People tend to treat it as if it was a ‘point’.
A theoretical concept that has been put on a table, studied from all angles, found desirable/unacceptable and which is now aggressively marketed by fervent apostles/rejected by ‘die-heart fundamentalists’.

I’m afraid it should rather be treated as a continuum.

People belonging to diverse cultures who freely decide to live together will, sooner rather than later, generate a meta-culture based mainly on intercultural mutual respect.
People belonging to diverse cultures who have to live together, without previously being asked whether they want this to happen or not, will, later rather than sooner, generate a meta-culture fusing together various cultural segments appropriated from the various cultures that were forced to coexist.
I am fascinated by the fact that both ‘extremes’ can happen simultaneously.
Individuals, usually unaware of what is going on, find ways of cooperating with members belonging to other cultures to impose/reject ‘cultural artifacts’ upon/coming from individuals belonging to other cultures.
The key of all this being a simple matter of ‘perception’.
We find it easier to cooperate with people belonging to cultures which we perceive as  ‘friendly’ and to treat with disdain those belonging to cultures which are different enough to be perceived as inferior. Hence ‘unfriendly’.

About the future, I mean!

no kids

This ‘piece of information’ keeps bouncing inside the Internet and is interpreted in various manners.

From ‘what to expect from leaders who are ‘this’ selfish’ to “I find it trashy and irrelevant. Merkel’s husband has two sons, btw.
Well… Macron’s wife also has her own children. And a few nephews.

What startled me was this reaction.
I’m under the stark realization that the most intelligent of the population have the fewest children, which might not bode well for voting statistics in the future.”

While the observation is, of course, correct, I’m afraid the interpretation attached to it is somewhat ‘confused’.

First if all, it’s not ‘intelligence’ that drives people to give birth to fewer children. Intelligence – coalesced at social level – helps a population to increase its living standard. As such, children no longer die young so parents no longer have to have so many of them. In order to have somebody help you in your older days you no longer have to give birth to more than two or three children.

If intelligence alone would have prevented people from having children Israel and the US would have been at least as ‘childless’ as Japan or most of the European Countries.
On the contrary. The US is still in a better situation than the EU, 1.8 vs 1.6, while Israel thrives at 3.1

Another way of making sense of what’s going on is to consider that people no longer make kids simply because they have reached the conclusion that ‘money’ can just as well help them cope during their older days. Since so few children live with, or at least near, their old parents this no longer seems so farfetched as it may look at first glance…

But what’s going on in Israel? They also have enough money…

The country needs soldiers to defend it’s very existence?

But, you know, Israel is a free country. Those kids could leave anytime before being drafted. As some of them do.

But most of them stay! Freely!

Then how about people giving birth having at least some connection with ‘hope’?
As in people having hope for a better tomorrow? One worth defending?

One worth making children for?

For a long time the Jewish people have written down their thoughts about the world.
At some point, about two thousands years ago, Jesus and his followers reinterpreted those ideas so new books had to be written on the same subject.
Another four centuries later the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage ( 397) determined which of those books were to be included in what is currently known as the Bible.

The versions being circulated since were written in Latin, Hebrew, ancient Greek, Aramaic, ancient Armenian, etc.

By 1500 almost nobody but some of the priests were able to read any of them.

So Luther had decided he had to translate it. Into German.

And changed the world.

“Luther’s Bible introduced mass media, unified a nation, and set the standard for future translations.”

Since then, because modern languages are a work in progress, the Bible has been practically rewritten many times over.

Here are three versions of how Cain and Abel were born. Genesis 4:1-2.

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.”

King James Version

Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten[a] a man with the help of the Lord.” And again, she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a worker of the ground.

English Standard Version

“Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man.” Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.

Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil.”

New International Version

What next? I’ve counted 106 different versions, all written in English, on a Wikipedia page…

Luther had translated it because almost no one living in his times was able to read it by themselves.
Nowadays it seems that anybody who cares about the matter, writes their own!

I was under the impression that religion was meant to bring us together…

The Tower of Babel

11 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As people moved eastward,[a] they found a plain in Shinar[b] and settled there.

They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel[c]—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.”

Who is scattering us now?
Why are we doing this to ourselves?

a goal-oriented person or team works hard to achieve good results in the tasks that they have been given”

For the purpose of this post it doesn’t matter whether the goal has been assigned by somebody else or has been chosen by the  would be goal-achiever itself.

The problem, as I see it, is that those who focus too much on achieving a specific goal usually fail.

For at least two reasons.

First of all the goal itself might not be appropriate. Never was or something had changed.
For example, I had learned hard to become a mechanical engineer. Worked as one for 5 years and enjoyed every minute of it. I still love to fix things around the house.
But I gave it up when I realized I couldn’t feed myself in post communist Romania.

We consider ourselves to be rational. If this were true, all human goals would have been both appropriate and achievable.
How many of them really are?
Then why are so many of us willing to go to extreme lengths in order to achieve certain goals, against all signals suggesting that they should desist?

Even if the goal is reasonable, for instance to loose 20 pounds in a certain situation, if the would be achiever is excessively focused on that single goal it may try to reach it too soon, be unhappy during the entire duration of the process or even both at the same time.

So, should we give up all our goals?

That would be a goal too… so… no, obviously!

What I’m trying to say is that goals should be our stepping stones instead of being considered, any of them, ultimate pinnacles.

Before going any further I’d like to discuss the alternative suggested by Shane Parrish in at least two different articles.

Goal-oriented people usually fail, and other things I’ve learned about succeeding at work 2015 in and

How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big, 2013 in

There’s no real alternative? He is still focused on a specific goal, “success”, only he is wise enough to consider it in a reasonable way – as in ‘create as little disturbance as possible during the process of achieving it’?

Well, this is indeed a very important step forward.

Yes, forward!

I never said I was willing to give up goals altogether so I (think I) know where I’m headed!
The point is, and here I agree completely with Shane Parrish, that we should try to achieve our goals WITH at least some of those around us instead of being ready to reach them by CRUSHING, one way or another, everybody who might dare to even utter the smallest dissent.

In other words, there is only one legitimate goal that each of us is entitled to pursue at any length. Survival. All others are figments of our imagination and should be followed with discretion. Otherwise our actions might turn against us. And hamper our own survival.

Let me give you a very hot example.

Last year the American People had chosen their President.
This is a two step process. In the first one the parties nominate their candidate and then the entire people is asked to pick one of them for the job.

Almost the entire world knows that the American political scene is divided between the Democrats and the Republicans and that having your man at the helm is a big bonus for any party – the latter being valid in almost all countries, not only in America.

During the first of the two electoral steps, the Democrats have nominated Hillary Clinton while the Republicans have chosen Donald Trump. Apparently two completely different individuals.
A consummate ‘political insider’  versus a successful business man with a history of getting things done, seemingly at all odds.

Lets see how differently these two guys really are.

Hillary Clinton had identified, correctly, a huge number of issues and and formulated reasonable promises about each and every one of them.
Donald Trump had identified a huge pool of discontent and energized those who were waddling in there aimlessly.
Different indeed but only the opposite sides of the same coin. Political marketing at its  best. Or worse?

Hillary Clinton was a person who had no problem in using her, and her husband’s, official position and authority to achieve her goals, even if that meant bending the rules. Using a personal e-mail server, installed in a private setting, wasn’t a proper thing to do for a Secretary of State, was it?
Donald Trump is indeed a very successful entrepreneur. Only he did his ‘thing’ in a very ‘special’ domain. One subjected to various zoning laws and other heavy rules imposed by the ‘all powerful’ government.
I’m also going to remind you of the fortune he had inherited from his father – made using comprehensive political connections – and that Trump had used part of his money to curry favors with various political figures.

“Trump later told Politico, “As a contributor, I demanded that they be there—they had no choice and that’s what’s wrong with our country. Our country is run by and for donors, special interests and lobbyists, and that is not a good formula for our country’s success. With me, there are no lobbyists and special interests. My only special interest is the United States of America.”

And it’s not only that he had no qualms in using his money to convince politicians to do what he wanted them to do, he also tried to use governmental power to ‘convince’ an old lady, under the pretext of ’eminent domain’, to sell her house, at half price, so that he could build a limousine parking lot for a casino in Atlantic City.

These two candidates no longer seem to be so different anymore, do they?
Both equally ‘goal oriented’ – a.k.a. power hungry – and equally determined to use whatever ‘energy’ they could concentrate in that direction, including governmental power.

Then how come each of them had been nominated by their respective parties?
Considering that both parties paid lip service to the need to simplify the government…

Could it be that the real goal of both parties was to gain the Oval Office?
At all costs to the country at large?

I’m not going to pretend now that the survival of the US is in danger, just because Trump, currently acting like an elephant in a China shop, is the perfect opportunity for Putin to inflict as much damage to the US as he possibly can.

You see, Putin didn’t meddle into the election process because he had any hopes that he would be able to influence any of Trump’s decisions. Putin simply knew that Trump, once elected, will, in a ‘natural manner’, wreak havoc in Washington. What else could he have asked for?

Well, this may prove to be yet another ‘goal oriented’ failure… Had Clinton become President she would have probably continued to encourage the malignant growth of an already humongous government… this way the American People has the chance to wake up. Because of the tantrum Trump is throwing around…

And, maybe, the parties will also learn something.
Democratic government means governing for the country as a whole, not for the group which happens to control the power.
Real democracy is about honestly discussing the issues before the elections, so that as many as possible of the potential problems to become evident before the people having to choose a direction or other. Whenever the parties try to lure the population towards a particular ‘goal’, using any of the various tools devised by the political marketeers, the electoral process is no longer democratic.
In that case the whole thing has been demoted to ‘mob rule’. Which is dangerous.

Over reliance in our ability to choose a goal or to devise/run a system (government) is the deepest pitfall ever dug by humankind. For ourselves.

A system is nothing more and nothing less than a set of relatively stable interactions.
A system can be evaluated only from the outside.
A system exists only in the mind of the observer.

I’ll discuss these three affirmations from the bottom.

Even if the objects that compose the system exist ‘in the real world’, the system itself exists only in the minds of the observers – the person who had first identified the interactions and all those who agree with him.
To illustrate my point I’ll give you three examples.
–  A constellation is “a group of stars that forms a particular shape in the sky and has been given a name“. A long time ago, when those constellations had been named by our ancestors, people thought they were something totally different than what we think of them now. Yet they continue to exist as before and are identified using the same names.
– The Solar System. It works totally different today than it used to during Ptolemy’s time…
– The human body. Each of us temporarily inhabits one but we still don’t know exactly how it works or whether, in reality, it is but a small – and not even autonomous, part in a way larger system.

No system can be evaluated from the inside.
Apparently this is pure nonsense. I have just said that each of us inhabits a human body, which is a system by itself. Yeah, right. And when was the last time when you have fully understood how your body works? Or when any of us was able to do that… including here the doctors in the audience – exactly those people who do understand the meaning of “A physician who treats himself has a fool for a patient.” …
On the other hand, most of us – at least after a certain age and before dementia takes over – are ‘house trained’ and relatively polite. Because of our consciousness? Something that we hardly understand and sometimes think of as being somewhat separated from our ‘mortal’ body? Please remember, in this context, that some of us consider our souls as belonging to somebody else…

A system is nothing but a relatively stable set of interactions.
That have been either identified or established by us. The Solar System has been identified by us while the GPS (the Global Positioning System) was designed, and build from scratch, by us. Composed of materials found in the Solar System and obeying the same ‘laws’ as the rest of it but, nevertheless, something different. And to understand what I mean, please imagine for a moment that gravity would suddenly become a much weaker force. Big enough to keep the Earth together but not big enough to maintain Earth’s current orbit, at Earth’s current speed around the Sun. Nor big enough to keep the Sun together… Depending on how weaker the gravity would become the planets would scatter away while the Sun would become nothing more than a nebula… or, if the gravity would become reality small, it would be possible that the gases furiously escaping from the Sun would catch at least some of the planets from behind and melt them into a lot wider nebula….
Or, alternatively, imagine that the GPS satellites run out of power and no longer emit any radio signals. They would continue to orbit the Earth for a while but the GPS system would have been gone the minute when too few satellites would have remained active …

DSC_0463constrast mare


A vast variety of delicious dishes and a very complex social reality hidden behind a short string of letters.

The word itself, literally meaning “something stuffed“, belongs today to the Turkish language.

Google it and you’ll be ‘served’ with a cornucopia of Greek recipes, most of them teaching you how to prepare  stuffed grape leaves…

Check its etymology and you’ll find out its “First Known Use: circa 1889“.

Common, people must have been stuffing vegetables long before that… all around the Black and Mediterranean seas… the Italians have their ‘ripieni’, the Persians have been stuffing bell peppers (dolmeh-s) for some time now,  Armenians have their tolma-s while the Greek have the ‘wider’ gemista dolmadakia being reserved, as I already mentioned, for ‘stuffed vine leaves’.

So, what had happened during the XIX-th century that made so many different people – who were living more or less together but spoke different languages, to use the same word for a dish?

Forget about etymology and consider this.
Simultaneously with ‘dolma’ becoming the ‘dominant’ word for ‘stuffed vegetables’, the dominant power in the area where this was happening, the Ottoman Empire, was crumbling.

We can discuss ad nauseam the reasons for yet another empire fading away into history, but this is not the purpose of my post.
What I’m trying to say is that most of the inhabitants would have gladly continued to coexist peacefully and share their meals – if that had been possible, of course.

Just look at the symbolism of different vegetables, stuffed with the same filling, simmering together in the same pot and becoming delicious sustenance for the various individuals gathered around the same table to ‘break bread’.

But it didn’t come to be… the various forces and agents involved in the matter – the central power trying to survive, the ‘revolutionaries’ attempting to ‘modernize’ the society, the surrounding states and empires trying to gobble up portions of ‘the Sick Man of Europe‘, each followed what they considered to be ‘their best interest’.

And this is what’s going on now…, in the same city where traders from all over the Middle East used to partake dolmades in the world’s biggest covered market – the Aleppo Souk.


Injured children are carried amid the rubble of destroyed buildings following airstrikes targeting the rebel-held neighborhood of Al-Mashhad in Aleppo on July 25. BARAA AL-HALABI / AFP – Getty Images


“Arătându-se dezamăgit de votul de miercuri al senatorilor jurişti privind graţierea corupţilor, Liviu Dragnea a susţinut că nu va mai permite membrilor PSD să afecteze prin acţiunile lor imaginea partidului.”

“Păreri personale putem avea fiecare dintre noi în baie sau în alte locuri.”

“Condamnarea liderului PSD, Liviu Dragnea, la doi ani cu suspendare in dosarul “Referendumul” este suficienta pentru a-i atrage atentia si pentru a-l determina sa adopte o conduita corespunzatoare in cadrul campaniilor electorale viitoare, se arata in motivarea deciziei date de Inalta Curte de Casatie si Justitie, relateaza Agerpres.”

Imaginea PSD este afectată grav de faptul că preşedintele Comisiei juridice a Senatului, social-democratul Şerban Nicolae, nu şi-a prezentat încă demisia, a precizat, joi, deputatul PSD Victor Ponta, el referindu-se la voturile succesive date de acest for în ceea ce priveşte graţierea corupţilor, scrie Mediafax.

“Eu când vorbesc, ca președinte al PSD, vorbesc statutar în numele partidului și în urma unor decizii care s-au adoptat în partid”, a spus Dragnea, apreciind că “PSD nu e un partid rău”.”

“La botezul oricarui copil ortodox exista un anume moment solemn, cand parintii si nasii copilului se intorc cu spatele spre altar, iar preotul ii intreaba de trei ori:
– V-ati lepadat de Satana?
Si tot de trei ori, parintii si nasii raspund:
– Ne-am lepadat de Satana.
Dar la botezul acelui copil. botez ce a avut loc la Manastirea Sinaia si la care a participat, pe langa familiile copilului si ale nasilor, cam toata conducerea PNL, cand preotul a intrebat a treia oara:
– V-ati lepadat de Satana?
Din grupul liberal s-a auzit o voce:
– Am incercat la referendum, parinte, dar nu am reusit.
Momentul de ras care a urmat a detensionat intreaga atmosfera solemna instaurata de oficierea ritualului. Insusi inaltul prelat s-a intors cu spatele catre noi si i-am observat umerii zgaltaiti de spasmele rasului ce nu a mai putut fi stapanit.
Si de atunci, de cate ori particip la vreun botez, cand aud intrebarea ‘v-ati lepadat de Satana?’ m-a umfla rasul.
Dar si tristetea, amintindu-mi de … “Satana, cel ce pe toata lumea o inseala.” (Apocalipsa, 12/9)”

Dan Radu Rusanu,
Mai sunt judecatori la Berlin,
2017, Editura Rao, Bucuresti.

In realitate, Satana este doar un prilej, nimic altceva decat o ‘oportunitate’!
Tot ce face el este sa puna la cale ‘contextul’ in care noi ne inselam de zor unii pe altii…

Cateodata, Aghiuta se intrece pe el insusi si ne arata unde am gresit:

“Mai mult, corupţia dintr-o ţară ţine atât de stat, cât şi de mediul privat, a spus Băsescu, explicând că un funcţionar nu poate fi corupt dacă nu există cineva care să dea mită, la fel cum un minister nu poate plăti cu 50% mai mult pentru un contract dacă nu există un consultant care să facă o expertiză în acest sens.
“Să ieşim din ipocrizie. Dacă există corupţie, singur statul nu poate fi corupt, are un partener. Statul nu poate fi singur neperformant. Are un partener şi acesta este economia privată”, a susţinut preşedintele Băsescu. El a subliniat că asumarea responsabilităţii trebuie făcută de ambele părţi.
Ca o soluţie la lipsa competivităţii din mediul administrativ, şeful statului a spus că până când nu vot fi instaurate criterii de carieră, el precizând că un preşedinte poate să ceară, dar că important este ce decid partidele, care nu pot renunţa la numirile pe criterii politice.

Si nici macar nu conteaza daca ‘atentionarea’ reprezinta un fel de spovedanie sau este facuta in bataie de joc…

Singurul lucru cu adevarat important pentru cei care se afla in aceasta situatie – simplu botez sau nevoia de a intoarce o tara intreaga catre ‘adevarata fata a lucrurilor’, este ca acestia sa inteleaga ‘logosul’ momentului, chiar daca celui care ‘tine slujba’ i se ‘zgaltaie umerii de ras’.

Altfel… dupa cum bine a observat si Radu Rusanu, ‘mai sunt judecatori’… la Berlin!

Iar pana acolo te mananca ‘sfintii’.

”Astăzi avem peste 4,4 milioane de cetăţeni români în aceste comunităţi (din diaspora – n.r.) şi anul trecut pentru prima dată, conform statisticilor Eurostat, s-au născut mai mulţi copii în diaspora decât în România. Sunt nişte cifre care ne ridică extrem de multe semne de întrebare în ceea ce priveşte modul în care tânăra generaţie îşi vede dreptul la mobilitate, dreptul la a studia în Europa, de a lucra şi unde se regăseşte în acest ciclu şi România – ţara de origine, care este echilibrul exact între dorinţa normală de perfecţionare, de continuare a unei cariere atât în România cât şi în celelalte state membre ale Uniunii Europene”, a declarat ministrul pentru Românii de Pretutindeni, Andreea Păstîrnac.

Dupa o singura zi au inceput sa curga contestantiile.

Foarte multe canale media au cerut lamuriri de la Eurostat. Acesta a raspuns ca statisticile pe 2016 nu au fost centralizate inca si ca cele mai noi de care dispune sunt cele din 2015.
Altii s-au apucat sa cotrobaie ei prin internet.

Eurostat publica aici date privind nascutii vii in strainatate, unde in dreptul Romaniei apar 281.000 de nou-nascuti. Asta in timp ce datele INS confirma ca in tara, in 2016 s-au nascut 189.783 de romani. Numai ca cei 281.000 de nou- nascuti romani in strainatate reprezinta un stoc (mai exact numarul de nou nascutii vii dintr-o mama avand cetatenia romana de-a lungul unei perioade mai lungi) si nu nou-nascutii din 2016, cum eronat a “citit” ministrul aceste date.

Linkul invocat de Hotnews deschide tabelul de mai jos,


sub titlul “File:Foreign-born population by country of birth, 1 January 2015 (¹) YB16.png
Mai pe romaneste, “Populația cetățenilor născuți în străinătate în funcție de țara de origine, 1 ianuarie 2015 (1)

Recunosc ca si mie mi-a luat cam mult pana am inteles despre ce e vorba aici, cu toate ca stiu ceva engleza. Si oarecare statistica – sunt inginer, ce dracu!

M-au salvat belgienii… cum e foarte greu de crezut ca 16% dintre belgieni au ales sa-si nasca copiii in afara tarii lor rezulta ca avem de a face cu o cu totul si cu totul alta chestie.
Pe romaneste se intelege un pic mai bine, cu toate ca si aici e cam neclar.
Numerele din tabel se refera la locuitorii tarii respective care s-au nascut in afara tarii despre care este vorba. In alt stat membru UE, cifre absolute si procentaj din populatia tarii (coloanele 3 si 4), sau in afara Comunitatii Europene (coloanele 5 si 6).

Nici o legatura cu copii nascuti de mame romance aflate peste granita….

Sa trecem peste, revenind la afirmatiile doamnei Pastarnac.

Si daca are dreptate?
OK, o fi citat niste cifre pe care nu ar fi trebuit sa le stie inca – de unde si dezmintirea ‘oblica’ data de Eurostat.
Pe care le-o fi citit precum cei de la Hotnews si n-o fi inteles mare lucru (“Potrivit Eurostat în anul 2015 s-au născut 197491 de copii vii în România, adică o rată a natalității de 10 la 1000. Un astfel de număr de noi născuți raportat la 4,4 milioane ar reprezenta o rată de aproape 45 la 1000, ceea ce ar plasa Diaspora românească alături de țări ca Niger sau Mali, cu cea mai mare natalitate din lume.“)

Dar daca a inteles, totusi, esentialul?
Si anume ca diaspora romaneasca a avut o rata a natalitatii mai mare in 2016 decat populatia ramasa in tara?

Pe romaneste, nu cumva romanii plecati peste hotare au facut, proportional si nu neaparat in cifre absolute, mai multi copii decat cei ramasi acasa?

Pentru a putea trage niste concluzii cu adevarat relevante ar trebui sa avem date mult mai clare decat am fost in stare sa ‘minez’ eu.
La o prima evaluare nici nu ar fi de necrezut, pana la urma transa de varsta a celor plecati la munca este cea potrivita atat pentru a incepe o noua viata cat si pentru a da nastere uneia noi…

Si tocmai aici se ascunde ‘capcaunul’.

Daca afirmatiile doamnei Pastarnac, indiferent de cat de stangace, sunt adevarate, atunci situatia e ‘albastra’. Ar insemna ca cei plecati afara au mai multa incredere in viitor decat cei ramasi acasa.

S-or mai intoarce vreodata?

Dupa vehementa cu care s-au manifestat cand a fost vorba de alegerile prezidentiale s-ar spune ca da. Dupa cati bani au trimis in tara… inca le pasa de ceea ce se intampla aici.

In principiu, ar fi trei lucruri care sa indemne la eventuala intoarcere.

Perspectiva iesirii la pensie, pierderea locului de munca/imbolnavirea unuia dintre membrii familiei, dorinta de a oferi copiilor posibilitatea de a-si pastra limba natala si traditiile.

Luand in calcul starea actuala a Romaniei, cati dintre noi – cei care traim aici, ne-am intoarce intr-una dintre cele trei situatii?

Asta sa fie motivul pentru care problema a fost ridicata in cadrul unei “dezbateri privind politicile pentru tineret“?
Si-au dat seama, macar unii dintre ei, ca daca o mai tinem mult asa, in curand majoritatea romanilor vor fi prea batrani, sau prea descurajati, sa mai stinga macar lumina?


“Saracia noastra ne omoara,
De atîta mars ne doare splina,
Cine iese ultimul din tara
E rugat sa stinga si lumina.

Noi mereu le-am suportat pe toate,
Duca-se dezastrele de-a dura,
Dar de ce, în plina libertate,
Cea mai mare sa devina ura?”

Adrian Paunescu,
Cine iese ultimul din tara?


Some 350 years ago, when the street level was more than a meter lower than it is now,


some people had built a church.

Later, some others have started to build around it.


Closer and




until the church was completely surrounded.


Things were so settled that trees had found a place to grow


so careful people decided to protect the medieval church using state of the art aluminium window panes.



Meanwhile other buildings were popping up.


Some of them


bearing very intricate decorations. Both having to do with the banking industry, by the way…


But times had passed… people got bored… more trees had established themselves,


a new kind of decorations had miraculously sprung up,


in more than one place.


So people started planting gardens on top of the buildings


because, you know, concrete is so passe…


Somewhat creepy, don’t you think?


%d bloggers like this: