko – tudi desničarji ne marajo tako odkritih oportunistov (ironično, s tega stališča oboji volivci presegajo klasično delitev levo / desno. Ne glede na sučnost, ne marajo pocarjev). Spomin, ki ga imajo politiki je, kot kaže, kratek. To sicer velja tudi za mnoge volilce, vendar ne za vse.

Kaj pa pravi koalicijska pogodba o tem kaj se zgodi, če Janšo pravnomočno obsodijo na prvi stopnji? Če je nedolžen itak nima veze, če je tak provizo napisan v koalicijski pogodbi, ne? Kaj se zgodi, če ga pravnomočno obsodijo v tujini, ne pa v Sloveniji? Ali to pomeni, da je v zadostni meri izkoristil veze in moč nad slovenskim sodstvom; ali pa da so Slovenski sodniki dejansko boljši (bolj strokovni in pošteni) od tujih? In če so, zakaj potem Janševa izjava, da naše sodstvo ne funkcionira (in tule). Kaj je torej res, hmm….

V izjavah vodij desnih strank je vse polno sofizmov in cenene retorike.

Janez Janša: “Če bom pravnomočno obsojen, bom odstopil.
No ja, če bo obsojen, se bo pritožil. In potem še večkrat. In pred tem poskušal dobiti poslansko imuniteto (prvič 14.10.2010 , drugič 10.01.2012 ) in med tem računal, da bo prišel na oblast in sojenje ukinil. Dokler pa še ni na oblasti, pa mora nujno na sestanek s Tuerkom in ne na sodišče, čeprav je Tuerka prej konstantno ignoriral. Tudi njegova prisotnost v državnem zboru ne bi smela vplivati na udeležbo na obravnavi, saj se na poti v službo običajno izgubi in kam zavije – npr. na Kitajsko (denimo, jeseni 2010 je bilo 62 sej parlamenta, manjkal je 42-krat). Gospod se je tolikorat zlagal, da ne vidim kake potrebe po tem, da bi mu verjel tokrat (kot npr. da se ne dobiva po kavarnah, razen kak teden kasneje. Ali pa laganje o prepisu nepremičnin  ali pa na RTV, kjer se opraviči za laž o prejemu dokumentov o Patriji).

Janez Šušteršič: “…največja stranka je dala najmanjši input v to pogodbo – njihov vložek je bil na ravni treh strani, nato pa so bolj usklajevali pogajanja med ostalimi. ‘Očitno je bil cilj teh pogajanj, da se v pogodbo napiše vse, kar je potrebno za to, da mi s teh pogajanj ne bomo odšli in to nas na vsebinski ravni ni dovolj prepričalo,’ je dejal Šušteršič. “
Če prav razumem, torej: Najprej koalicijska pogodba ne vsebuje DLGV zahtev, ki so ekstremne, potem jih upošteva in vključi, vendar jim to ni všeč, ker jih upošteva? Parafrazirano torej: “V bistvu je bila Jankovičeva koalicijska pogodba skupek naših želja. Vse je upošteval. Zato je ne bomo podpisali.”

Virant: “Za tretjega človeka je prepozno”
Ko Tuerk predlaga tehničnega mandatarja, Virant reče, da je za to prepozno in da nimamo več časa, čeprav sam to predlaga pred desetimi dnevi (in Marka Voljča omeni poimensko).

“Na ugibanja, da ga predsednik Türk za mandatarja morda ne bi predlagal zaradi dokumentov o bombnem napadu v Velikovcu, pa je Janša odgovoril, da če bi bila osebna zamera razlog, da bo Slovenija še en mesec čakala na vlado ali šla na predčasne volitve, “ne ve, kakšnega predsednika imamo”.”
Parafrazirano: Če me Tuerk ne bo predlagal za mandatarja ker ni pripravljen požreti neskončnih poskusov poniževanj in potvorb (npr. famozni ponarejeni dokumenti o Velikovcu tule in tule in tule in tule) je malo čuden. Heh, ni dovolj, da izvedem mehki vojaški udar, tisti, ki jih ne maram se morajo ob tem ponižati. Drugače v tem ni nič sladkega. Tisti, ki se s temi stvarmi malo bolj ukvarjamo, vemo za kakšno osebnostni strukturo gre takrat, ko ta zmago razume samo kot popolno anihilacijo nasprotnika.

Erjavec: “Predčasne volitve bi bile katastrofa za državo.”
Predčasne volitve bi bile katastrofa za Desus in DLGV, za državo pa niti ne – nič slabše ne bi bilo, kot je že kako leto. Evropa bi nam prej ali slej vsilila tehnično vlado s tehničnim mandatarjem, kar bi pomenilo, da tisti, ki se mastijo zdaj, tega ne bi več mogli početi, raja pa bi še vedno tenko piskala. V tem smislu so edini, ki nasrkajo tisti, ki so bili do sedaj pri koritu.

Erjavec: “Sam bi najraje ostal poslanec, vendar se zavedam težke politične situacije in tega, da bi vlada težko delovala, ne da bi bili v njej predsedniki koalicijskih strank”tako da je bolje, da sem minister. Zato bi rad bil zunanji minister? Ni kaj, koga bolj kompetentnega že skoraj težko najdemo. Človeka, ki v dokumentarcu o Patriji prostodušno binglja z nogami s stola, medtem ko njegov sekretar odgovarja na vprašanja novinarja, ki jih minister tako ali tako ne razume. Ja, obrambni minister, ki mi res vzbuja zaupanje. Komaj čakam, da me zastopa lingvistični analfabet, ki je bodisi preneumen ali pa prelen, da bi svojo angleščino (de facto svetovni lingua franca) spravil vsaj na srednješolski nivo. Ne jamrajte mi o prevajalcih. Saj razumem idejo govori srpski i razumije te ceo svet, ampak tako kot se posmehujemo njej, se lahko tudi tezi, da če na uradnih sestankih govoriš Slovensko, to naredi na ostale vtis pravega patriota. Ne, to ostalim pusti vtis, da se ti ne da slediti pravilom dobrega okusa.

Potencialni zunanji minister je pravi renesančni človek, ki se enako znajde pri vodenju kateregakoli ministrstva, no ja, pač tistega, ki ostane. Kaj mi to pove o potencialnem mandatarju in o njegovem odnosu do Slovenije? Kako bi nas lahko še bolj ponižal pred svetom, kot da mu na pot postavi človeka, ki nas sprašuje kdo je pa sedaj klovn, ko zrušijo Jankoviča. Še vedno ti, Karel, še vedno ti. Ne razmišljaj preveč, raje pleši, kot ti narekujejo in tako te bomo vsi vedno bolj spoštovali.

O volitveni norosti

11.1.2011 glasovanje za mandatarja v slovenskem parlamentu definira nove standarde tajnosti. “Da ne bi kdo pomislil, da glasujem tako, kot mislim, da je prav, raje ne bom vzel glasovnice.” Janković ni potrjen, Janša takoj pove, da bo privolil v mandatarstvo samo če se mu uvali vsaj 50 poslancev, ker kdo pa bi hotel biti v vladi, kjer se je treba s kom kej dogovarjat?

Da ne bo pomote – v tej zgodbi je neizvolitev mandatarja zame povsem postranska, tisto kar me moti pri vsej tej zgodbi je sporočilo, ki ga dajejo stranke oz. šefi strank, ki niso glasovale. Meni se sliši kot: “Kljub temu, da imava podobne interese in sva zato v isti stranki, ti ne verjamem niti za sekundo. Četudi morda razmišljaš isto kot jaz, ti ne zaupam dovolj, da bi se nate zanesel.” Če bi bil jaz poslanec, v taki stranki verjetno ne bi bil dolgo, saj me tovrstno nezaupanje nervira. Če mi nekdo odreka kompetenco, da se odločam za skupno dobro (kar je verjetno skupno dobro naše stranke, drugače ne vem zakaj naj bi bil v njej) in me torej obravnava kot bedaka še preden s čimerkoli nakažem, da sem res bedak, ne vem zakaj jaz njega ne bi obravnaval kot bedaka. In v taki situaciji ne vidim nobenega razloga zakaj naj bi torej upošteval navodila nekega bebčka z IQ-jem tople vode. Kar verjetno, preživetveno gledano, ni najbolj dolgoročna rešitev, ampak, prosto po Nietzscheju, vsaj morala bi mi ostala.

Kot je, približno, rekel moj dolgoletni znanec na svojem blogu “Slovenija še ni zrela za nas. Čez kakih osem let bodo pripravljeni poslušati naše ideje” (Sicer ga to ni ustavilo, da ne bi kandidiral na teh volitvah in s svojo druščino prispel v parlament, ampak to je druga zgodba). Tisto kar mislim, da je v njegovi trditvi res, je, da slovenski parlament morda ni zrel za ljudi, ki razmišljajo s svojo glavo, ne glede na to v katero smer ta glava gleda. Ljudje pa smo takšni, kot pač smo.

Smešno je to, ne? Kako uspemo pozabit kakšni smo, vsakih nekaj let. Po naravi smo ljudje/človeška vrsta oportunistični, v smislu, da pač hočemo, da bi imeli nekaj zase, da zagrabimo priložnost, ko se nam ponuja. Sicer nas večina deluje v skladu z nekimi ponotranjenimi moralnimi normami in si mislimo, da se nižje kot X (karkoli že je ta X) ne bomo spustili, ampak to vseeno ne spremeni dejstva, da so naše preference usmerjene v to, da je za nas poskrbljeno. Ko si enkrat star en toliko, se naučiš, da v ogromni večini primerov ljudje ne razmišljajo o tem kaj bi bilo najbolje zate, ampak bolj o tem kaj bi bilo najbolje zanje, če pa imaš še ti kaj od tega pa je to za njih dodana vrednost, ne pa nekakšen imperativ. Psihoterapevtska doktrina nas uči, da je altruizem možen samo v specifičnih situacijah, ko je nekdo povsem nemočen (npr. dojenček, ali nebogljen zaradi starosti ali bolezni), drugače pa smo po naravi egoistični – poskrbimo zase. In včasih to pomeni, da poskrbimo tudi za druge, ker nam hvaležnost godi (npr. podarimo rože ljubljeni osebi, ker je ona potem vesela, mi pa smo veseli, ker smo ji polepšali dan).

In potem so vsakih nekaj let volitve in to zavedanje o nas samih masovno ignoriramo. Že res, da jaz najprej poskrbim zase in sem s tem povsem pomirjen, ampak ko mi nek pajac nekaj razlaga po televiziji, češ kako bo v prvi vrsti delal zame in za dobro slovenskega naroda, pomislim, “Ja, marička, mogoče pa na tem nekaj je, mogoče pa je tale čisto drugačen kot smo mi in nam mogoče ne laže, ko pravi, da postavlja tuj interes pred svojega.”

Ja, gotovo je altruist, zato pa je v slovenski politiki, leglu plagiatorjev, sfaliranih študentov s ponarejenimi magisteriji in nazivi, ki so jih pridobili na ‘univerzi’ v Bački Palanki, ker so “njihova dela preveč revolucionarna za Univerzo v Ljubljani”. V službi, kjer je za vodenje naroda in morda z malo sreče tudi kakega manj pomembnega ministrstva, kot npr. kulture ali šolstva, dovolj ključavnicarska srednja šola. V stavbi, ki je dodobra ozvočena in se tajne seje snemajo vzporedno, enkrat uradno in enkrat malo manj uradno, za tiste, ki so radi malo bolj obveščeni. V družbi ljudi, ki se jim zdi, da je zakon isto kot morala in ki verjamejo, da je prvi kriterij odločanja o neki stvari tisto kar misli njihov šef. Ja gotovo, je ta lutka čisto nekaj posebnega.


O trenirkah in joku


V petek na SDS-ovi spletni strani objavijo rasističen tekst tule z naslovom “Jankoviča sta dvignila umetno ustvarjen strah in slovenska radodarnost z državljanstvi”.  Tule je članek v Dnevniku na to temo.

Par ilustrativnih izsekov:

“Relativni zmagovalec predčasnih volitev Zoran Jankovič je na volitvah prejel dobrih 300.000 glasov. Vsi komentatorji so se veliko ukvarjali s strukturo tega volilnega telesa, ob tem pa so se v celoti namerno izognili analizi strukture njegovih volivcev z vidika novih državljanov. Čeprav je ta najpomembnejša za matematično in logično razumevanje rezultata.”

[…] na blokovskih volišcih v Ljubljani, Celju in Kopru, je bilo mogoče opaziti:
1. množično udeležbo volivcev s tujim naglasom ali volivcev, ki sploh niso odprli ust, na volišča pa so prihajali v skupinah po 10 ali večjih
2. udeležbo volivcev v športnih oblačilih (trenirkah), ki so imeli na roki s kemičnim svinčnikom napisano številko, ki jo morajo obkrožiti na glasovnici
3. opazovalce udeležbe na voliščih, ki so v skupinicah po dva ali trije postavali pred ljubljanskimi volišči in stalno telefonirali; večina je govorila v srbskem jeziku “

“Podobne informacije prihajajo tudi iz drugi okolij, kjer živijo priseljenci. Zadnji teden pred volitvami je praktično vsak novi državljan dobil klic po telefonu, veliko pa tudi obisk na domu ali v službi. V podjetjih mestne občine Ljubljana, kot na primer v Snagi, so jih kar sklicali skupaj po skupinah in jim zabičali, da morajo voliti Zokija. Vsak je moral tudi povedati, na katerem volišču bo volil. Pristop je bil v osnovi do vseh enak in je temeljil na širjenju strahu pred visoko zmago desnice in domnevnim odvzemom državljanstva. V javnih podjetjih je zalegla tudi grožnja z izgubo zaposlitve, češ da bodo ob varčevalnih ukrepih desnice “južnjaki” najprej na vrsti.

Jankovič ni imel organizirane stranke kot ostali, imel pa je v vsakem mestu poseben štab, ki se je ukvarjal samo s klicanjem novih državljanov. Razpolagali so s kopijami volilnih imenikov in seznami iz uradnih evidenc prebivalstva. Takšen štab so imeli celo pri nas na Vrhniki, v njem pa so bili v glavnem upokojeni oficirji in podoficirji nekdanje JLA.”

In tako naprej. Na plagiatorja, ki zadnje čase s pridom uporablja socialna omrežja in se morda pri tem ne zaveda, da so njegovi komentarji vidni v celotnem Medmrežju, se je usulo precej komentarjev preko Twitterja. Na nekatere je tudi odgovoril. Njegovi twiti so bili (med drugimi) takile ):

DC43: spet ste zašli, razpravljamo o nacionalisticnem tekstu, objavljenem na VAŠEM portalu, z VAŠIM blagoslovom torej. ZA ali PROTI?
JJansaSDS: Sam se z nekaterimi ocenami v komentarju ne strinjam, vsi državljani smo na volitvah enaki. Nasprotna trditev ni stališče SDS.

Vndar vseeno ne bi obsodil ali zanikal članka, ker:

11. Dec:
DC43: spet ste zašli, razpravljamo o nacionalisticnem tekstu, objavljenem na VAŠEM portalu, z VAŠIM blagoslovom torej. ZA ali PROTI?
JJansaSDS: Ne, vi ste zašli že zdavnaj. V demokratični družbi so dovoljena različna mnenja. Pri sodbah pa je treba uporabljati ista merila.
IllegalDrum: Dragi @jjansasds , sodba temelji na dejstvih, ne pa ugibanjih, pavšalizmih in izjavi enega znanca iz Bihaća.

11. Dec:
DC43: V demokratični družbi predvsem NI DOVOLJENO nacionalistično hujskaštvo.
JJansaSDS: Zagotovo ni. Zanimivo pa je, da v tekstu vidite samo trenirke, za druge spornosti, na katere opozarja, pa je slepa pega.

Potem, ko je zgodbo povzel Dnevnik tule, se je plagiator odločil, da bo odgovoril na novinarjevo vprašanje o nacistični noti na SDS-ovi spletni strani:

Do svojega mnenja ima pravico tako Tomaž, kot Zoran in Danilo. To pravico do izražanja razlicnih mnenj je treba braniti in zaradi tega SDS tega stališca tudi ni umaknila s spletne strani, ceprav to ni njeno stališce
Kaj v tem besedilu je sovražni govor in kaj naj jaz komentiram?
Ce nekoga, ki je Srb, nekdo imenuje za Srba, to ni sovražni govor.”

Celoten povzetek je tule.

Hmja, to seveda ni sovražni govor, če nekoga imenuješ za pripadnika neke skupnosti, še posebej če to je. Verjetno se že tukaj zapletemo, ker ima zelo verjetno Janković slovensko državljanstvo, kar zelo verjetno pomeni, da je prej Slovenec, kot Srb. Problem v vsakem primeru ni v poimenovanju, kadar ne uporabljaš slabšalnih izrazov (kot npr. opankar, čefur ali trenirkar). Problemov je več, malo drugje:
1. Žaljiv odnos do volilcev, ki so povsem legitimno glasovali za nekoga, ki mu z večjo verjetnostjo ne bo treba opravljati premierske funkcije iz zapora.
2. Žaljiv odnos do tistih, ki niso volili SDS, češ, “itak ste vsi neuki imigranti al pa nimate jajc, da bi izbral nas, ki smo tako dobro zastavili program 10 + 100” (mimogrede, ta program je kar zanimivo branje. Iskreno priznam, da ga nisem prebral do konca – prebral sem le prvih deset ukrepov, ki se slišijo kar v redu – edini pomislek, ki ga imam je, da je marsikateri od predlogov bil aktualen že v letih 2004-2008, pa ni takratna vlada nič naredila z njim.  Npr. kadrovanje glede na sposobnosti, veliki gospodarski kriminalci bodo obsojeni – ta se mi zdi se posebej zanimiv prav zanima me kako bi ga izpeljali, skrajšanje časa umeščanja objektov v prostor, itd, itd)
3. Predalčkanje. O tem vemo marsikaj – vemo, da po teoriji o tolpah jedro izbere zunanjega sovražnika zato, da je skupina bolj homogena (glej npr. Thrasher, 1933 ali Cohen & Short, 1958). S tega pogleda pač plagiator utrjuje svojo subkulturno skupino tako, da ji nudi zunanjega sovražnika. Problem na katerega naleti pa je, da sicer utrjuje svoje jedro, vendar na račun izgube perifernih simpatizerjev.

Spet, po teorijah socialne odklonskosti, se v vsaki tolpi (ang. gang; ni mišljeno slabšalno) struktura deli na tiste najbolj goreče podpornike in veliko večino tistih, ki pač sledijo toku. Ti so člani tolpe iz geografskih ali socialnih razlogov (so npr. iz Grosuplja ali pa njihovi sosedje/prijatelji žareče podpirajo SDS), njihova lojalnost pa je vprašljiva. Če zunanje, šibke vezi, popustijo, se pač odločajo za alternativo. Problem, ki ga ima plagiator tu, je da se v družbi na splošno pojavlja vedno več ljudi, ki se nanj, če se izrazim sočno, ne bi poscali tudi, če bi spontano zagorel.

S takimi izjavami, kot so zgornje si efektivno oddaljuje mnoge ljudi. Saj kalkulacija ni napačna – jedro se tako še bolj solidarizira, kar pomeni, da bo vedno imel parlamentarni stolček (če ne spremenimo volilnega sistems), vendar bi jaz na njegovem mestu opustil upanje na kakšno močno povečanje simpatizerjev. Prej obratno. Tukaj, če lahko malo pomodrujem, bi bilo skrajno bolj politično modro, če bi plagiator instantno javno križal avtorja prispevka na SDS-ovi spletni strani (Če je v resnici avtor on, pa naj si izbere naključnega vojščaka SDS). Tako bi bil videti odločen in fer (mnogi ljudje bi se obrnili k svojim partnerjem in rekli: “A vidiš Marička, sej sem rekel, da je Janez pravi državnik, glej kako hitro se je odzval na netoletantnost v lastni stranki! Saj ta pravim, da ga preveč obsojamo…”), obenem pa bi tako ali tako šel glas v javnost o tem kaj si v resnici misli SDS o Jankovičevi zmagi.

Ker sem rahlo pristranski in si ne želim omogočati uspeha okornim asocialnežem, bi morda še opozoril, da potem, ko nekdo javno obelodani možno makiavelistično potezo, ta bolj ali manj izgubi svoj smisel.
4. Žaljiv odnos tudi do priseljencev, na koncu koncev – češ, ker si bil včasih Srb (zdaj si itak Slovenec, drugače ne bi mogel volit), si preveč neumen, da bi volil po svoji vesti (Če sploh pustimo po strani podtalno podtaknjeno trditev, da so vsi neslovenci smetarji ali fizični delavci in torej zlahka zamenljivi).

Saj je jasno, da gre za sprenevedanje. Kako ne veš, kaj je v tem besedilu sovražni govor? Imas težave z razumevanjem jezika?

Druga stvar, ki se mi zdi strašljiva, čeprav tudi malo komična, pa so odzivi, ki sem jih imel priložnost spremljati na fejsbuku. Je že tako, da moji prijatelji in znanci negujejo različne politične usmeritve. Od klenih komunistov, do nepremakljivih katolikov. Tako sem lahko takoj po volitvah bral izjave kot npr:

“Pa mate slovenceljčki, vsi se boste morali naučit plesat kolo in hodit v džamijo na mestnem trgu […]”. (Zdaj nima več smisla iskati teh izjav po mojem fejsbuk profilu – sem se že odnaročil od obnovitev statusa tovrstnih znancev. Ne zato, ker bi me motil njihov politični nazor, ampak zato ker so tolk zabiti, da me res ne zanima, kaj mi majo za povedat).

Kul, ne? Me prav zanima kaj menijo Srbi o tem, da so naenkrat postali muslimani. Ce za hip ignoriramo dejstvi da me džamija v Ljubljani ne bi niti malo motila, tako kot me ne bi motil budistični tempelj in če ignoriramo dejstvo, da je Jankovič v času svojega županovanja ni zgradil, kljub temu, da je uspel zgraditi marsikaj večjega in bolj finančno zahtevnega, me to, da bi po mestu slišal muezzine ne skrbi pretirano. Tudi zato ne, ker bi jih tako ali tako preglasili frdamani zvonovi. In če že moram prenašat petarde ob Kitajskem novem letu, bi pa še bajram. V bistvu še raje.

Aja, pa še to, analiza odstotkov novih državljanstev s stališča razumevanja volilnega izzida vsekakor ni najbolj pomembna. Morda, sploh za SDS, bi bila bolj pomembna analiza tega kaj bi lahko spremenili v prihodnje, da ne bi naslednjič zopet izgubili že praktično dobljenih volitv. Da sploh ne omenjam tega, da je plagiator osebno hodil po robu volilnega zakona, ko je pošiljal pisma o potrebi po mobilizaciji svojim članom v soboto, dan pred volitvami ().

In se – dovolj imam kazanja s prstom na druge, ces, zakaj ste se zapicili v to, da podpiram nacisticno ideologijo niste pa se odzvali na ostala nabijanja, ki jim pravim dejstva? Tega imam cez glavo, tega vitja rok in jamranja o tem kako je opravicljivo lagat in ponarejat, ker sam pravim da drugi tudi to pocnejo. Dosti. Ni ok potvarjat dejstev, kdorkoli to pocne, ni ok plagiirat tudi ce je kdo drug tudi to naredil prej, ni ok ponarejat uradnih dokumentov ne glede na to s kaksnim razlogom. To, da vsi delajo isto (ce!) preprosto ni opravicilo zato, da je nekdo nemoralen. A drugi pa lahko? Ne, ne smejo, ampak dajva ne menjat teme. Ti tudi ne smes. Pika.

Thrasher, F.M. (1933). “Juvenile Delinquency and Crime Prevention”. Journal of Educational Sociology 6 (8): 500–509. doi:10.2307/2961696
Cohen, Albert & Short, James, (1958), “Research in Delinquent Subcultures”, Journal of Social Issues, pp20–37.

O volitvah in nujnih spremembah

Na razgledih.net Janez Šušteršič piše o tem kako bi spremenil volilni sistem (toliko procentov volivcev kot pride na volitve, takšen delež  sedežev v parlamentu je na voljo). Na prvi pogled sicer všečna ideja, ki vpelje koncept vzpodbud (ang. incentives) v sistem volitev. Ima pa, vsaj tako kot je videti sedaj, slabost – recimo, da je volilna udeležba 40%, kar pomeni, kaj, približno 33 poslancev, kar pomeni večino 17-ih ljudi, kar pomeni ustavno večino, kaj, približno 18 ljudi? Torej 18 kekcev ima kar naenkrat ogromno moč. To pač ne ojačuje zaupanja volivcev.

Sam vseeno mislim, da bi bilo še bolj efektivno, če bi za časa poslanske službe osebno premoženje posameznika zamrznili, mu posodili stanovanje (ali plačevali tekoče stroške za njegovega), ki bi ga čistili na državne stroške, mu dali služben avto (ki bi ga redno servisirala država), plačali dopust v sindikalni prikolici, dali bone za hrano v parlamentarni menzi in dali recimo minimalno plačo na mesec za čike pa še krili stroške vrtca ali izobraževanja za njegove otroke (njemu seveda ne, saj ne rabimo neizobraženih voditeljev. Če je ljudstvo izvolilo intelektualnega pritlikavca, naj tak tudi ostane, ne pa se šola na stroške države). Službeni mobitel, kjer se preverja delež osebnih klicev. In trga od plače, če je nerazumen. Plačana službena obleka, kot v zdravstvu in šolstvu. Določena meja izdatkov za sestanke v tujini (ki vključuje dnevnico in stroške nenajdražjega hotela). Če so stroški višji, jih mora odobriti svet delavcev Mure ali ekvivalentnega podjetja. Torej država krije stroške njegovega / njenega življenja in dela. In to je vse. Nič drugega, nobenih drugih dodatkov, nobenih sejnin, nič. Delavnik je minimalno osem ur. Trikrat odsoten od rednega dela, pa ga odpustimo. Obiski v tujini, ko redno delo to dopušča. Strategijo uporabe socialnih omrežij bi določili na ravni državne uprave. Bodisi lahko vsi uslužbenci dostopajo do fejsbuka, G+, tviterja… ali pa nobeden.

Ko se poslančev mandat konča, se njegov TRR odblokira (v času naslednjega mandata vlade se TRR prejšnjih poslancev še vedno preverjajo). Tekom mandata  je poslančevo poslovanje pod drobnogledom. Vsak izdatek, vsak nakup. V ocenjevanje stanja je vključena tudi poslančeva družina. Nenavadni prilivi na njihove račune se preverijo in sankcionirajo. Pogoji za posojila so isti kot za ostale državljane – poslanec lahko dobi toliko posojila kot kdorkoli drug z minimalno plačo. Če ga dobi več, takoj revizija banke, ki je posojilo odobrila in sankcije.

Volilna kampanja – natančno določeno število oglasov (v kar vključujem radio, televizijo in tisk) za vsako stranko. Ti oglasi so brezplačni. Vsak oglas več ali kršitev volilnega molka pomeni določen promil odbitka pri volilnih rezultatih. Nobenih finančnih sankcij, vsekakor pa politične. Kakršnokoli državno financiranje političnih strank se ukine v celoti (kamor vključujem tudi kakršnekoli prilive strankam po volitvah). Donacije omejene. Podjetja v (delni) državni lasti ne poslujejo s političnimi strankami na nikakršen način.

Odkrit primer nepotizma pomeni avtomatično doživljenjsko izločitev poslanca iz parlamenta in zaposlitve v javni upravi. Nepotizem ni to, da ljudje izvolijo celotno družino na poslanska mesta, je pa vsekakor to, da bližnji sorodniki delajo v poslančevi pisarni (ne glede na to, kako sposobni so). Obenem je nepotizem tudi to, da nekdo zaposluje ženo drugega poslanca, ta pa zaposluje njegovo. Sankcija za izrabo državnih inštitucij je ista kot za nepotizem.

Poslanec v času služenja ljudstvu ne more opravljati še ene službe. To je samoumevno. Če je pred nastopom funkcije nekje zaposlen, ga delovno mesto lahko počaka (če se s tem strinja delodajalec), v vmesnem času pa delo opravlja nekdo drug (isti princip velja, če je poslanec član uprave kakršnekoli gospodarske družbe). Taka gospodarska družba lahko posluje z državo, vendar je poslanec avtomatično izvzet iz kakršnegakoli procesa odločanja o njihovem poslovanju z državo. V primeru, da obstaja utemeljen sum, da je poslanec lobiral za to podjetje, se to šteje kot izraba položaja in tako tudi sankcionira (utemeljen sum se šteje kot prijava dveh posameznikov, vpletenih v ta posel).

Poslanec, ki laže o čemerkoli, izgubi mandat ljudstva in lahko kandidira na naslednjih volitvah, vendar mora v volilni kampanji vsaj enkrat na vsak svoj govor jasno povedati, da je prejšnjič izgubil mandat, ker je lagal. Za priznanje ne štejejo stavki kot npr. Pravijo, da sem lagal, vendar je to konstrukt ali pa Saj tudi vsi ostali to delajo, ipd. Dokaz o laganju so lahko kakršnekoli nasprotujoče si javne izjave o politiki, zakonih, smernicah ali poslančevih sodelavcih, ki jih poslanec ne pojasni v zadostni meri (seveda si lahko premisli, vendar mora to podpreti z jasnimi razlogi. Ni dovolj, da npr. reče, res je, da sem podpiral nek sporazum, sedaj ga pa ne, ker sem v opoziciji. Presojo verodostojnosti opravi skupina sedmih univerzitetnih profesorjev, ki niso nujno člani nobene politične stranke, s področij, ki se dotikajo teme razprave. Ko gre npr. za blatenje ali izmišljotine o nekom, je v komisiji psiholog, psihiater, socialni pedagog, kriminolog, pravnik in tako naprej).

Na volitvah lahko sodeluje vsaka stranka z volilnim programom (pri čemer je oglasni prostor omejen absolutno in razdeljen v enaki meri – torej tri stranke dobijo vsaka 33% prostora, trideset pa 3.3% vsaka. Dejstvo, da je stranka v tem hipu parlamentarna, ne spremeni teh razmerij. Enako velja za televizijska soočenja). Program mora vsebovati konkretne predloge skupaj s časovnico, oceno tveganja in SWAT analizo, strategijami izpeljave in finančnim razrezom za vsako postavko posebej.

Vsak zakon, ki ga parlament predlaga, gre najprej skozi roke neodvisne komisije, ki ni sestavljena iz članov strank, temveč iz strokovnjakov z danega področja. Predvsem je tu poudarek na meritornosti. Kot pravi moja prijateljica: “Nije žvaka za seljaka”. Vseeno je, če je nekdo politično profiliran, važno je samo, da o gradnji termonuklearke ne odloča nekdo s po izpitih končano srednjo agroživilsko šolo. Če ga strokovnjaki ne potrdijo, se o zakonu ne glasuje in gre v ponovno obravnavo komisije, ki nujno vključuje večino pravnikov.

Fiskalno politiko krojijo ekonomisti in ne poslanci s srednješolsko izobrazbo. Vsako leto dve neodvisni agenciji merita kazalce blaginje in zadovoljstva prebivalstva. Ko ti kazalci kažejo na padec blaginje, parlament ustrezno zmanjša izdatke sebi (sebi niža plače, ukinja nepotrebne ugodnosti – recimo dopuste, obiske tujih državnikov itn.), potem pa proporcionalno najprej javni upravi, obrambi, kulturi, šolstvu, zdravstvu in tako naprej. Pred zmanjšanjem se upoštevajo vsa zmanjšanja sredstev od osamosvojitve dalje. Torej, na primer, preden se zmanjša proračunska postavka kulturi za 5%, se (govorim na pamet) zmanjša proračunska postavka obrambi za 50%, ker je nasprotno od kulture pridobivala v zadnjih dvajsetih letih.

Vlada vodi javno evidenco o svoji uspešnosti, pri čemer je eden od kazalcev vsak izglasovan zakon. Evidenca je javno dostopna skupaj s komentarji strokovnjakov. O komentarjih parlament lahko razpravlja, vendar je razprava omejena na tehtne vsebinske komentarje s predlogi sprememb. Celoten parlament je odgovoren za sprejem zakona, ne samo koalicija. Če zakon v treh poskusih ni sprejet, o njem glasuje petnajstčlanska komisija, katere člani so izbrani meritorno in niso poslanci ali funkcionarji katerekoli izmed strank. Če komisija ne izglasuje zakona prvič, ga lahko spremeni poljubno, mimo parlamenta in o njem razpravlja še en mesec. Potem glasuje še enkrat in če ga sprejme, ga lahko uvede mimo parlamenta, če ga ne sprejme, pa se stari zakon ohrani in v javno evidenco zapiše sklep, da je celoten parlament v tem primeru opravilno nesposoben. Ko se to zgodi tretjič v mandatu, se to šteje kot konstruktivna nezaupnica vladi, ki odslovi poslance in  ministre, zadolžene za ta zakon in nastavi nekoga iz opozicije, da vodi ta resor. Zoprno ne? Začnite se dogovarjati med sabo! Pa ne bo joka.

Referendumi, ki imajo manj kot 20% udeležbo, se štejejo kot neuspešni in pomenijo direktno obremenitev računa vlagatelja referenduma. Posvetovalni referendumi se ukinejo. Če že pride do referenduma, je ta obvezujoč, ob dovolj veliki udeležbi.  Vsak predlog referenduma gre najprej skozi roke petih ustavnih sodnikov, ki ga morajo z večino potrditi. Če ga ne podprejo, za svoj čas izstavijo račun predlagatelju. Če predlagatelj ne plača v zakonskem roku, oddela stroške z javnimi deli, za ta čas pa se njegov status poslanca (ko referendum predlaga poslanec) zamrzne in le-ta izgubi pravico glasovanja.

Poslanska imuniteta se povsem ukine. Voditelji naroda morajo biti v vzgled in nimajo pravice zapika, ko jih zasačijo z roko v malhi.

Posamezniki, ki so pravnomočno obsojeni kaznivega dejanja (katerega koli), v Sloveniji ne morejo postati poslanci, ministri ali drugi visoki državni funkcionarji. Če se to  zgodi za časa njihovega mandata, se jim mandat vzame. Ko rečem pravnomočno obsojeni, s tem ne mislim, obsojeni na eni ravni, ampak pritožni proces še teče. Če pritožni proces teče, se za časa tega procesa njihov mandat zamrzne. Če so spoznani za nedolžne, se njihov mandat vrne, do rednih volitev. Ja, kaj pa če sodni mlini meljejo (pre)počasi? Na to lahko rečem samo, a) ne mašite sodišč z brezveznimi tožbami in b) ne počnite kaznivih dejanj.

Vsaka grožnja, vsaka, ki vključuje posameznika ali njegovo družino, prejeta kakorkoli, osebno, telefonično, preko spleta ali tviterja zahteva bliskovit odziv. Takojšnje (v roku največ 24 ur) sankcije vključujejo tistega, ki grozi (če je najdljiv) in interesno skupino, ki bi najbolj profitirala, če bi se posameznik uklonil grožnji. Taka skupina in njeni predstavniki so v tej zadevi izločeni iz glasovanja o njej. Če se kasneje izkaže, da je nek posameznik (recimo iz nasprotnega pola) grožnje pošiljal z namenom diskreditiranja interesne skupine, se glasuje ponovno, posameznika, če je poslanec, se tretira, kot da je lagal, z vsemi sankcijami, ki temu pritičejo, in če ni poslanec, se proti njemu sproži postopek zaradi oškodovanja države. Če se izkaže, da je državljan tako deloval po naročilu poslanca, se ta poslanec odslovi za trajanje mandata, proti njemu in sodelavcu pa se sproži sodni proces.

Volivci volijo določeno osebo in ne njegove stranke. Oseba lahko kandidira kjerkoli v Sloveniji, vendar ne more priti v parlament, če ni bila izvoljena. Če stranke nimajo dovolj kvalitetnih ljudi, pač naj ne računajo, da jih bo v slavo ponesel kult osebnosti.

Enkrat mesečno komisija iz nasprotnega političnega pola preverja, ali se stranka drži obljub, danih v predvolilni bitki. Ko se poslanec katerekoli stranke tretjič ne drži obljubljenega, začne teči enomesečni odpovedni rok in če v tem mesecu ne popravi zadane škode, izgubi pravico glasovanja in vstopa v parlament za šest mesecev. Plača se mu ravno tako zamrzne. Tako se lahko oba politična pola koljeta do onemoglosti ali pa začneta sodelovati. V vsakem primeru smo državljani izvzeti iz njihovih nebuloz. Izdane obljube se štejejo kot

a) neaktivnost na določenem področju (npr. “Vsi boste imeli pokojnine 1000 EUR,” vendar se v treh letih o tem sploh ne razpravlja). Če obljuba ni bila realna (kot ta ni bila), potem poslanec bodisi laže (sankcija je jasna) bodisi pa je preneumen, da bi bil poslanec in ga ni škoda. – Torej, če obljubljaš, potem je v tvojem programu napisano, kako boš to dosegel. Če se ne držiš programa, je to jasno preverljivo, saj brez natančnega programa ne moreš na volitve.

b) aktivno delovanje proti svojim obljubam – obljubiš nekaj, a v parlamentu glasuješ proti.

Po prenehanju mandata ima vsak poslanec ali visok državni funkcionar 12 mesecev pravico do prejemanja nadomestila plače v višini najmanjšega izmerjenega nadomestila za nezaposlenost za časa njegovega mandata, oz. najmanjše izplačane pokojnine, karkoli je manjše. Seveda ob pogoju, da je prijavljen kot iskalec zaposlitve in ni zaposlen nikjer drugje. V primeru, da se izkaže, da poslanec prejema dohodke iz drugih virov medtem, ko sprejema nadomestilo, nastopi v veljavo obstoječa zakonodaja. Poslanci ali ministri, ki odstopijo, torej efektivno dajo odpoved delovnega razmerja, imajo enako pravico do nadomestila kot vsi ostali uslužbenci v državnih službah (torej nikakršne).

Taka ureditev bi morala biti izglasovana s strani ljudstva in bi se lahko spremenila samo na referendumu, kjer bi za spremembo glasovala absolutna večina državljanov (in ne samo tistih, ki pridejo na volišča).

Ja, to ni strašansko ugodno. Sicer pa ljudstvu ni več do tega, da bi bila situacija za naše politike strašansko ugodna. V dvajsetih letih so se dovolj izrodili, da si bodo ponovno zaupanje pridobivali počasi. Ta hip jim ne zaupamo a priori. Situacija pa je neugodna tako ali tako samo za tiste politike, ki bi radi kaj zaslužili na ramenih ljudstva. Za tiste, ki bi radi dali nekaj Sloveniji, pa se tako ali tako nič ne spremeni.

O poceni kreditih kot razlogu za ostajanje v Sloveniji

[…]bi po eni od javnomnenjskih raziskav kar tretjina Slovencev odšla v kakšno drugo državo.

Pavle Gantar: Če bi bile razmere res tako slabe, bi verjetno odšli. To anketno vprašanje ima po mojem nekaj metodoloških problemov. Vprašati bi jih morali tudi, kaj je tisto, zaradi česar bi šli, in kaj je razlog, da ne gredo. Ali je to hiša, ki so jo postavili s poceni posojilom, ali kaj drugega. Takole bom rekel: ko so razmere res slabe, ljudje gredo, tudi če nimajo možnosti. To smo videli pri migracijah.

Pavle Gantar v Dnevnikovem objektivu


Metodoloških problemov? Ja, bi rekel, predvsem ker raziskava ne zajema tistih, ki s(m)o tako ali tako že šli (pa bi se mogoče kdaj vrnili). Seveda je vzorec izkrivljen, ostali so samo tisti, ki (iz bolj ali manj tehtnih) različnih razlogov (še) niso šli. Taka raziskava ti ne pove nič o begu možganov. V najboljšem primeru mimogrede zajame še koga, ki se počasi odpravlja, pa še ni čisto odšel.

Ta vase-zagledanost, pišuka. “Ne greš, a?, a?, a smo ti šenkal bajto, sirotek, zdej pa hvaležno trp v tišini…” Prvič, kje se dobijo poceni posojila? In kaj sploh so poceni posojila? A so bolj poceni, kot drugje po svetu? V primerjavi s cenami nepremičnin in trendi zaposlitvene politike? In kako lahko posojilu, ki je vezano na inflacijsko stopnjo in na fluktuacije valutnega tečaja, v obdobju gospodarske krize rečeš poceni?

Kar se tice predzadnjega stavka v navedbi, pride čez kot izziv. Če ti ni všeč, pa spoki. Od kje ta ideja, da se to že ne dogaja? Tkole malo vulgarno lahko rečem samo: “V redu, pa ostan sam na kupu gnoja s povprečno sposobnim kadrom in tko po Nietzschejansko reci: Ja, saj je res, da so sosedje bolj sposobni, bolj premožni, bolj srečni in manj izkoriščani, ampak mi smo pa bolj moralni; Medtem, ko tvojim poslancem iz žepov lezejo pogodbe za privatne letalske muzeje in floskule o tem kako bi bilo vse drugače, če bi le lahko dobil čisto vse kar hočeš.”

Kar se mene tiče se v tem stavu še enkrat (kot že kdaj prej) kaže popolno nerazumevanje lastne vloge v političnem sestavu države. Drugi najmočnejsi človek v Sloveniji (kot se P.G. samo-deklarira) ne more reči, ej politika mora narediti X, Y in Z zato, da bomo bolje živeli. Tak človek mora to storiti. Polno potovalko imam ljudi, ki potem jamrajo kako težko jim je opravljati svoj posel. Pišuka, kako dolgo misliš, da bi preživel v poslovnem svetu z odnosom: Sej bi izvajal svoje naloge, sam kaj ko mi ostali skoz nagajajo?

Ja, kdo pa te je silil, da kandidiraš? Si kdaj, ko si dobil plačilni listek rekel, ej tega jaz ne vzamem, ker menim, da ne opravljam dobro svojega posla? V točki, ko posameznik reče, ja saj ne bi prejemal nezasluženega plačila, samo kaj ko ga bodo drugi še naprej, se izkaže s kom se primerja in kam segajo njegova pričakovanja do samega sebe. Torej, njegov moralni standard je identičen preprodajalcem orožja, političnim trgovcem in ljudem, ki pišejo sms sporočila kot npr. Prinesi denar, ki si nam ga pokradel. Še je čas, po tem datumu bo zate slabo, poslovi se od familije, kmalu greš na dolg dopust. Danes si zapravil še zadnjo možnost. Dobro se skrij, tvoja družina bo plačala za vse, kar si nam naredil in ti boš gledal to trpljenje, pička, ne moreš se skriti na zemlji. In še: Se vidimo svinja, ko boš najmanj pričakoval, ti kar uživaj, ne boš dolgo, res ne, videl te bom jokati, prasec pokvarjen, in naučil te bom, kaj je PRIJATELJ .

Kolk me to pogreje. V moji državi pravnomočno obsojeni kriminalci kandidirajo za predsednika države (in dobijo 10% glasov!). Skoraj tretjina poslancev je končala izobraževalno pot na srednji šoli.  Državo vodijo ‘krizni managerji’, ki nimajo pojma o ekonomiji. Fiskalna politika se bolj kot ne sestoji iz tega, da uvedemo kak nov davek, porežemo finance kaki nepotrebni panogi, kot npr kulturi ali šolstvu, ali pa si sposodimo denar iz tujine. V taki vizuri nepotrebnosti je naša daleč najbolj nepotrebna panoga slovenska politika. Da ne bo pomote, moje mnenje o ljudeh, ki imajo program, ki se bolj kot ne sestoji iz “Ne vem, točno, ampak v vsakem primeru se potegujem za ravno obratne stvari od tebe” in ljudeh, ki pokoljejo vse kure v kurniku, potem pa očitajo gospodarju, da je pustil vrata odprta, se prav nič ne razlikuje od mojega mnenja o ljudeh, ki ta hip ‘krmarijo Titanik’.

Pismo, res, parlament, kjer ministri vlečejo nadomestilo plači dokler lahko (tudi če so sami odstopili); kjer velja prepričanje, da je nekaj normalnega če trguješ z glasovi; kjer ni nobene vsebine, razen kontriranja; kjer je silikonska bjonda višek referendumske kampanje; kjer neovirano blatijo predsednika države s ponarejeno dokumentacijo; kjer nič ni treba dokazat, za nič ni treba imeti preverjenih virov; kjer je važno samo da poziraš pred kamerami, za oddaje, ki jih nihče več ne gleda; kjer ljudi bolj zanima kdo se daje dol z živalmi, kot kako izboljšati življenjski standard populacije in kjer se hvalijo s tem da zakone pišejo mimo stroke….

Pri takem parlamentu, mi njegov drugi mož mirno reče, da je moje nezadovoljstvo povezno s tem, da je moja rit preveč polna. Nehi blefirat, večina tistih, ki smo kaj vredni nas je že zdavnaj odšlo. Pa ne zato, ker ne bi marali Slovenije, ampak zato, ker ona nas ne mara.

About amateur psychotherapy and support groups



I am participating in a longish discussion in a forum, where one of the things said made me write about something I’ve been upset about for a while now [things in brackets changed by me].



… I am not talking about this [support group], cause it is different, but most seem to be stuck in their own feeling of being right and know how support has to be given. Isn’t it true that amateur psychologists cause more harm then good?

As far as amateur psychologists/therapists go, that is my pet peeve anyway and in general.

I have no issue with either support or self-help groups, but when the line between support and therapy blurs, then I do have an issue, yes. I have an even bigger issue with friendly advice, mainly because I did work both in a psychiatric institution and in a private setting, and my experience is that the client/patient usually gets screwed by inexpert help.

Once the situation is really dire, they come to people like me, who face a lot more work in helping to fix the things that were relatively easily fixable before the person followed well-meaning, but nevertheless wrong, advice.

Sometimes, things are not satisfactorily fixable after the fact at all (for example somebody who is slowly drifting into psychosis and is told that they should really stand up for themselves and understand that as a permission to beat her children to the point where it leaves lasting marks, because they didn’t want to go to sleep at bedtime. If you don’t understand how the mind works, don’t mess with it, is what I am saying. Funnily enough, at that point, people who were full of advice before suddenly go quiet and stop answering calls. And then to my everlasting joy, I get to speak to the mother in a psychiatric clinic and explain to them why they’ll be staying with us, and why that nice person from social services is taking the kids away for good).

Now, don’t start with victim blaming (i.e. the mother is crazy, she should be locked up. Poor kids.).  This is all solvable in a way where the kids don’t get hurt and don’t lose their mother in the process (which in turn doesn’t leave them an impression that it’s their fault that they can’t stay with their mother anymore).

You see, there are two points where friendly advice can fail – 1) when the person giving the advice has no experience whatsoever with what they are dealing with, and just play it by heart, which may work for them personally, but certainly doesn’t work for everybody. They might also mistake their personal experience with a certain issue to be grounds for a good general advice (e.g. if you are quite timid and have once in your life stood up for yourself to a great outcome, you still shouldn’t encourage a serial rapist to not listen to anyone else and just follow their heart).

And 2) (connected to the first one), when the advice giver fails to see the warning signs or misinterprets them because they judge everybody to be just like them.

Both of those sometimes work OK and leave no outward damage which in turn empowers the person to fancy themselves the go-to mental guru, so to speak (i.e. if you have a problem, just talk to me, everybody else does it). This might work for a while, but there will certainly come a point when people are out of their depth (which also happens to ‘real’ therapists, don’t get me wrong, but at least we have any numbers of external mechanisms to help us cope. And, quite importantly, we are equipped to recognize this, when it happens).

Once out of their depth, people either shy away from the problem, leaving the client/patient to pick up the pieces (bad), or steam-roller on, into the unknown, after all how bad could it be, right? (worse).

Well, it can be as bad as you can imagine and then some more. Mainly because if a lay person can actually imagine it and still goes ahead with it, they are probably a psychopath (i.e. don’t care if somebody else suffers. Might also enjoy it. Same applies for being overconfident – it is easy to be overconfident about somebody else’s future. If it works, then fine, if it doesn’t, well, they’ll face the consequences, is also an anti-social trait).

Let me point out that, like I said before, I think that there is a real need for support and self-help groups out there, but there is also a responsibility attached to offering that kind of service, one that shouldn’t be brushed away.

I would say that the main function of such groups is to listen. Offering an opinion is also fine, sharing of experiences too. Lay therapy, absolutely not. I am saying that it is OK to say: “That sucks. I experienced a similar thing – here is what happened to me.” In my opinion is also still OK to say: “Now here is how I dealt with it, but please bear in mind that this might not work for you and that I am not saying you should do any of this. I am merely telling you what worked for me. If you want to follow any of this, please talk it over with somebody who is a) uninvolved, and b) knows how to deal with those kinds of issues. It certainly helped me to do it. A phone number of somebody, whom I had previous good experiences with, is in your mailbox”.

It is definitely NOT OK to say: “Wow, that sucks, and here is what you should do…” or “Mhm, sure, sure, let me tell you what your problem is…” or “Stop talking, nobody cares. Let me tell you a real story of hardship now” or “You fool, it is all your fault, stop whining and get a life” or”You handled it all wrong, here is what you should have done…”

A peer-review phishing scam

I thought you would be interested to know about a very interesting scam that has been going around lately (well, interesting from my perspective, I research scams for a living 🙂 ).

It is in a form of a very well executed spearphishing attack. It targets academics, and would be particularly effective against postgraduate students (I know it took me a while to realize it is a scam and at least one of my colleagues didn’t, but got stopped by me in time).

The way this works

You get an email, from a journal editor (in my case from Science Journal of Economics. The web-page URL is sciencejournals.cc) asking for a peer review of an article. Now, for those of you who are not familiar with academic publishing – all articles are reviewed, for free, by researchers in the chosen field. They then post a review to the editor and the editor makes a decision about publishing said article. A legit peer review request would look almost identical to the one received.

I went and checked – the Journal web page seems OK. On the face of it, the fledgling journal is sparsely populated with articles, but hey, you’ve got to start somewhere, right? For me an additional issue was, that about a fortnight ago, I actually did speak in person to an editor of a small family run journal, whose name I have instantly forgotten. He asked me to write for him. So I was not completely sure whether this was the same guy, who first wanted to test my reviewing skills, before asking for an article.

I asked a senior academic about this journal (My full email to them consisted of: ‘Is this for real?’), and he replied saying that it is a very new journal, but could be above board, so if I had the time, I should review the article. Now, this is the first brilliant move by the scammer: if they get a hold of a PhD student, they can count on them being relatively inexperienced in the process of peer reviewing, while at the same time they know that peer reviewing is a required part of the academic life; plus it might stroke their ego that a journal wants their opinion about a piece of research.

I replied, saying that they should sent the article over, with reviewers guidelines. This is what I got from them, things in [italic square brackets are changed by me]:

From: Editor [editor@sciencejournals.cc]
Sent: 28 June 2011 12:10
To: [Me]
Subject: Re: Manuscript For Review [article title]

Dear [Me],

Thank you for accepting our invitation to review with the Science Journal of Economics. Please find attached files, the full Manuscript , Instruction for Authors as well as the Reviewer’s Guide. You may present your evaluations the way you deem fit. If you wish to correct parts of the manuscript itself, please indicate your corrections with a different color (for example, red for addition and blue for deletion).

I am looking forward to your response.

Best regards,
Dr. John Morrison
Editorial Assistant

Enclosure: Manuscript,Reviewer’s Guide and Instruction for Authors

I downloaded the files and looked at them. The reviewers guide is competently written, very boiler-plate, but that is the way all of them are.

The reviewers form is quite elaborate, but not out of the ordinary.

I decided to just briefly look at the article, before actually reviewing it the next day. The article was horrible. Really, you can’t get much worse than that in a piece of academic writing. I wrote at least ten remarks for first paragraph alone, before I decided that this was not publishable and that it is just a waste of time.

So, I sent an email to my academic colleague:

From: [Me]
Sent: 27 June 2011 00:07
To: [Colleague]
Subject: FWD: Manuscript For Review [article title]

Hi [Colleague],

OK, I’ve gotten the manuscript from the Journal we wrote about the other day and it is horrible. It is. I stopped correcting after the first paragraph of the introduction. There is, literally, several things wrong with each sentence in the first two paragraphs.I have appended my version with comments, so you can judge for yourself.

What I am wondering right now is – at what point is it ok to write back and say, this should not be accepted on the grounds of:

  • It is written in something only approximating English language and grammar.
  • Claims are unsupported
  • Logic is shaky or non-existent
  • In order for this to pass, I would have to rewrite sentence by sentence and I have neither an interest or the inclination to do that.

This essay actually about on a level of a 3rd for a first year [our University] undergrad.

I am now scrolling through it. It cites the source of their figures as “their own drawing”. The figures are not formatted in any consistent manner. They include helpful diagrams!! Words in the diagrams are clipped.

The References section is not consistently formatted. I am not prepared to read this crap. I looks like a high school essay.

Science Journal of Economics…. wait a second, I can’t find this journal wheen I google it. Hang on… sciencejournals.cc lists their head office as:

Science Journal Publication Head Office:
Federal Capital Territory (Abuja), Nigeria.
Branch Office: Accra, Ghana.

It looks to me as if a high school student wants to get a good grade by having somebody review their essay for them.

This actually looks like a scam to me.


At the same time, I sent an email to John Morrison the associate editor of the journal

From: [Me]
Sent: 27 June 2011 00:06
To: Editor [editor@sciencejournals.cc]
Subject: Re: Manuscript For Review [article title]

Hi John, Please let me know which referencing style you expect the Authors to follow, so I can judge whether they are following it. I am also quite unclear about which category the submission you sent over, falls under (according to your Instruction for Authors guidelines). It is clearly not an article (method, results and discussion are missing). It is too long to be a review (17 pages of 1.15 spacing at best, but probably single spacing. Your guidelines specify 4-6 pages), and includes far too few references. It is also far too long to be a short communication.

So, which is it? Please let me know as soon as possible.
[Me], Msc(dist), AHEA
[My University]

Next day, I had a meeting at the University and asked several colleagues if they ever received a request to peer review an article (I wanted to know how to go about rejecting this job, as it made no sense to continue).

It turns out, all of them got the same request! To review the same article! Now, peer review usually does not include six or more of our friends. Strange … Most of them agreed that it was a scam, but had no inkling what the end-game was (i.e. how the scammer could get the money out of us).

I then went home and, working under the assumption that these were high school kids, looking to get peer reviewed and get good grades at school for their essays, I started thinking of how to write a letter to ‘the editor’ that would prime the kids to wish they never sent a request for peer review.

It wouldn’t work if I just said I am onto you, as that would not leave enough of a sting. What I needed to do is to write how crappy the paper was in no uncertain terms, while giving away as little as possible on how to correct it. Hopefully, they would be conditioned to not send their requests ever again.

So, I wrote this:

From: [Me]
Sent: 27 June 2011 21:25
To: Editor [editor@sciencejournals.cc]
Subject: Re: Manuscript For Review [article title]

Hi John,

I have stopped reviewing the article you sent over. It is not publishable, at least not in the present form. It would literally require rewriting almost every sentence in it. I assume it was translated (badly) into English, and it shows. It is hard to follow the logic of the argument, which admittedly might have something to do with very bad grammar, which makes the logic itself seem flawed.

The referencing is insufficient, and at times, claims are completely unsupported. Furthermore, the referencing is also inconsistent, and regardless of the referencing style required, sometimes just plain wrong (the Author does not avoid figures that are superfluous in any case, they give an impression of patronising the reader, which makes me want to say: I can read, I don’t need a picture drawn for me. Furthermore, if you draw a picture, support it with extensive referencing, not by saying it is good, because I thought of it). This is not befitting a scientific text, it explains nothing and is far too garish to even consider in an academic context.

The formatting is wrong (paragraph spacing, placement of figures and tables, etc). It does not follow your guidelines in any way, shape or form.

I leave it up to you as an associate editor to judge how much of this communication to share with the Author(s), but it is clear they need to invest substantially into writting articles if they want to be published in a respectable journal. Frankly, between you and me, if one of the first year undergraduate students from my University wrote this essay, I would have to search thoroughly for reasons not to fail them.

[… continued after the break]

I am covering my bases here – In case this is legit in the end, I don’t want to incur the wrath of the real Author. Also if the editor is not actually the editor, then they still get my opinion, but the Authors are not exposed to my dressing down. In other words, no legitimate journal would forward my writing to the Author.

Wasting your time and mine on this is a huge disservice to your journal – it raises doubts about your publication. I believe you should reject it immediately as considering it at all would give the wrong impression about your publication to the academic community. I realize you are not well established yet, but giving a longer consideration to this submission will sink you very quickly.

The biggest issue, though, is, that it has already been published, here: [the URL] I don’t know what your policy is, concerning republication of already published material, but this has a strange feel to it.

If the submission you’ve got is not under the names of [Author names], then it has also been plagiarised, down to the last word. If that is the case, I think you should act quickly and notify the submitting authors’ Institution. [… continued after the break]

Ok, at this stage I realized that this is a real article, just one that should not have been published. I found it on the net, on a semi-academic site. So, if these were kids, then not only were they looking for peer review, but they were blatantly plagiarizing too. So, I said I see what you did there, without directly claiming scientific misconduct.

The real authors were probably not to blame here (except the article really is quite bad and there is simply no way in hell that they would be published in a respectable journal). Still, that is why I am excluding them from the post by saying [Author Names], [Article Title], etc.

Once I found the article, I did a WhoIS on the site and concluded that this is certainly a scam. See my next email, to my colleague. This one still goes on, for one more sentence:

On a personal note, do you like spearfishing, John? I am a huge fan, perhaps we could compare notes at some later time? Sometime before April 2012 would be perfect for me.

[Me], MSc (dist), AHEA
[My University]

I then wrote my last email to my Colleague:

From: [Me]
Sent: 27 June 2011 22:06
To: [Colleagues]
Subject: Re: Manuscript For Review [article title]

Hi [Colleague],

(I am copying others into this, as we talked about it in the morning and we couldn’t figure out what the endgame was. And now, I think I know).

Oh, this is sooo a scam. The domain sciencejournals.cc is registered in Africa. It has been registered on the 1st of April of 2011 for only a year (see http://www.whois.net/whois/sciencejournals.cc).

The site is almost empty of content (there are only a few articles scattered here and there on the site).

The article they sent for review is taken from another site: [URL to the original Article] (this domain is marginally better – it includes a real contact address in Bucharest).

John Morrison (“the Associate Editor”) does not exist on the Internet (unless he is either an Orthopedic Surgeon from Great Neck, NY or a senior lecturer at Aberdeen University whose research interests are concerned with Scottish Paintings from 17th century).

I didn’t know what exactly is their endgame – at first I assumed high school kids are looking for someone to peer review their essays to get better grades, but when it turned out that this article actually exists and that the authors are actually from two Universities in [a third world Country], that theory got tossed in a bin.

I am not holding my breath about these people contacting me again, as I not too subtly hinted that they were spearphishing and that I am onto them. Perhaps they are only looking to fill out their sucker lists. I would love to know what they hope to accomplish. It would almost be worth reviewing the article to find out, but it is such crap, that I don’t want to suffer through it and also I don’t want to do a good job, and make it publishable under somebody else’s name, but doing a bad job potentially opens me to extortion (i.e.You call yourself an academic? What will happen once the scientific community finds out how clueless you are? Now, if you transferred a measly $1000 to this bank account, we could forget about telling everyone how badly you did at this review…).

We’ll see. It is a very good premise, though, and PhD students are a perfect population to fall for this (relatively inexperienced, perhaps reviewing strokes their ego a bit…). The only thing the scammers don’t realize is, that PhD students are actually paid a little less than a person on unemployment benefits, so them trying to get money out of us tickles my funny bone.

Hmm, another endgame might be them requiring us to submit the review on their site and for that we would have to register there. They have a registration system there… This is generally perfectly reasonable. We require it for [Our Conference] site. Reviewers might also get a “free journal subscription” out of it. But, here it is – we know that a vast majority of people uses the same password for all logins, which is terribly bad practice, but they don’t want to forget it. That means that a couple of people in Nigeria now have a username and password to, for example, somebody’s eBay, PayPal, Gmail, HotMail and amazon.com account and that unlucky person suddenly finds themselves ordering 20 copies of Black Nigerian Booty Hoes DVD from Amazon and sending it to Abuja, Nigeria. He received the notification, but the mails got deleted somehow, before he saw them.

Ah, cunning. Perhaps I am giving them too much credit, but this is how I would do it, if I was them. I like this scam now. They almost fooled me.

[My University]

So, there you go, a very interesting phishing scheme. I think the public should be aware of it, especially the academic one.

I have not received any response from the ‘editor’ in three days. I think, they have dropped me now.

I am still running an experiment about falling for scams, so if you ever responded to an illegitimate offer, or lost any kind of money, sleep, etc. to scams, please answer my questionnairehttp://survey.scamresearch.info//43356/lang-en

O novi “družbeni pogodbi”

Zadnje čase se po medijih večkrat pojavlja ideja o t.i. novi družbeni pogodbi.

V končni fazi je to verjetno bolj kot ne politično-filozofska debata. O vsem tem mislim dve stvari – država obstaja zaradi družbene pogodbe (kot je navedena npr. v Hobbesovem Leviathanu), družbena pogodba pa je sklenjena zgolj zato, ker ščiti interese posameznika (na najbolj pobebljeni ravni – sledim pravilom in ne kradem ter ubijam zato, ker sem kot del skupnosti močnejši in imam več dobrobiti od sledenja normam, kot da se iz skupnosti izločim in živim v mednarodnih vodah na splavu, ki sem ga sam stesal, brez vode in elektrike). Ko kot državljan nisem več zaščiten bolj, kot bi bil kot posameznik, ko se mi torej bolj splača furat ultimativni individualizem, pa družbena pogodba razpade. To ni nič novega, Hobbes je o tem pisal sredi sedemnajstega stoletja.

V točki, ko država, oziroma politika uporablja družbeno pogodbo zato, da izrablja pogodbene partnerje v lastno korist, pravi odgovor ni enostranska sprememba družbene pogodbe (kot si posplošeno povedano želi neoliberalizem) temveč sprememba pogodbenih partnerjev. Hočem reči,

Glej kršiš pogodbo, ki sva jo sklenila v dobri veri. To ti ne daje pravice, da pogodbo spremeniš tako, da ti bo to kršitev še naprej omogočala. Vse kar ti kršitev pogodbe prinaša je to, da ti bom, če bom res dobre volje in bom hotel pokazat svojim otrokom kako velikodušen sem, dovolil da odstopiš od nje brez reparacij.

Kar torej pričakujem je vzdrževanje pogodbe, ki je bila sklenjena, ko sem vanjo vstopil. Če moj pogodbeni partner tega ne zmore, pričakujem drugega pogodbenega partnerja, ne istega, ki mi trobezlja o tem, da bi rad dodal aneks. Sej aneksi so v redu, ampak morajo biti potrjeni z obeh strani. V tem pogledu se mi plagiator ne zdi nobena alternativa kriznemu menedžerju. Oba razmišljata o tem kako ohraniti oblast in kako predrugačiti družbeno pogodbo tako, da bo “vse drugače”, razen tega, da bosta onadva še vedno žela plodove tujega dela, dokler jih kaj še ostane.

OK, torej, alternative? JA, takoj glasovi iz ozadja, pustimo naj trg regulira družbene potrebe. Ej, trg tudi ni idealen pogodbeni partner – ne verjamem, da ga zanima kaj dosti drugega kot trg sam. Sej posledično to pomeni, da tisti, ki s(m)o sposobni uživajo zaščito – seveda, za trg je dobro, da ima več in boljše in večkrat. To doseže tako, da tiste, ki ga božajo, boža nazaj. Tisti manj sposobni ali tisti, ki niso dobri v igrah na srečo, pa postanejo collateral damage.

Ko je borza zanihala, sem se pogovarjal s prijateljem in on je takrat rekel: “Glej ni še čas za vzpon, zdej delnice kupujejo mali vlagatelji, njih se bomo še otresli, pred resničnim vzponom”. Logično, mali vlagatelji težko počakajo par let na samoregulacijo trga, tisto s čimer so soočeni je totalen finančni propad tukaj in zdaj, ker ne morejo plačat vrtca in obroka za stanovanje (v to ali je tako vlaganje pametno ali ne, se ne bom spuščal). In prodajo. In zgubijo. In borza zaniha. In potem ko nimajo, ne kupujejo več, njihov denar je izpuhtel in potem se cikel ponovi, dokler se še lahko. Ko ni več nikogar razen dolgoročnih vlagateljev, ki pametno počakajo, se borza umiri, podjetja padejo na svojo realno vrednost in nekatera med njimi jo počasi začnejo pridobivat. In gremo od začetka. Ob strani pa pustimo smetje. Well, to ni družbena pogodba, ki sem jo sprejel. Ta, nova, predlagana pogodba vidi ljudi kot nujno zlo, ki ga je treba tolerirati ravno dovolj, da ne crknejo, ker pač preko njih hranimo kolesje.

Naježim se, ko poslušam, kako mladi (ali pa mladi po srcu) nadebudni strokovnjaki dajejo v nič socialni kapitalizem, češ

…kaj pa je sploh to, to je brez veze, sej o tem nič ne vem, ampak itak me boli patka, ker sem varen v svoji službi (npr.) na slovenski univerzi in ne vidim nobene potrebe po tem, da bi še kdo kej imel ali razumel kaj česar jaz ne. Rajš se delam norca iz ubožcev, ki ne štekajo, da bo mene itak zaščitil trg, dokler mu bom koristen (naprej pa itak ne znam razmišljat), oni pa nej se jebejo. Kaj, sej bojo delal, tud če bojo nesrečni. Kaj, sej za vsakega strokovnjaka, ki me spregleda in gre rajš v tujino lahko najdem kolkr hočem mezdnih delavcev, ki rabjo preživet družine. A, da so manj sposobni? Kaj me boli za to, sej delajo, ne? Bom pa uvedel daljši delovnik in nej se štemplajo ko pridejo in grejo, to bo zihr povečalo produktivnost. Če je ne bo, bom pa itak prepolovil plače pa najel dva za isto delo. Kaj pravite, da obstajajo drugi načini ki bolje ohranijo družbeno pogodbo? Kdo to prav? …aja, ok, no… sej ta imena, ki ste jih naštel so še kr znana, ampak kaj, to so akademiki, oni sam modrujejo. …aha, tole so pa skrajno uspešna podjetja, ki funkcionirajo drugače kot moje… Ja, a direktorji majo višjo plačo kot jest? Aja… aha… kaj pa lastništvo podjetja? Ja, a ste znorel, kaj bo delavcu kos MOJEGA podjetja?! Kaj, nej bo tih pa dela, pišuka, kaj vse jest nardim za te ljudi, sej dobijo regres, pa malco, kaj se hočte, a mislite da sem narjen iz dnarja? Kaj pravte, da je podjetje moje, tut ko mu ne gre dobro? A da nej tut svoje dobičke in prihodke znižam? Ja, kdo pa se to dela? …aha… no sej… to so znani poslovneži…. sam so večinoma tujci! Evo, dokaz, da neoliberalizem dela, poglejte kako menedžerji skrbijo za svoje delavce! A da bi jest to tud moral? Oh no, dejte no, ne bodite smešni, pri nas ni trg na oblasti, če bi bil pa častna beseda, da bi se jest tut tko obnašal kot tujci.

In druga stvar – koncept t.i. psihološke pogodbe. Na hitro – ko skleneš pogodbo, imaš neka pričakovanja o tem kaj boš vložil in kaj boš dobil. Ta pričakovanja niso nujno ubesedena. Kot primer – pred kratkim je angleška vlada napovedala dvig šolnin na angleških Univerzah – pri nas v Exetru so napovedali 100% zvišanje (iz 4.500 funtov na leto na maksimalnih 9.000 funtov na leto). Raziskave so pokazale, da bodoči študentje pričakujejo, da bodo morali manj delat zato, da bodo dosegli isto raven uspeha. Logično ne, če že vložiš več keša, boš pa vložil manj truda za isti rezultat, ne?  To je psihološka pogodba. Raziskave tudi kažejo, da takrat ko imajo delavci občutek, da je psihološka pogodba kršena, delajo slabše, so manj motivirani in več hodijo na bolniške. Če prenesem to v Slovenijo, postane dokaj očitno kaj je eden od problemov naše politike. Tudi v primeru, če se držijo obljubljenega po črki na papirju, kršijo psihološko pogodbo, na več nivojih. In v končni fazi kršijo tudi psihološko družbeno pogodbo s tem, ko se izneverjajo pričakovanjem in obenem pričakujejo od nas, da bomo svoja pričakovanja prilagodili in ne od sebe, da jih bodo izpolnjevali (S stavki kot npr. ja, spremembe so težke ampak nujne. Ergo, “Nekaj smo zafural, zdej pa vi popravte. Sej nismo mi krivi, ampak tisti od prej“. Ej, the buck stops here, kot je rekel Abraham Lincoln).

V tem smislu je skrajno ironično, ko Pahor reče, da smo ljudje dovolj pametni, da ne rabimo bolnih spotov estradnikov, da bi se pametno odločili. Ironično v dveh pogledih – očitno nismo dovolj pametni, da ne bi izvolili njega in očitno smo dovolj neumni, da smo pripravljeni opravljat njegovo delo. Kaj me jebete z referendumi, sej ste plačani, da se odločate, jest tut vas ne prosim da popravljite izpite komaj pismenih angleških študentov namest mene, tut če se mi res ne da.

O primitivizmu in Godwinovemu zakonu

from: http://pbmo.wordpress.com/2010/08/page/8/Takole:

Najprej piarovec največje vladne stranke primerja enega bolj vidnih desničarskih “intelektualcev” z očetom modernega marketinga in Hitlerjevo desno roko. Potem Mladina to potisne še korak dlje in na satirični predzadnji strani objavi fotografije obeh prej omenjenih posameznikov skupaj z njunima družinama. V svoj zagovor (ki se ga morda tudi da razumeti) rečejo, da hočejo opozoriti na to, da največja opozicijska stranka uporablja marketinške strategije tretjega rajha. Slehernik, v dobri meri podpihovan z rumenim tiskom se osredotoči na to, da so na slikah otroci in popeni.

Pustimo po strani, ali je to upravičeno ali ne (vsekakor je res tudi, da je vsaka reklama dobra reklama in naklada Mladini verjetno s to objavo ni padla). Argumenti so bili že večkrat podani, tisti, ki jih to zanima s(m)o si pro-et-contra lahko prebirali do zasičenosti v večini slovenskih medijev. Seveda govorim o argumentih tega ali objaviti slike otrok ali ne, ne pa tudi ali se opozicija obnaša kot nacional-socialisti v štiridesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja. To je, zgleda, postransko. In tudi ni tema tega pisanja.
Potem pa se, kot kaže, aktivira fanatična desnica in demonstrativno, kao, ‘da bojo vidl kako boli, ko je čevelj na drugi nogi‘ vzame dodobra prezvečen in izpet kos fantastičnega filma Der Untergang in čez nalepi druge podnapise. Originalno? Niti ne, kratek obisk youtuba navrže dobrih 13000 tovrstnih “parodij” s ključnima besedama “hitler parody” (saj vem, da niso vsi parodije na Untergang).  Nanašajo se na vse živo od tega, da Hitler napove vojno sam sebi, do tega da hoče svoj Counterstrike server in podobno.

O vsem tem mislim dve stvari, najprej tole:
“Hodite v najboljše restavracije, vozite najboljše avtomobile potem pa še porivate pse.”
“Tišina! Katarine gole še videl nisi.”
“Če pa mislite, da bom zaradi tega zapustil Murgle, se pa motite. Skril se bom med vrtne palčke”
“Vse bi vas moral poslati na Goli Otok ali pa zmetati v jame. Kot Tito.”

Mogoče se splača tole še enkrat prebrat in potem malo razmislit o avtorju, ki je zmožen tole spisat. Kaj si lahko mislimo o njem?

No, kaj?

Mene je sram. Sram, da diham isti zrak, sram, da govorim isti jezik. Sram, da obstaja majhna možnost, da se me poveže s tisto družbo. Da ne bo pomote – nikakor ne trdim, da bi moralo biti sram tudi koga drugega, to je pač prepuščeno posamezniku in njegovi vesti. Kaj je tukaj konstruktivnega? Sama žalost in plitkost. Je to res rešitev, da na neko pritlehnost odgovoriš tako, da si še bolj pritlehen? Kaksna čudovita priložnost je bila zamujena – lahko bi rekli, “Kolk ste bogi, ste pač podlegli Godwinovemu zakonu. No, nam pa tega ni treba. Raje bomo konstruktivni, tej oslariji bom namenili 0 pozornosti in se raje usedli skupaj, da rečemo kako o tem, kako bomo kej naredili za narod.” Ampak ne.

Druga stvar, ki jo mislim je tole: Kaksno vezo ima Milan Kučan s tem, da je Mladina razžalila desnico? Ali pa levi politiki per se? Ko se desni fanatiki spravijo kazat kako je, ko nekdo drug okusi njihovo zdravilo, se ne spravijo na Sarkiča ali Mladino, ki sta kao odgovorna, ampak na prvo žogo napadejo levico. WTF? Kje je tle logika? Ali res kdo misli, da se Milanu Kučanu da ukazovat Sarkiču kaj naj piše in da ga Sarkič upošteva? Res kdo verjame, da je celotna leva vlada lastnica in upravnica Mladine? Sej se se med sabo ne morejo dogovorit najbolj osnovnih stvari, pa naj bi usklajeno obvladovali Mladino? Prosim, no.

O argumentu, da je cela parodija pač smešna, pa raje ne bi, razen mogoče tega, da poniževanje nekoga drugega v resnici ni smešno, ampak bolj žalostno (zdej se mal nazaj držim, da ne začnem navajat primerov tega kako lahko je vzeti neko posameznikovo značilnost, npr. višino in se iz nje norčevat. Posameznik s tem ne more narediti nič, težko bo npr. zrasel. Da ne bo pomote, osebnost je preprosto prebrat in čisto vsak med nami ima kak gumb, ki se ga da pritisnit. Vsakdo. To, da ga pritisneš, te ne naredi velikega, to da ga ne, pa te).

Bedno je to. Ta neskončna igra of how low can you go.

O kulturi dialoga in kreganju

Navajam par okleščenih komentarjev na kolumno Vlada Miheljaka, ki jo lahko preberete tule (skupaj s celotnimi komentarji).

Dodal sem šumnike in sičnike, tam kjer so manjkali, ostalo vsebino sem prenesel skupaj z morebitnimi slovničnimi ali slogovnimi napakami.

Lenny sreda, 09.02.2011 ob 00:18
Bistvena se mi zdi trditev, da bi morala država na ta Plutov umotvor, ki je čisti falsifikat zgodovine uradno odreagirati.[…]

Kvantni mehanik sreda, 09.02.2011 ob 06:50
Za začetek te prosim za drobno uslugo. Mi lahko priskrbiš povezavo do tega razvpitega zbornika? Da se bom neposredno iz tam zapisanega in brez poklicanih in nepoklicanih intepretov prepričal, za kako »čist falsifikat zgodovine« gre.

Kvantni mehanik sreda, 09.02.2011 ob 08:20
Samo en link. To je vse, za kar te prosim. Link na zbornik, ki si ga gotovo prebrala.

Kvantni mehanik sreda, 09.02.2011 ob 23:34
[…] A ti malo sanjaš? […] Potem mi pa prosim postrezi s konkretno navedbo iz Plutovega sestavka, da bom vsaj vedel, o čem je govora.

Kvantni mehanik sreda, 09.02.2011 ob 08:37
Link, Lenny, link. Na izvirni plutov prispevek. Samo ta fakt navedi. Bo bolj racionalno in bo vzelo dosti manj časa kot vse te interpretacije – tudi, če niso originalne.

Kvantni mehanik sreda, 09.02.2011 ob 23:43
[…] Čisto narobe razumeš. Besedila, se pravi originalnega Plutovega sestavka, ne poznam. Nisem ga videl in se do njega ne morem opredeliti. […] A tu vas je polno, ki ga izdatno komentirate, zato predpostavljam, da ga dobro poznate. Ko pa prosim za konkretni link na besedilo, pa se vsi do zadnjega izmotavate. […]

Diaprel13 sreda, 09.02.2011 ob 10:12
[…] Če ste član kakšne javne knjižnice, spoštovani Kvantni mehanik, vam bodo na vašo željo prav gotovo uredili izposojo tega “razvpitega” zbornika. Ta zbornik je javnosti dostopen in ne drži vaša domneva, ki ste jo navedli v debati z Mitjem, citiram, ” da sporni »izvirnik«, ki je kobajagi vzrok polemike, zelo verjetno ni široko dostopen”.
Sklicujte se le na izposojo tega gradiva iz knjižnice Ministrstva za obrambo RS, kjer imajo na današnji dan najmanj še 34 prostih izvodov zbornika pod COBISS.SI-ID 251768832 in podatki o izvodu (signatura, lokacija, inventarna številka, …), kar lahko vidite na spletni strani te knjižnice z dostopom na Cobissovo spletno stran.

Kvantni mehanik sreda, 09.02.2011 ob 10:18
[…]Bla, bla, bla. Si prebral Plutov prispevek? Da ali ne? Če da, potem na plano z linkom ali prepisom besedila. Vse, kar naštevaš o »široki« dostopnosti, je čista uradniška latovščina. Barok, in nič drugega.

Diaprel13 sreda, 09.02.2011 ob 10:54
[…]Kaj pa vas je tako razkurilo, Kvantni mehanik, da se tako razburjate nad mojim zapisom, s katerim sem vam le povedal, da ne držijo vaše besede  “da sporni »izvirnik«, ki je kobajagi vzrok polemike, zelo verjetno ni široko dostopen”? Ta moj namig, če obračate tako ali tako, je POVEZAVA do spornega zbornika. In če pač ni mogoče priti na spletno povezavo z vsebino tega zbornika, ker je preprosto ni, vam pač ostane samo ta možnost, tako kot drugim komentatorjem na tem forumu. […]

Kvantni mehanik sreda, 09.02.2011 ob 12:13
V dobi interneta je ta »link« čisti anahronizem in je prej kot kaj drugega odraz zaničljivega cinizma. […]

In tako naprej ad nauseam.

Mislim, kako bolno je to? Dva človeka debatirata. Eden komentira svojo interpretacijo nečesa (ne-glede na to v kakšni meri je poučen o zadevi), drugi pa reče: “Če hočete moje mnenje, ki vas gotovo neskončno zanima, mi priskrbite materijal, ki ga potrebujem o tem, da bi imel mnenje. Ker drugače vas bom raje malo zmerjal. Očitno je, da to, da mi ne prinesete k riti informacij, ki jih rabim, pomeni, da nimate pravice do izražanja svojega mnenja.” In potem nekdo ponudi link do knjižnice, kjer se gradivo zares nahaja, ampak NE, to ni dovolj za našega debaterja (se opravičujem Vaskotu Simonitiju za uporabo njegove samo-opredelitve), mislim, kdo pa še hodi v knjižnico? Ne, treba je človeku dostavit vse informacije na dom, v elektronski obliki, ker bomo le tako zagotovili, da nam bo lahko moril s svojimi nebulozami.

Od kje ljudem, ta navidezna grandomanija? Zakaj, res zakaj, nekdo, ki se mu ne da zbrat niti osnovnih informacij o neki zadevi, verjame, da me njegovo mnenje zanima? Zakaj misli, da komaj čakam, da bom lahko prebral njegovo nabijanje? Gre za obskurno mnenje o neki kolumni (torej v angleščini t.i. opinion piece), ki ga je napisal neki v slovenskem prostoru relativno znani komentator. Z njim se lahko strinjate ali ne. Gre pač za mnenje. Nihče ne bo umrl ali izgubil razuma, če mu bo prihranjeno branje mnenja o tem mnenju, napisano s strani nekega slehernika, ki o zadevi nič ne ve in se mu je ne da raziskat.

Morda gre za skrito slabost Interneta – kjer ima vsakdo glas in to posameznika zavede, da verjame, da je a) njegov glas nekaj vreden, b) da lahko kot poznavalec razpravlja o čemerkoli in c) da to, da imaš možnost nekaj povedat, pomeni, da tudi moraš nekaj povedat. Pametni so včasih raje tiho – kot pravi ponarodela politično nekorektna izjava z Interneta: Kreganje po spletu je kot sodelovanje v posebnih olimpijskih igrah – tudi če zmagaš, si še vedno zaostal.

In še nekaj – ko z nekom razpravljaš o neki vroči temi, ponavadi uporabljaš informacije, ki so ti znane. Večkrat imaš to prednost (če si se dobro pripravil), da imaš več informacij, kot tvoj “nasprotnik”. V tem smislu je njegov klic na pomoč, češ, ja seveda lahko več poveš o neki temi, ko pa o njej več veš, več kot kot aboten. Isto velja za trditve, da je nekdo ne-fer, ker se ne trudi spraviti debate na najnižji skupni imenovalec neinformiranosti. Če povem po kmečko: “Glej, ne jamri če je nekdo vložil v neko stvar več časa in energije kot ti in si ti zdej v slabi poziciji.  Še najmanj pa se ti splača zahtevat, da bi za plodno debato moral bit vsi taki bedaki kot ti.

O tem kako nekdo ni kriv, ker ni vedel…

…Za vse veljajo isti zakoni, če ne veš, če so te ‘zapeljali’, če si bil pravzaprav žrtev, pač ne moreš biti odgovoren. Še več, ko izveš, lahko govoriš, kaj bi morali delati drugi ali kritiziraš, kar delajo drugi… Vojko@razgledi.net 3.2.2011

Vojko na razgledih.net piše o tem kako politiki in managerji ‘niso vedeli’ v kaj se spuščajo pri spornih prevzemih, ipd.

Moj komentar:

Hja, ne vem če je čisto tako (saj vem, da Vojko ne izraža nujno svojega mnenja, ampak bolj interpretira). Zakon velja v isti meri za obveščene in neobveščene. In pravno-formalno gledano kaznivo dejanje ne preneha biti kaznivo dejanje samo zato, ker storilec ni vedel, da ga je storil. Seveda je vprašanje ali je šlo za k.d. ali ne. Če ni šlo, potem samo malo natolcujemo in se moralno zgražamo, ker je to pač vse kar še imamo (prosto po Nietzscheju).

Na najbolj banalni ravni bi tako zgrešeno logiko lahko ponazorili z:
“Svojo ženo ste razkosali s sekiro, obtoženi ste umora”
“Ja, kje pa to piše?”
“V kazenskem zakoniku”
“Ja, kdo pa je to bral? Kako pa naj vem, da se ravno s sekiro ne sme umoriti svoje žene? Torej, nisem obveščen, nisem kriv”.

Sumim, da gre pri vsem skupaj morda bolj za zamegljeno ločnico med formalnimi (t.j. zakoni) in neformalnimi (t.j. družbenimi) normami. Plagiator in ostali so po zakonu krivi, če so storili kaznivo dejanje, ne glede na to ali so vedeli, da so ga storili. Po družbenih ocenah pa so ‘manj krivi, ali pa sploh ne‘, če niso vedeli kaj počnejo.

Saj s tega stališča to ni ravno fantastična izbira – bodisi ne vedo kaj delajo, bodisi so kriminalci. In vsaj eden izmed njih je zelo verjetno psihopat.

Raje sploh ne bi začel razpravljati o tem, da bi se moral, v trenutku ko dojameš, da si storil k.d., naznaniti policiji. Argument takrat nisem vedel, potem ko sem izvedel, pa sem bil raje tiho, da bi se izognil kazni nekako na sodišču ni sprejet najbolje, začuda.

O akademskem nivoju


Ravnokar sem nehal odgovarjati na nek komentar nekega relativno priznanega slovenskega akademika na spletni strani razgledov. Kar malo me je razburil. Ne toliko zaradi svoje vsebine (čeprav tudi), kot bolj zato, ker kaže na nek običaj, ki je večkrat prisoten v akademskih vodah pri nas. Saj ne rečem, tudi tukaj, v tujini, z lahkoto naletiš na ljudi, ki se obnašajo podobno, vendar se ti vsaj ne delajo, da so akademiki.

Kaj me v bistvu moti? Moti me, ko nek znanstvenik napise pavšalni komentar o neki povsem poljudni temi, kjer vnaprej navede par obskurnih referenc (računajoč na to, da jih nihče pri zdravi pameti ne bo šel iskat in potem brat) ter na ta način izpelje neko logiko, ki je navedeni avtorji bodisi niso podprli ali pa so jo obdelali precej bolj natančno, kot jo je naš znanstvenik. Na primer – recimo, da debata v neki družbi povsem zabavljaško in prijateljsko nanese na pogovor o mesnicah. Naš nadebudni znanstvenik potem reče: Ja meso, ja, slovenski problem – avstrijska mesarska industrija je, kot vemo, preko prodaje našega premoženja tujcem uničila slovensko gospodarstvo pred prvo svetovno vojno. Saj je že Cankar (1910, 1991) rekel: Za gnjat ste se prodali.” Pustimo po strani, da v ediciji Hlapcev iz leta 1991 nikjer ni točno tega stavka (se najbližje je stavek s strani 61: “Svoje spoznanje, božji dar, so prodali za dobro južino, prvenstvo za lečo!”), osredotočimo se raje na to kako povsem zbanaliziran in prav napačen je ta citat v kontekstu pogovora. Ne gre za mesarsko industrijo ampak za prispodobo gospostva in malomeščanskega stremenja podeželskih učiteljev. Se razumemo?

Zakaj pravim, da je v tujini takih bluzenj manj? Ker je veliko več moznosti, da te nekdo dobi, ko nabijaš, to pa je bolj kot ne poklicni samomor, v akademskih krogih. Pri nas temu ni tako. Seveda, mal se zlažeš, mal nakladaš, mal se delaš, da zastopaš stališča Univerze v Ljubljani, pa itak ni problema. Nikoli se nič ne zgodi, plebsi so primerno navdušeni nad tvojim šopirjenjem, ego ti mal naraste in hitro začneš mislit, da v bistvu ne delaš nič napačnega – sej, kdo pa je v resnici prebral članek, ki ga že sam nisem? Komu se je pa dal? Sej itak nimajo naročnine na to znanstveno publikacijo in nimajo jajc, da bi direktno pisal avtorju in ga prosil za izvod članka, ergo lahko tko mal napočez pogledam, če je na wikipediji že kdo povzel v par stavkih kaj piše v tistem članku, pa pol to prodam kot znanstveni fakt, ki sem se ga sam spomnil (ker wikipedije pa res ne gre citirat kot znanstveni vir).

Da bo vse skupaj še malo težje, pa navedbo napravim malo bolj obskurno – namesto, da bi navedel avtorja, letnico, publikacijo in strani, raje napišem kaj bolj minimalističnega, na primer: namesto “…v Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M. D., Leeper Piquero, N., & Piquero, A. R. (2010). Low Self-Control and Fraud: Offending, Victimization and Their Overlap. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(2), 188-203, najdemo potrditev teorije, da se tako storilci, kot žrtve slabše kontrolirajo“; raje rečem “saj je ze Holtfreter (ki je, BTW, ženska) napisal to in to v CJB leta ’10”. Pa se znajd! Pa mi dokaž, da ni res. Mimogrede, zgoraj omenjeni članek zares obstaja in je fantastičen.

Aha, pozorni bralec že komentira, da se normalni, zmerno pametni ljudje ne pogovarjajo tako. Ja, res je, normalni in zmerno pametni ljudje ne rabijo dokazat kolk so pametni in načitani na vsakem koraku. Zato, ker vejo, da je pomembna vsebina njihovega razmišljanja, ne pa dokaz kako bolj načitani so od sogovornika.

In dovolj je samo en človek, ki je dovolj zagoveden, da gre dejansko iskat članek, ga potem prebere in to malo komentira. Sej vem, da se ne bo nič spremenilo in mali slovenski znanstveniki bodo se naprej pisali nebuloze in se sončili v soju žarometov, varni v vedenju, da je njihov kup še vedno varen in neomadeževan z dejstvi.

Facebook mafia

Minilo je leto in pol odkar je bila prvič predvajana moja radijska igra Facebook Mafia. Ker je na radiu ne vrtijo več, je verjetno varno, da zvočni zapis objavim tule. Žanrsko gledano morda igra ni za najmlajše (saj v igri nič ne kolnejo, ampak mogoče tamauci nič ne bojo štekal).

Facebook Mafia (c) Radio SLO1 in David Modic

(c) Produkcija RaSLO1

Avtor teksta sem jaz. In ja, vem, da je na objavljeni sliki v ozadju londonski tower bridge in ne, se vedno ne zivim v Londonu (Exeter FTW).“…V radijski igri bodo nastopili igralci mlajše generacije. Med njimi v glavnih vlogah Ana Dolinar, Rok Matek, Jurij Drevenšek in Maja Martina Merljak. Režiser je bil Alen Jelen, dramaturginja pa Ana Kržišnik.”

O nizkih standardih in grenki resnici

Premier Pahor je v petek na konferenci o študentskih vprašanjih študentom dejal, da “mesečno zasluži 3002 evra, da od svoje plače ne more preživeti meseca in živi od tega, kar je zaslužil prej”.

Kasneje je za Dnevnik izjavil: “Če je kdo razumel izjavo kot žalitev, se opravičujem” V isti sapi  še navrže, da je ta izjava morda nepotrebna, ampak vseeno resnična.

Verjetno se nam vsem kdaj zgodi, da pomešamo iskrenost in okrutnost in kaže, da tudi Pahorju ti pojmi delajo težave. Kaj si lahko misli o tej izjavi upokojenka s 300 euri pokojnine, kaj tekstilna delavka s podobno plačo (če odmislimo, da tekstilne delavke ta in prejšnja vlada uspešno izkoreninjata)? Verjetno nič posebno dobrega. Verjetno si mislita, da se premieru meša. Saj nič ne rečem, gotovo je tudi s 3000 euri težko preživeti – tako smo pač narejeni, da si vedno želimo še malo več in vedno živimo čisto malo onkraj svojih zmožnosti. Pa vseeno obstaja razlika med iskrenostjo in okrutnostjo – ne pravim, da ni res kar nam krizni manager sporoča, pa vseeno se s to izjavo predstavi kot nekdo, ki je nepotrebno okruten do slehernika. Predstavlja se kot človek, ki mu je malo mar za ljudi, ki živijo s precej manj sredstvi.

Skrivanje za krinko grenke resnice, ki jo je pač treba pogoltniti pa je obenem tudi ponižujoče. Zakaj bi jo morali pogoltniti in česa bomo ozdravljeni? Kaj je tisto, kar Pahor dela tako dobro, da lahko sploh vleče plačo? Kaj je tisto, kar slovenska politična elita dela tako dobro, da lahko opraviči prejemanje poslanskih prihodkov? S čim se ukvarja, razen sama s seboj? In ko naj bi se o nečem odločala, skliče referendum. V tem pogledu si od mene ne zasluži niti evra stimulacije.

Dobro poznam pozicijo kjer si pač preprosto manjše zlo in ti to daje nek maneverski prostor. Tudi tu je ta meta-pozicija prisotna, Pahorjeva zadnja karta je pač “kako slabo bi šele bilo, če bi vam vladal plagiator. Bodite veseli, da imate namesto njega vsaj mene“. Dobro, saj ta argument ima neko težo, ampak, kako nizko je postavljen ta standard! Ne: “Dobili boste nekaj kar daleč presega pričakovanja; nekoga, ki je pripravljen živeti za ta narod, nekoga, ki ve kaj dela in kam se premika“, ampak “bodite veseli, da vsaj nisem totalen podn”.

To pa ni dovolj, še zdaleč ne.

O uravnoteženem poročanju

Pred časom sem ob brkljanju po svetovnem spletu naletel na udarno stran z naslovom: http://www.evropavspletu.si. Ne trudite se s klikanjem na povezavo – stran je izginila in se v natančno isti obliki preselila na http://www.revijaevropa.si/

No, se zgodi, ne, tudi taka bolj pomembna spletišča se včasih preselijo, ne? Sploh taka evropska. Okno v svet, pa to. No ja, kakorkoli – ob hitrem pregledu strani kmalu ugotovimo, da gre za desničarski pamflet (podobno kot Delo), ki ponuja obilico zabave kritičnemu bralcu.

Zelo mi je bil všeč članek z dne 12.06.2009 naslovom SDS: Vladna koalicija sama sebe potisnila še globlje v močvirje neverodostojnosti, ki naj bi ga napisal nek DJ skupaj z STA.

Že to je dovolj komično, da DJ piše o tem kako so na neko nebulozo reagirale SDS, SLS in NSi, ob članek pa napopa zgolj sliko plagiatorja (verjetno v smislu država to sem jaz), ampak to ni vse. Ker se zavedam, da se bo morda spletna Evropa že zelo kmalu zopet preselila in se mi ne da spet googlat kam so jo skrili, spodaj prilagam posnetek ekrana. Poudarke sem izrezal sam. Ker, slikovni materijal, fantastično!

Uravnotezeno poročanje

Poleg brilijantne izbire fotografij, ki prikazujejo izcaganega GG in virilnega plagiatorja, polnega življenja in neke take notranje energije, so mi še posebej všeč podnapisi pod slikama. Na eni strani GG, predsednik Zares, aktualni minister za visoko šolstvo, znanost in tehnologijo, ki je predstavljen kot preprosto GG, in na drugi strani plagiator, ki ima seveda poleg imena še naziv. Če kaj potem očitam DJ-u, da ni šel dovolj daleč. Zakaj ni zraven še dopisal bivši premier, predsedujoči EU, minister za obrambo in predsednik ZSMS? Naj se vidi kako plagiator prekaša slehernika, ne? Ker sumim, da bo članek kmalu izginil, ga spodaj prilagam v celoti.

Še ena zmaga uravnoteženega poročanja!

Arhiv je tule (navodila: Save as / Shrani kot ; ko je datoteka prenešena, pa drag and drop v brkljalnik)

O nemoči učiteljev…

[…] Vsi, ki se tako ali drugače ukvarjamo z mladimi, vemo da je problem obraten- mladi nimajo jasno začrtenih meja..Permisivna vzgoja večine, šolska zakonodaja, ki je že leta napisana tako, da lahko starši prikorakajo v šole z odvetnikom, ki profesorja poduči in spomni na kršene pravice, seveda gre ponavadi za običajne sankcije “špricanja” ali za doslednost profesorja, ki noce “šenkati oocene” […]
Komentar iz Dnevnika v kolumni ‘Ne solite pameti mladim ljudem, ki jih zaničujete in teptate‘ (M. Gregorčič) (21.05.2010)

Mal razmišljam o tej nemoči učiteljev. Nobenega dvoma ni, da je možno, da ti v razred uleti učenec/starš z odvetnikom, ki te hoče  tožit, ker malemu Ivanu nisi dal odlične ocene, pa pustimo po strani, če si jo zasluži ali ne. Tud men so že starši pacientov grozili s tožbo, ko sem še delal v zdravstvu. Tam je sicer drugače – pacienti so bili pri nas prostovoljno in ko niso upoštevali pravil institucije, smo jih pač vrgli ven, ker niso sebi delali nič dobrega in v večini primerov tudi  sopacientom ne. Ne morejo te prisilit, da nekoga zdraviš, če se njemu jebe, pa naj še tako mahajo s tožbami. Ne, ker mu ne bi hotel pomagati, ampak, ker to pač ni mogoče. But I digress.

Poskušam si predstavljat situacijo kjer delam na neki srednji šoli (čeprav sem, kot je nek moj kolega rekel ze nevarno preveč izobražen, da bi mi kdo ponudil službo v SŠ ali VZ) in mi uleti nek starš/odvetnik in mi teži, ker ne vzgajam njegovega pamža. To bi se moralo zgoditi samo enkrat. Če mi ravnatelj tisti hip ne bi skočil v bran, bi imeli naslednji dan vsi moji učenci letnik zaključen s petko pri mojem predmetu. Zakaj bi se človek sekiral? Takoj na naslednji uri, bi jim sporočil, da imajo že zaključene ocene in da jim ni treba hodit k mojim uram. Če si kdo vseeno želi, naj pride, ostali naj se prosim spokajo. Vpisal ne bom nikogar, nihče ne bo dobil ukora in nihče ne bo imel popravcev. Kakršenkoli nadaljnji izgred bi sankcioniral s tem, da bi izpeljal krajši vroči stol z učencem, kjer se mi ne bi dalo očitati, da koga fizično maltretiram ali da koga zlobno ocenjujem. Itak, bi imel vsi pet – še tožit me ne morjo. Garantiram, da mi ne bi bilo treba storiti tega več kot dvakrat.

Zakaj se dajat ljudem v zobe? Sej se bo uravnilovka pojavila sama od sebe. Štala na maturi, štala na eksternem preverjanju znanja. Če že komu rata priti na faks s takim podnom od znanja, bi pač popušil tam in začudeno ugotovil, da se ljudem na faksu čisto zares šljivi, če se teb ne da delat. Tako kot se šljivi učiteljem po srednjih šolah, samo oni mislijo, da morajo ohranjati učiteljsko poslanstvo. In obenem imajo zgrešene predstave o njem.

Gotov sem, da bi na moje ure tudi ob takih pogojih vseeno prikapljali kaki mulci, ki bi jih predmet res zanimal. Tisti bi si visoko oceno tudi zares zaslužili, kar bi pomenilo, da mi zagrenjeni starši in ravnatelj brez hrbtenice ne bi mogli očitati niti da sem slab pedagog – malo bi vil roke in rekel, ampak glejte, če je res, da ne znam učiti, kako je možno, da ima teh 40% učencev nadpovprečne ocene tudi pri eksternem preverjanju znanja?

To me spomni na leta nazaj, ko smo s prijatelji delali v nekem vzgojnem zavodu in po enem mesecu nas je ravnatelj poklical na razgovor, da bi malo poklepetali o tem kako smo se imeli in kaj naj bi spremenili. Najprej je bil na vrsti Bedva, ki je rekel, da se je mel kar v redu in da bi sam sicer morda kaj spremenil, ampak na splošno pa nima pripomb. Potem je bil na vrsti Habo, ki je (kot se je izkazalo kasneje, skrajno naivno) mislil, da ravnatelja zares zanima kaj si mislimo. Pa mu je povedal, da ga moti, da ga morajo mulci vikat, da mu ni všeč, da mora brati njihova zasebna pisma, da misli, da bi morali preživeti več časa z mulci in tko naprej. In ravnatelj je popizdil. In imel (sigurno) 15 minutni monolog o tem kako je dotični zavod zakon in kako smo mi še mladi in ne štekamo kaksna je kruta realnost in da smo butci, ker nismo samo požegnal njegovega dela, poklekniknili in poljubili njegovega prstana. Z drugimi besedami, seveda. Slina se mu je nabirala v kotičkih ust in rdeč je bil v obraz. Potem je malo dihal v tisini in ko je bila vrsta na meni, sem rekel, da sem se imel noro in nepozabno. Da nisem se nikoli bil v bolje urejenem zavodu, da mi je v čast, da sem spoznal takega vrhunskega strokovnjaka kot je on in da si lahko samo želim, da bi se kdaj delal z njim. Pa je bil model srečen.

Tisto, kar sem zamolčal pa je bilo, da sem prvi dan, ko sem prišel v zavod šel v skupino in rekel mulcem: “Verjetno to itak veste, ampak vseeno. Po pravilih zavoda moram čitat vašo pošto in to bom dosledno delal. Če jo bom našel. Upam, da se razumemo.” In mulci so pokimal in jaz v vsem času kar sem bil tam, nisem prebral niti enega pisma. Ker ga nisem našel na nobenem vidnem mestu v skupini.

Moja poanta je sledeča – čas za revolucijo je mimo. Predavanje ljudem o tem kako neuki so, je adijo. Modrovanje vodilnemu kadru pa naj bo to v šoli, zavodu ali podjetju, s pozicije podrejenga je zgolj in samo t.i. one-down power play (Steiner), po transakcijski analizi, torej igra moci, kjer ne mores zmagat. Vse kar lahko dosezes je, da se imata oba v odnosu bedno. To pa nima smisla. Kreganje s svojim nadrejenim skoraj nikoli ne prinaša pozitivne spremembe. Saj pravim ‘skoraj nikoli’. Vsi smo imeli vsaj enega šefa, ki je bil dostopen in je, če je bilo to vsaj malo smiselno tudi upošteval naše predloge. Večinoma pa ni tako. in takrat pač narediš točno tisto, kar črka zakona od tebe zahteva, to pa narediš na način, ki zahteva minimalno ali pa morda sploh nično spremembo tvojih stališč.

Če se torej vrnem na vprašanje o nemoči učiteljev in pomanjkanje podpore, bi bil moj tihi odgovor vsakem staršu, ki mi grozi s tožbo, ker ne podpiram njegovega neobvladanega pamža: ‘Ti mi kr groz, bebec, še mal pa bom naredil točno tisto kar hočeš od mene. In na koncu boš nasrkal ti in tvoja razvajena deca.’

…Črne točke Zorana Jankoviča na prehodih za pešce

[…] Evropska komisija je decembra lani objavila, da so med desetimi najbolj nevarnimi prehodi za pešce v Evropi trije v Ljubljani. Ni bilo slišati, da bi pristojni že sedli skupaj in začeli iskati rešitve, kako izboljšati varnost na teh prehodih. […] Za proračun je kratkoročno seveda donosneje, če gre na ceste več policistov, ki kaznujejo kršitelje prometnih predpisov. Denar od glob, ki jih plačajo kršitelji, pride takoj v proračun. Ker pa večina voznikov recimo upočasni vožnjo, ko vidi na cesti policijo, imajo takšne akcije seveda tudi dolgoročni učinek. […]

Ponedeljek, 1. februar 2010 ob 17:29

Samo par kratkih komentarjev, ki morda niso povsem na temo. Ampak, gleda na to, da tudi naslov v resnici ni pretirano povezan s temo, mi morda lahko oprostite.

Vaš tekst implicitno vsebuje predvidevanje, da je zmanjšanje hitrosti linearno povezano z manjšanjem števila nesreč. Po tej logiki bi pač preprosto omejili hitrost na 10% zdajšnje in se tako izognili 90% vseh nesreč. Verjetno ni potrebno pretirano pojasnjevati kaj je narobe s to logiko.

Obenem mi ni povsem jasno kako so povezani trije najnevarnejši prehodi za pešce v Evropi s prehitro vožnjo? Če malo karikiram – razumem, da bi bil prehod za pešce na ljubljanski obvoznici bolj nevaren kot npr. pred Namo, ampak saj takega vendarle nimamo, ali pač? Ali gre za idejo, da pešci umirajo na prehodih za pešce zaradi prehitre vožnje voznikov? Raziskavo, ki potrjuje hitrost kot glavni faktor vpliva na število nesreč na prehodih bi prav rad videl (razen seveda v primeru, kjer računamo na to, da avtomobilist, ki zbije pešca vedno ima neko hitrost).

Research Impact Reform…

Tory government would postpone REF, Willetts reveals

[…]The research excellence framework will be delayed by up to two years if the Conservatives win the 2010 general election, Times Higher Education can reveal. […]

A Taxpayer 15 January, 2010
So, a whole bunch of academics have decided to resign if impact is introduced – goodbye. I would thought that those afraid of having their efforts measured for usefulness to the society that pays for them to exist are the ones we can do without.

DavidM 19 January, 2010
It seems to me that this is an age old question of what good the people in HE are to a common man, or to be more precise in this case, how can Universities and their staff further a particular political agenda. If they can’t, well then they are obviously worthless to the power structure. It seems to me that measuring impact of a particular piece of research is a fiddly job – there have been numerous occasions where semi-unrelated research led to inventions that changed our civilisation (for instance nylons or Internet for that matter). How do you judge impact of that? I mean the first conversation over what we now call Internet was a 1200baud phone line connection. They wanted to send “HELLO” over the wires and the connection broke after it transmitted “HELL”… Should the government at that point have decided to scrap the research into the Internet, or at least not fund it, since it had no impact?
Also, let’s say that a researcher is doing a longitudinal study into, for instance, disclosure of political corruption, combined with rise of educational levels of general population. The study lasts five years. Does the researcher get no funding for five years, since it is somewhat obvious that he would have a hard time getting journals to accept articles along the lines of “I don’t know yet, let’s wait another few years…”? I am simplifying here, I know. At the same time, we would like to know for a fact that it is harder for politicians to get away with financial fraud if the general population is more knowledgeable. Would this fictional researcher get nothing for five years, then publish, get a bunch of prizes, which would secure plenty of funds for the University that year, but next year nothing again? What if the article still had impact that continued to reverberate? Do you fund Universities on the strength of their previous research or just current one?
The idea that pure knowledge is worthless to the common man is more or less playing into the hands of those who like to keep the common man uneducated and thus easier to manipulate. The fantasy that a person does not need academia because they are a drain on the taxpayers is incredibly shortsighted – oh yes, you will be able to buy one more Cadbury’s fruit and nut bar per year by keeping your hard-earned money for yourself (as if the taxpayers would actually pay less taxes!) but it won’t really help in ten or twenty years time when nobody actually remembers how to make chocolate.