For one thing, they have a piano that you can use to while away the time before the boarding.Permanent link to this article →
State television in Germany continues to brainwash their fellow citizens, despite a growing resentment on the part of ordinary Germans. After all, they are the ones that have to pay for this circus from their taxes.
This time Günther Jauch and his talk show took cheap anti-Russian propaganda to new heights on March 8. The theme of the talk show – “Putin’s Russia on the road to dictatorship?” – already did not bode any meaningful discussion. The portal Propagandaschau (“Propaganda Review”) made an apt remark that one could ask any number of questions that would be equally meaningful, like: “Obama’s Presidency – on the way to the Apartheid?”, meaning, of course, the hundreds of American citizens of African descent killed by US soldiers recently in protests around the country.
One could expect that, after the popular German host Günther Jauch publicly expressed regret that “Putin will not die soon” in November last year, anything goes. And he stands up to the expectations, making new produce in the best tradition of Goebbels’s propaganda.
To create the proper atmosphere at his talk show on March 8, Jauch invited the daughter of the late Nemtsov and corresponded with Garry Kasparov in New York, who, however, did not say anything new, repeating the mantra of “the hope of internal destabilization of Russia and the Putin regime lies in falling oil prices and the collapse of the ruble.”
Fortunately, there were some guests with a mind unclouded by propaganda in the studio. To the question of whether things would get better if Putin was displaced, Chairman of the German-Russian Forum Matthias Platzeck reasonably noticed: “Let’s do some theoretical reflection and ask ourselves a practical question – who will replace him? What will happen then? Will it be someone who meets our expectations? The answer is – no! ”
Platzeck also stressed that, with the current level of support for the opposition in Russia, the hopes for a quick displacement of Putin should be abandoned. Then, in defiance of Kasparov’s critique of the policies of the Federal Chancellor Merkel, he praised the Chancellor for leading negotiations on the settlement of the crisis in the Donbass area of Ukraine. His words were met with a thunderous applause by the audience.
The culmination of the talk show came at the end. After Platzeck suggested that Europe should intensify its dialogue with Russia and liberalize the visa regime, the host of the show theatrically turned to Nemtsov’s daughter with a question: “Don’t you think that now the struggle for democracy is completely lost, especially because Putin has huge support among Russians?” The answer was frank nonsense along the lines of “Putin is not interested in Russians traveling abroad”, “very few Russians can afford to travel abroad,” and that the “regime” will soon introduce the “exit visas” to enforce the isolation of the country.
In general, one can only wish Günther Jauch more such guests as Kasparov and Nemtsova and then rename his show from “political” to “stand-up comedy”.Permanent link to this article →
Japan is lowering the voting age to 18 from 20, giving no other explanation then “it is appropriate”.
As we know, the word and the practice of “democracy” comes from ancient Greek. The Greek established that the decisions could be taken by a vote between a number of distinguished members of society that were called the “demos”. The number of people who had the right to vote and were called “demos” was limited and those were supposedly the most clever and responsible members of the society.
Those restrictions could be traced nearly to modern times with “demos” being gradually extended to all those grown up men who were given the right to vote, assuming that they were mature enough to have the best interests of the society as a whole at heart. Unfortunately, with the widening of the voting “demos” the quality of decisions deteriorated accordingly.
Now we include nearly the whole society in the “demos” and we seem to expect the 18 year old boys and girls to be mature enough to have the best interests of the society at heart. That is definitely a perversion of the original philosophy and practice, isn’t it?
The young can be easily manipulated. They do not have the experience, the maturity, the cunning of the elder to see through the manipulations and clearly understand what is best for the country. They do not possess long-term views or wide perspectives. What kind of decisions can we expect from them? We can expect that they will go with whomever gives them the most convincing story, that is not the most truthful, not the most practical, nor the most needed, but simply the most attractively told.
Well, that’s easy to see now. That’s where the marketing comes in. This move to include younger people into the voting “demos” is nothing else than a trick to make the “demos” more gullible and easy to manipulate. Welcome to “democracy”.Permanent link to this article →
Thorbjorn Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, said today that President Obama “really ought to consider” returning his Nobel Peace Prize Medal immediately, including the “really nice” case it came in.
Jagland, flanked by the other four members of the Committee, said they’d never before asked for the return of a Peace Prize, “even from a damnable war-criminal like Kissinger,” but that the 10% drawdown in US troops in Afghanistan the President announced last week capped a period of “non-Peace-Prize-winner-type behavior” in 2011. “Guantanamo’s still open. There’s bombing Libya. There’s blowing bin Laden away rather than putting him on trial. Now a few US troops go home, but the US will be occupying Afghanistan until 2014 and beyond. Don’t even get me started on Yemen!”
The Committee awarded Obama the coveted prize in 2009 after he made a series of speeches in the first months of his presidency, which convinced the Peace Prize Committee that he was: “creating a new climate of…multilateral diplomacy…an emphasis on the role of the United Nations…of dialogue and negotiations as instruments for resolving international conflicts…and a vision of world free of nuclear arms.”
“Boy oh boy!” added Jagland. “Did we regret that press release!”
But, he revealed the committee members were all “legless drunk” the day they voted, as it was the start of Norway’s annual aquavit-tasting festival. The “totally toasted” members listened over and over to replays of Obama’s Cairo speech, tearing up and drinking shots to the glorious future: a black man leading America and the world into a new era of peace, hope and goodwill. “For a few hours we were all 18 year-old students again at the beautiful, occasionally sunny University of Bergen! Oh, how we cried for joy!”
The chairman said the committee weren’t “going to be pills” about getting the Prize back because they still “basically really liked” Mr. Obama and that sending it back in a plain package by regular mail would be fine if it would save him the embarrassment of a public return. But added Jagland, “things could get nasty” if the committee didn’t see it by the time they announce the new Peace Prize winner in the fall. He and the committee then excused themselves to resume their celebration of Norway’s annual aquavit-tasting festival.
The White House had no comment. It later announced an aggressive new covert CIA initiative to identify and apprehend Al Qaeda operatives in Scandinavia.
Hilarious, I wish it was true :)
Source: Nobel Committee Asks Obama “Nicely” To Return Peace Prize
And there is more:
The Nobel Peace Prize Committee has twice asked President Obama through diplomatic channels to return his Peace Prize. Now they’re asking “one last time” and there’s nothing diplomatic about it.
Nobel Committee Chairman ThorBjorn Jagland addressed an overflow press conference this morning in Oslo. The normally urbane Chairman referred several times to the President as “Obomber”, compared his “re-invasion” of Iraq to that of “the sniveling war-criminal Dick Cheney” and demanded that his Peace Prize be returned to the Committee forthwith together with the “beautiful box” it came in.
Two years ago after the bombing of Libya, the assassination of Osama bin Laden and Guantanamo remaining open, the Committee quietly asked the President to consider returning his Peace Prize, in a brown paper package by regular mail if he preferred so as to avoid embarrassment. They heard nothing from the White House.
In 2013 as US drone attacks increased dramatically the Committee tried again to get Obama’s medal back adding that he could keep the very expensive box it came in. They even offered him a Consolation Nobel Peace Prize. Still nothing.
Now according to Chairman Jagland it’s “No more Mr Nice Guy” Unless the Peace Prize is returned immediately, he announced total cut-off of all Scandinavian exports to the US. “Not a single Volvo or SAAB or attractive wool cap with fake wool pigtails will find its way to American ports! Not one Swedish meatball will ever again pass American lips!”
White House spokesman Josh Earnest responded to the threat: “Actually the President doesn’t remember winning the Nobel Peace Prize. But if he did, he thinks he might have given it to Hillary.”Permanent link to this article →
I just came across a yet another stunning realization: we don’t know shit about our climate and its changes … and German engineers are worthless. These two are connected. Allow me to explain.
I can see the lot of renovation of not-so-old houses across Europe. There seems to be no street in Germany, for example, where a house would not be renovated to insulate it from the cold. That’s what they do everywhere: they put heat insulation around the houses, all of them. The houses will be all smugly wrapped in colorful warm blankets of insulation soon.
What does it tell us, really? Well, it tells us that the houses built in the last century were not properly isolated from the cold. But this is Germany, right? German engineers are supposed to be the brightest in the world, aren’t they? Why did they not think of the cold winters then?
What could have happened? One, the climate may have changed drastically and they did not adapt the construction to the cold winters. That means they are really worthless as engineers as it seems that change of the climate happened a fair bit of time ago. My grandma did not tell me stories of anything resembling tropical or even Mediterranean weather. Still, the houses had thin walls, single glass windows and no heating installations except largely decorative and useless open fireplaces. Those construction workers must have been idiots, as well as must have been idiots the house owners who bought those houses.
On the other hand, they could have noticed the weather but there were no materials like we have now to allow them proper insulation. So they would not be able to do anything then, would they? Well, if you have ever been in Russia, you would have noticed that they built double-walled, double-glazed houses with proper heating all through the last century. Apparently, those engineers had the materials and instruments to build proper warm houses. Were German engineers so stupid that they could not even copy the designs?
Well, there we are. The German engineers kept using the designs for a much warmer climate throughout the last century despite the obvious fact that they are not suitable for the much colder climate than Southern Italy. Russians at the same time were building proper houses suitable for the cold winters and well heated. What else can we conclude but that (1) the climate has seriously changed not so long ago and (2) German engineers are worthless?Permanent link to this article →
От: DR <email@example.com>
Тема: Russian terror supporter and killer
Bona fide hate mail. Accept no substitutes. I am so proud. Break out the bubbly, I must be doing something right!Permanent link to this article →
This is a strange story. We were having a chat after the project meeting finished and somehow the subject of European Central Bank (ECB) came up. I don’t remember why or how but the question was raised: who controls the ECB? Well, I knew that ECB was a company but I did not know details. So I had to have a look. The results are … well, this could have been expected.
Okay, so ECB is a bank, a commercial entity with all European Central Banks as shareholders. No surprises there. So whoever controls the Central Banks of the EU countries – controls the ECB. Now the next question is, of course, who controls the Central Banks?
I did not check them all but I suspect they are all organized the same way: the government (I could not find out how) is the shareholder and owner of the Central Bank. It seems that even where the Central Banks were private, they were nationalized some time ago. So they are all publicly owned. But there is a catch.
You see, the Central Banks have a note on their pages and in the documents that effectively says: “we are not controlled by the government”. I cannot imagine why, but all right, so the Central Banks are not controlled by the government, that’s just the way they are set up. So the owners actually do not control the banks. Who controls them then?
In this case, since there is no other obvious control mechanism, the Board of Directors and, in the first place, the Governor, will be controlling the Central Bank. Again, it seems that all banks in Europe are set up identically. So their management actually controls the Central Banks and therefore controls the ECB. A financial empire, no less. Very well. Who are the management and can we see any clear affiliations there?
And that’s where it got messy. Some countries’ Central Banks do not disclose any information about the governors – those are double suspicious. But all of the others show affiliation with U.S. one way or another. Here is the list of governors and those of their past affiliations that could be easily found.
- ECB: Mario Draghi, President – Goldman Sachs, World Bank
- Bank of England: Mark Carney, Governor – Goldman Sachs
- Bank of France: Christian Noyer, Governor – IMF, World Bank
- Deutsche Bundesbank: Jens Weidmann, President – IMF
- Bank of Greece: Yannis Stournaras, Governor – IMF
- De Nederlandsche Bank: Klaas Knot, president – IMF
- Banca d’Italia: Ignazio Visco, governor – OECD
- National Bank of Austria: Ewald Nowotny, Governor – EIB; Andreas Ittner, Vice Governor – IMF
- Banco de España: Luis M. Linde, Governor – Inter-American Development Bank (IADB)
- Riksbank (Sweden Central Bank): Stefan Ingves, Governor – IMF
- Norges Bank: Øystein Olsen, Governor – Center for Economic Analysis; Jon Nicolaisen, Deputy Governor – OECD
- National Bank of Belgium: Luc Coene, Governor – IMF
- Bank of Portugal: Carlos da Silva Costa, governor – EIB
- Banque centrale du Luxembourg: Gaston REINESCH, governor – EIB, BNP Paribas
- National Bank of Poland: Marek Belka, Head – Columbia University, University of Chicago and London School of Economics, World Bank, JP Morgan
- Hungarian National Bank: György Matolcsy, Governor – European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
- National Bank of Romania: Mugur Isărescu, Governor – Romanian Embassy in the United States
- Bulgarian National Bank: Ivan Iskrov, Governor – US Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
- Czech National Bank: Miroslav Singer, Governor – University of Pittsburgh, PricewaterhouseCoopers
- Bank of Estonia: Ardo Hansson, Governor – World Bank, Harvard University
- Central Bank of Ireland: Patrick Honohan, Governor – IMF
- Bank of Latvia: Ilmars Rimsevics, Governor – St. Lawrence University (USA), Clarkson University (USA)
- National Bank of Slovakia: Jozef Makúch, Governor – IMF, World Bank
There is no information about the governors of the Central Banks of Finland, Denmark, Croatia, Cyprus, Lithuania, Slovenia. What do those have to hide?
Anyhow, it looks like to get to rule the finances of a country you have to follow one of the routes: work at IMF for a while, study and teach in US universities, or work at one of the big US banks or consultancy companies. The research into the control structures of those are left as an exercise for the reader.
So, as far as I can see, the ECB is controlled by U.S. commercial structures. What a surprise.Permanent link to this article →
An interesting gotcha wasted me quite a bit of time and frustration last evening. After installing OTRS I went to configure the email delivery for tickets. I created a new virtual user, gave it a password and so it was all set. And it did not work when I tried to fetch the mail from OTRS. The message of OTRS itself did not help at all being very generic but the server reported this:
Feb 11 14:19:59 mail imapd-ssl: Connection, ip=[x.x.x.x] Feb 11 14:19:59 mail imapd-ssl: chdir example.com/otrs/: No such file or directory Feb 11 14:19:59 mail imapd-ssl: firstname.lastname@example.org: No such file or directory
It was hard to imagine a more cryptic message. I could not understand what could be wrong. And why would the server try to chdir into some strange directory. I flushed, changed passwords, tried all sorts of protocols, nothing helped. At a certain point I typed in a wrong password and the message changed to the very familiar “user login failed”. And then the realization hit me.
You just need the directory, you know. Maildir means there must be a directory for the IMAP server to look into. That’s what it tells me! IMAP says that it cannot find the directory where the messages should be. And sure enough, the Maildir directory is not there. Who would create it? Silly me.
And, of course, after the fact you remember it all: always send a welcome message to the new IMAP users so that the mailbox or Maildir is created for them… Hard to remember though when you don’t create new mail users so often.Permanent link to this article →
US president spoke of the “extraordinary” Russia’s military power, extent of Russia’s border with Ukraine and even mentioned Russian history. Propaganda myth of a massive Russian intervention in Ukraine is now used against its authors at full steam: you can not do something in Ukraine without taking into account the reaction of the Kremlin. Therefore, the U.S. administration will do nothing there – and that’s exactly what Merkel wants. I do not mean that Russia did not intervene; the whole myth was based on hiding the American control of Ukraine and silencing the fact that Russia never took initiative but only ever reacted, and rather sluggishly at that.
Now the Ukrainian issue will be resolved (or not resolved) through diplomacy, and the White House even invented a variant solution: heads of Donetsk and Lugansk will be elected in accordance with the Ukrainian (what’s the difference, why not Chinese?) constitution – and Kiev would be forced to stop the fight and carry on with the negotiations. Obama “has not yet decided” about weapons shipments to Ukraine – and “will not decide” before the election of the new president. In fact everything will be solved by Putin, whom Merkel persuaded in the Kremlin. He, however, did not put up a fight: if America will mind their own business, and if it you are so good to ask, then so be it.
Angela Merkel looked completely different than during previous visits. If before she felt a bit alien to this celebration of life, and a bit awkward compared to the elegant Michelle Obama, not to mention the women of French presidents, by now she has acquired the character stiffness of the “Iron Lady” Thatcher, perhaps a tad more clear and discreet.
Obama talked about the usual: climate and all the good against the bad things, but in the end he even began to recover. It must have cost him a lot of effort, but he managed. In reality, the talks centered around two issues. Only one of them was on the official agenda, and journalists (unsuccessfully) tried to clarify the details.
The first item really concerned Ukraine. Angela Merkel has brought to the attention of her American counterpart the “Ukrainian dossier” prepared by BND and explained: Germany did not intervene in the American game in Iraq, Libya and Syria; nobody cares about Ukraine either, but it is the backyard of Germany, and the United States will be forced to stop the attempts to kindle a fire there. No weapons, no military solution, only diplomatic talks, taking into account the position of Russia. More precisely, under the dictates of Russia.
At first, Obama did not like it. During the last visit of Merkel he escaped by ranting that as US president he cares primarily for American interests. But then the dossier was not on the table. Now Merkel gently and calmly explained that if the colleague will try again to play these games, then by the time she finishes him off, nobody will ever want to talk with Obama. Not even after his retirement. It was not openly mentioned but clearly assumed that she would not even have to do it herself. After all, the files can accidentally get to Putin, and God knows how he will dispose of them.
Barack Obama weighed “for” and “against”. The Ukrainian weapons business was firmly promised to the donors who believe that the relevant profits are already in their pockets. If they are refused now, the president will be thrown to John McCain and his pack for humiliation and embarrassment. Only it will be just empty words: Vanguard is able to topple the president, but only by going down to the bottom itself. And these guys are quite comfortable on the surface.
Disobeying Merkel is much more dangerous – she was not joking and looks ready to sink Vanguard together with the president. After such a scandal no one would dream running for a president without a certificate of racial purity for the next half-century – and his own left-wing Democrats would accuse Obama of this as well. After the impeachment, or even if he held out until the election, the way to Vanguard’s stables would be closed; except perhaps if he agreed to live out the rest of his days in the image of Uncle Tom.
Obama came to the conclusion that the attacks from the extreme right flank he could somehow survive if he demonstrated a wise and prudent policy. Well, so he would have to abandon the role of the “Dirty Harry”. It was a really cool image but essentially the loss is small. The second question was not public, and therefore in some sense easier.
The second dossier concerned one of the largest financial conglomerates of the world: the HSBC bank. According to the Forbes ranking that is almost four year old the HSBC Holdings plc. is the largest company by market capitalization in Europe and second in the world. Angela Merkel provided document after document demonstrating with hard facts the cooperation of the Bank with Islamic State, its joint operations with international terrorists “Syrian opposition” and not only, and so on – and she finished with the statement that it’s not her business really. But HSBC conducted subversive activities against the German economy and it shall go bankrupt.
Obama thought again. The Bank is not in his jurisdiction, it’s British, and on the island the other side of the pond there are those who will object. On the other hand, HSBC is controlled by Vanguard through Fidelity, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan and others, so some cover may be forthcoming. Well, what the hell, we have to die only once. Attack together, they are allies after all. He gradually came to himself by the end of the press conference.
The atmosphere has darkened. One of international bankers from Germany wrote the following: “Let’s hope that Ms. Merkel will return this side of the pond Monday alive and healthy. When you hear Biden, McCain and General Breedlove, you understand that the nerves are laid bare». (Hoffen wir, dass Frau Merkel lebend und gesund am Montag über den Teich zurückkommt. Wenn man Biden, McCain und General Breedlove hört, merkt man, dass die Nerven blank liegen).
So far, they only had enough courage to publish pictures from twenty-two years ago, where Angela Merkel is trying to get a few skinheads back on the right path – of course, in the reverse interpretation. So as to say, look with whom this lady consorts. Only this futile attempt has not made any impression on the Germans.
Cards were dealt in a new way. In the US, the donor parties are now opposed to the president. Politically against him – McCain, who lost his election to him and will clock 80 by the next election, and his own Vice President Joe Biden, Kerry in State Department, and Brennan in the CIA. But somehow Obama will get out. Vanguard has been a little weakened these days, and some boys begin to run away.
And not only in the United States. The son in law of the main Ukrainian negotiator also understood the lack of options. What difference does it make if they freeze your accounts on the filing of the FBI or of the Bundeskriminalamt? Other boys are not born yesterday either, at least when it comes to their pockets. Turchinov, Yatsenyuk and Ljashko remained in the U.S. opposition although they did not sign up. Well, they were not asked. Kolomoisky plays his game, Akhmetov and Firtash – their own, but all at the same table. Poroshenko also would like to play, preferably on the side of Merkel, but he still did not get the cards.
Most of the American mercenaries have left Ukraine already and their return is associated now with complications with Europe and with the administration. Without the Americans Ukraine will not be able to fight. So one can expect continuation of hysteria, confusion and hesitation in the War Party now.
Interesting is what the party of peace looks like. Putin, Merkel, Hollande and Obama joined there. People may wonder why is the mantra of sanctions against Russia so often repeated then? Well, what else do they have to speak of in public? Of the complete and unconditional surrender of the United States? That they will get from the likes of McCain anyhow.
Putin is quite happy with sanctions too – now as a gambit in exchange for a “Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok.” That is, unrestricted access to advanced technologies and to the world’s richest European market. When Putin will finally squeeze the Americans and their Ukrainian henchmen at the request of Merkel, they would have to talk about “forcing Russia to peace.” As the famous joke goes: “so why don’t you talk about that too?”
Loose translation of: http://pravosudija.net/article/peregovory-i-kuluaryPermanent link to this article →
Here is the set of questions that was used by Dr. Arthur Aron and colleagues in their study of “generating interpersonal closeness”. In a word, if you follow the instructions and go through this procedure, there is a high chance you fall in love. Wanna test?
Oh, and the original publication is called “The Experimental Generation of Interpersonal Closeness: A Procedure and Some Preliminary Findings” in case you want to look it up…
The exercise is performed by two people together. As soon as you both finish reading these instructions, you should begin with the questions. One of you should read aloud the first question and then BOTH do what it asks, starting with the person who read the question aloud. When you are both done, go on to the next question – one of you reading it aloud and both doing what it asks. And so forth.
As you go through the questions, one at a time, please don’t skip any – do each in order. If it asks you a question, share your answer with your partner. Then let him or her share their answer to the same question with you. If it is a task, do it first, then let your partner do it. Alternate who reads aloud (and thus goes first) with each new question. Take plenty of time with each question, doing what it asks thoroughly and thoughtfully.
- Given the choice of anyone in the world, whom would you want as a dinner guest?
- Would you like to be famous? In what way?
- Before making a telephone call, do you ever rehearse what you are going to say? Why?
- What would constitute a “perfect” day for you?
- When did you last sing to yourself? To someone else?
- If you were able to live to the age of 90 and retain either the mind or body of a 30-year-old for the last 60 years of your life, which would you want?
- Do you have a secret hunch about how you will die?
- Name three things you and your partner appear to have in common.
- For what in your life do you feel most grateful?
- If you could change anything about the way you were raised, what would it be?
- Take four minutes and tell your partner your life story in as much detail as possible.
- If you could wake up tomorrow having gained any one quality or ability, what would it be?
- If a crystal ball could tell you the truth about yourself, your life, the future or anything else, what would you want to know?
- Is there something that you’ve dreamed of doing for a long time? Why haven’t you done it?
- What is the greatest accomplishment of your life?
- What do you value most in a friendship?
- What is your most treasured memory?
- What is your most terrible memory?
- If you knew that in one year you would die suddenly, would you change anything about the way you are now living? Why?
- What does friendship mean to you?
- What roles do love and affection play in your life?
- Alternate sharing something you consider a positive characteristic of your partner. Share a total of five items.
- How close and warm is your family? Do you feel your childhood was happier than most other people’s?
- How do you feel about your relationship with your mother?
- Make three true “we” statements each. For instance, “We are both in this room feeling … “
- Complete this sentence: “I wish I had someone with whom I could share …“
- If you were going to become a close friend with your partner, please share what would be important for him or her to know.
- Tell your partner what you like about them; be very honest this time, saying things that you might not say to someone you’ve just met.
- Share with your partner an embarrassing moment in your life.
- When did you last cry in front of another person? By yourself?
- Tell your partner something that you like about them already.
- What, if anything, is too serious to be joked about?
- If you were to die this evening with no opportunity to communicate with anyone, what would you most regret not having told someone? Why haven’t you told them yet?
- Your house, containing everything you own, catches fire. After saving your loved ones and pets, you have time to safely make a final dash to save any one item. What would it be? Why?
- Of all the people in your family, whose death would you find most disturbing? Why?
- Share a personal problem and ask your partner’s advice on how he or she might handle it. Also, ask your partner to reflect back to you how you seem to be feeling about the problem you have chosen.
Now stare into each others eyes for four minutes. You are done.Permanent link to this article →