Cav's Place

The European Parliament supports extending the minimum maternity leave to 20 weeks on full pay and one of the key reasons given in support of this decision is that it would encourage women to have more children and therefore alleviate Europe’s aging population problem. As if the world’s overpopulation problem and Europe’s overconsumption problem would be irrelevant in face of what is essentially just an economic issue generated by the current economic model. But, of course, that actually is what they are thinking, since money always come first for such people, or at least second, after power.
But in fact the problem is not the duration, as that would actually need to be increased much more, but the “full pay” part. Replace that with “no pay” and the effect would be the exact opposite, since people would know that they won’t be able to have any income for a certain amount of time after having a child and therefore they’d need to have a whole lot of money saved in advance. It’d stop being an incentive and become a penalty, which is what any law dealing with those who have children under the current circumstances must be, because we must think of the world before we think of anything dealing strictly with the systems we have decided to base our society on.
Just imagine what message would be sent by a decision to force both parents to stay home with no pay, and not even allowing them to work from home, for the first year after the birth of the child, and then only let one of them get back to work, making the other still stay home and not work for two more years. Then I could go even further and say that one parent should stay at home, though they could also work from home if they so choose, until the child is about ten years old, though that could vary depending on how quickly the child grows up. Of course, they’d get to choose which one stays home and which one works, because it’s discrimination to only have such laws for mothers, but at least one parent should be made to stay home. This is something that should happen anyway, since parents need to be there for their children, so two serious problems would be tackled by passing such a law and making sure that the parents in question will receive no pay during this time.
I really don’t like to use the current economic system to pressure people into doing the right thing because this economic system is something I wish would be completely destroyed and replaced by something very different very soon, but the overpopulation problem really needs to be solved right away, so anything that can be done right now has to be at least tried. And what I suggest could certainly be done right now. Nobody has the courage to support such a measure, of course, but if someone would have the courage then it could be done, because it doesn’t require any other changes.

But there’s no hope of any of that coming from the current European leaders, no matter what kind of leaders we’re talking about. One only needs to remember that Robert Edwards was awarded the 2010 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the development of human in vitro fertilization. They said he deserved the prize because his work has helped “treat” a “medical condition” that affects 10% of couples. It certainly never crossed their minds that the “medical condition” in question is in fact a blessing for the world under the current circumstances and should preferably somehow spread to about 90% of people instead of being “treated” even in the 10% in does affect…
Interestingly, Edwards’ work did make it possible for researchers to eventually create human embryonic stem cells, which are extremely useful in treating a large number of serious illnesses, or at least they could be if this field of research would be properly encouraged and funded. But the prize was specifically awarded only for the basic technology behind IVF, the Nobel Committee making it clear that it makes no statement about human embryonic stem cells. Because, of course, praising a technology that could cure so many people that are currently suffering terribly could be seen as a bad thing, but praising one that adds even more people to an already overpopulated world is a good thing…

That’s how the European mind seems to work. Of course, that’s how the human mind seems to work in most cases, regardless of the location. It tends to turn itself off when it comes to the issues that the gonads have something to say about, and the results of that are seen everywhere around us, in more ways than one. But European leaders do have one little argument that they always throw at the very few who dare to challenge them on this issue: The fertility rate is already very low in Europe, they say. And indeed it is below replacement level in nearly all countries, but still two or three times higher than it should be if we are to reduce the population to sustainable levels, especially considering how much the average European citizen consumes and pollutes, compared to the average Asian or African citizen. So this “low” is far from low enough, governments needing to encourage this trend more and more instead of struggling to come up with ways to reverse it.
Yet it’s still only other governments that take suitable action. You won’t see anything like that in the “democratic” Europe because, of course, here it is a person’s right to breed as much as they want, no matter how much that harms everyone else and the world as a whole in the long run. It doesn’t matter that in this same “democratic” Europe people may not have the right to marry the person they love, for example, or that they may find themselves unable to afford medical care, healthy food or even a roof over their heads. Oh no, those things can be set aside for later, but try to say something about a person’s right to spew forth even more people and everybody wants to have your neck!

Didn’t feel sorry for myself on here since I turned 26, did I? I was actually trying to string a few non-personal posts together before trying something else and darting right back under that rock I’ve been living under for the past two and a half weeks or so, but that doesn’t seem to be working at all. Well, there’s also the fact that I’m struggling to write something else as well, so even when I do manage to write it’s not on here, which spells trouble for this blog in the future. But I’ll just have to figure out a way to keep both going I guess. It’s not like I have anything better to do, after all…
Crawled just a little out from underneath that rock for the past few days because I realized there’s really no chance of getting a reply so there’s nothing to be afraid of in that aspect… Which, of course, means I’m just as afraid of the issue itself. I’d say even more afraid, but that’s impossible.
I’m just dirt under toenails for her and pretty much everyone else. And people keep thinking: “He’s harmless. You can do whatever you want and if you just don’t tell him about it he’ll usually find a way to lie to himself and say it’s not so bad. If not, you can always just vanish, since you don’t give a damn about him anyway. It’ll be all right; once he ends up thinking that you are close he’ll never do anything to hurt you on purpose no matter what you do to him, so it’s not like he’ll come after you with a chainsaw or anything, no matter how insane he may appear.” Unfortunately, they keep being right each and every time. And keep vanishing each and every time. But that’s an older issue…
So I’m sitting here and writing this in the middle of the night, thinking of the same things I’m always thinking of, hurting for the same reasons I’m always hurting, worrying about the same things, fearing the same things… That’s what my pointless life is all about. And nobody understands, or in case someone does they firmly disagree. That’s how it always was and that’s how it’ll likely always be. And it’s ironic how I sometimes still manage to tell people to fight to change the world, so things will no longer be like this and people will no longer be hurt in such a way, when it’s all too obvious that it’s not going to happen no matter what.
But hope’s a very hard thing to kill. It’s not the last to die, despite what the saying says, but it is very hard to kill nevertheless. Especially when someone is keeping it alive artificially simply because they need to keep it alive, even though they know it’s not real, such as I do… So perhaps someone will have real hope and somehow be helped by it to create this change… And perhaps something will eventually be all right… Perhaps…

In their misguided fight against what they (as well as other governments and obviously those in the industry) wrongly call piracy, the French government has yet another plan, and this time they want to make it appear nice: People will be able to buy a card worth €50 for only €25, then use it to make music purchases on certain sites. Which you have to admit does sound pretty nice, doesn’t it?
Well, it’s not! Firstly, it’s not nice because the French government doesn’t create those funds out of thin air, but takes them out of what is available, which means out of the taxes paid by French citizens. Secondly, it’s not nice because it supports the music industry as it currently stands, encouraging it to continue the current model of business instead of pressuring it to change. What’s more, it in fact actually forces those who fight for copyright reform and legalized file-sharing to work against themselves, by financially supporting the very things they actively fight against!

The thing is that the concept itself is not bad. I actually strongly support the idea of such cards being made available in as many places as possible so people will be able to use them to charge on-line accounts and then use those accounts to easily and safely purchase digital goods even if they don’t have or simply don’t want to use credit or even debit cards. And exerting some amount of control over the shops that would accept such cards would help in ensuring potential buyers that they are safe to buy from, but also could and should be used to pressure them and the industry as a whole to change. Of course, in order for those shops to sign up to such a project they’d need some incentives, but those should be of a different nature.
In fact, those incentives are the first thing that’d need to be changed in this plan. Instead of the government matching the amount paid by the customer, financing the shop out of taxpayers’ money, the plan could call for reducing or even eliminating some taxes for the shops that agree to take part in the project and respect the terms and conditions. The amounts would need to be calculated to generate roughly the same increase in net profits as the current plan estimates, assuming those levels are the desired ones, so it won’t really make a difference for the shops or for the government’s coffers, but would make a world of difference when it comes to what the plan implies and how ethical it is. Quite simply, if the government would decide to take less money from such shops instead of paying them, the national budget would be hit in exactly the same way, but none of the other taxpayers’ money would go towards subsidizing this industry.
Yes, that’d mean that a card that costs €25 would also be worth exactly €25, but if the tax cuts would mean that the shops could expect similar profits if they’d halve prices it would be assumed that they’d do just that, because those who won’t do it will likely be kicked off the market by those who will. And there’s really no problem with halving prices for digital goods, especially when it comes to songs, because there are basically no costs associated with selling a copy of a song! (When it comes to software or movies, there are some costs associated with it due to file sizes that can even be 1000 times larger than those of songs, which means that the storage space and bandwidth requirements are also much greater, but even in those cases the costs are only a tiny fraction of the current prices and therefore halving said prices wouldn’t be much of a problem.)
After all, the idea should be to force the industry to change, so the terms and conditions should include such a drastic price reduction and not, as the plan currently specifies, simply set a maximum price that would most likely be in the general vicinity of the current prices. But, far more importantly, the first clause that needs to be included is that no shop could possibly be accepted unless the digital goods it sells include no form of DRM whatsoever and do not require the customer to download, install or run anything other than the program or media file they want in order to be able to obtain and use it! And there could also be a clause about a minimum download speed that needs to be guaranteed for all users so those with fast connections won’t need to wait far longer than they’re used to waiting in order to get the files they purchased.

These would be the changes this industry really needs: Make it easy and affordable for people to legally purchase and use digital goods, show that you are willing to meet them halfway, and plenty of them will do so, at least when it comes to the things that they feel are worth their money. That is, if the industry has any intention of ever again working with its customers and not against them, which really doesn’t seem to be the case in the least. Still, markets and governments should act in such a way as to protect the few companies that may still “see the light” when it comes to this and kick out all the others, not the other way around!
But, of course, it’s the industry that currently has a hold on the governments and makes the most out of the current crisis in order to force them to grant it additional benefits at the expense of everyone else, and this practice isn’t likely to change unless a very large number of people will very visibly and actively, possibly also violently if necessary, rebel against it. However, keep in mind that when you ask someone to change something you should also offer them something better to replace it with… So I for one am going to start working out the details of my own version of such a plan, even if only as a stepping stone towards what I really think should happen.

Today is Blog Action Day and the issue is water. You know, the blood of the Earth, which should be clear but is in fact filled with most of humanity’s waste, spreading our poison far and wide just like any animal’s blood spreads a snake’s venom throughout its own body very quickly after it is bitten. We consider liquid water to be the key prerequisite of life, to the point that astronomers say that a world without it can’t sustain life but one with it almost certainly does, yet we use the water we have as if it were an unlimited supply and soil it as if it were a bottomless pit.
With 80% of the world’s population living in areas where the fresh water supply is not secure, I could write this from a humanitarian perspective. But I won’t, because the problem affects the world and, despite what the vast majority of people think, Earth is far greater and far more important than humanity. After all, even though those most affected by such environmental problems tend to be those least guilty of causing them, we are all guilty of perpetuating a state of affairs that brought us to this point. Each and every one of us most likely actively worsens, or at the very least allows others to worsen, overpopulation, pollution and overconsumption, which are the real causes of all these environmental problems. The other species we share this planet with, however, are not guilty of such crimes against it, yet they are hit by their effects far worse than we are, so they’re the ones I’m more worried about.

With people using more and more water and building systems to make as much of the Earth’s water as possible usable for their own ends, the other species have to make do with less and less. And it’s not just that pretty much all species need to drink, but also that a whole lot of species live in water, including dolphins, which are at least the second most intelligent species on Earth. In fact, speaking of dolphins, October 14th is the International Save Japan Dolphins Day, so I’d like to take the opportunity to draw attention to that problem as well.
Dolphins also show us how much filth we dump into our rivers and oceans, because they’re at the very top of the aquatic food chain and therefore the toxins ingested by pretty much all other aquatic species end up gathering inside their bodies. So we have turned a species that’s very nearly as intelligent as we are into a group of living toxic waste dumps, because we have turned the oceans which are their home into the planet’s waste dump. And that’s not just because of frequent spills and accidents, like the disastrous Deepwater Horizon oil spill or the recent toxic sludge spill in Hungary, but also because of constant runoff that fills our planet’s waters with all sorts of toxins and waste products, such as fertilizers, heavy metals, medicines, plastics or bodily waste, spreading such substances far and wide and reducing the amount of usable water available at the same time as our requirements keep increasing. Judging by this, the dolphins no longer sound like only the second most intelligent species on Earth, because at least they don’t destroy the very thing their survival depends upon…

And then we have climate change, which is also mainly caused by humans and has massive effects on the global water cycle. Normally, a warmer climate would mean more evaporation but also more rainfall, since that water can’t stay up there forever, which would be a situation that would cause significant problems of its own, but things are even worse, as Earth seems to no longer be able to put up with the punishments we subject it to.
Our planet’s pulse is indeed quickening, but not uniformly. Most of this quickening is noticed over oceans, with dry land no longer keeping up and weather patterns changing significantly. As a result, dry areas get even drier and wet areas get even wetter, the living conditions in both deteriorating more and more for humans and other species alike. The only ones who don’t really mind what we’re doing to the world are probably microbes and moss… And maybe also cockroaches…

I wrote about water once before, though there wasn’t much to that post. If you want some real information and statistics, including a calculator to determine how much water you really use, according to your consumption and activities, you could check out waterfootprint.org, among many other sites that provide such information and advice.
Personally, I do try to reduce my water footprint when possible, but I’m still quite unhappy with the results because I can’t seem to manage to do some relatively simple things that could perhaps have a noticeable impact. Admittedly, I don’t have that much of a choice in what I eat or use, since I’m not the one making the purchases, and my footprint is likely relatively low as it is. I used the calculator on waterfootprint.org with some extremely rough estimates of my consumption, since I don’t have a clearer idea, and it gave me a result of 1130 cubic meters per year, which is nearly 10% under the worldwide average of 1243 and a full third under Romania’s average of 1734, not to mention only about 45% of the USA average of 2483. The real results may be a bit higher, around the worldwide average, but those averages have probably increased as well, as they only have full statistics available for the 1997-2001 period.
Either way, my potentially low water footprint is due to not eating much, not using much and in general not doing much of anything, not thanks to good choices regarding my consumption and activities, so that’s what I’d really want to work on… It would be a pretty good sign for the world if everyone would at least try to do the same, but unfortunately people will be people and the vast majority won’t do a good thing unless forced. Which only means we must find a way to force them…

Continued from the previous post…

18. Please state how much confidence you have in the following public institutions:
Note: This is all the available data, specifically stating that the value listed is the sum of those who picked “very much” and “pretty much”. For my own answers, I’ll assume that the other options were “not much” and “very little”.
a) Fire department: 89%
My answer: Pretty much, no reason to say otherwise.
b) Church: 80%
My answer: Not much. I’d say very little in it as an institution, but I’m quite aware that there are some priests who really do a lot for their communities.
c) Military: 73%
My answer: Pretty much, once again no reason to say otherwise.
d) Gendarmerie: 63%
My answer: Not much, not after seeing some of the things that happen during protests or marches that they’re supposed to watch.
e) Mass media (television, radio, newspapers): 61%
My answer: Not much, considering how a few people control most of it.
f) Polling institutes: 57%
My answer: Pretty much. Even though poll results almost always favor the one who ordered the poll, I’m good enough at reading between the lines and figuring out real facts from their data to say they’re quite useful even as things currently stand.
g) Your local mayor’s office: 55%
My answer: Pretty much if you mean Negoita’s, which really is local. Very little if you mean Oprescu’s.
h) Police: 55%
My answer: Not much. I could even say very little, but let’s leave it like that for now.
i) Romanian Intelligence Service: 40%
My answer: Quite frankly, pretty much. Of course they act on Basescu’s orders, but shouldn’t they?
j) People’s Attorney: 34%
My answer: Very little, as I can’t recall ever seeing that institution be of any real use.
k) Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs): 33%
My answer: Pretty much. At least some of them really try, though others are just a front for other operations. You just have to figure out which is which.
l) Unions: 32%
My answer: Very little.
m) Courts of law: 29%
My answer: Not much, unfortunately.
n) Banks: 25%
My answer: Not much. Was tempted to even say very little, but there are a few I’d at least trust with deposits.
o) Presidency: 17%
My answer: Still pretty much, though pretty much everyone wants to have my head when I mention it.
p) Parliament: 14%
My answer: Very little. In fact, none at all.
q) Government: 13%
My answer: Very little. I can trust that many of them will try to do just enough not to get kicked out of office right away, but certainly no more than that.
r) Political parties: 12%
My answer: Very little. Let’s see if Remus’ new party will be any different (Note (May, 2012): They aren’t.), because otherwise… Well, I have a little ranking system, from +5 to -5, and so far it’s more or less like this: PNG and PRM are at -4, PSD at -3, PDL, PNL and UDMR at -2 and the Greens at -1, where they actually were even before Remus left and told how the other leaders saw things, as I still think they’d be a bit better than the rest so I didn’t take them down further. I’m not sure where I should place the new UNPR, but it’s either -2 or -3. Either way, as you can see, all of them are in the negative numbers range…

19. Overall, do you think that Romania is currently heading in a right or wrong direction?
– In a right direction: 12%
– In a wrong direction: 80%
My answer: In a wrong direction, obviously. But have to point out that this is not just the fault of the current PDL-UDMR government, because the plans put forward by PSD and PNL are at least as bad, and usually worse. It’s also certainly not just because of politics, as the vast majority of Romanian people are heading in a very wrong direction. But that usually goes for most people anywhere.

20. Are you a member of an association or organization that does not bring you any income, such as, for example, a professional association, party, union, religious group, sports club, NGO, etc.?
– Yes: 8%
– No: 91%
My answer: No…

21. What kind of association or organization are you a member of?
Note: Percentages are out of the 8% who said they were members.
– Professional association: 26%
– Union: 26%
– Political party: 25%
– Recreational / sports: 9%
– Civic / ideologic: 6%
– Religious: 4%
– Pensioner’s / welfare: 3%
My answer: Not applicable.

22. How important do you believe the mass media is for a democracy?
– Very important: 58%
– Pretty important: 28%
– Not really important: 8%
– Not important at all: 3%
My answer: Very important, obviously. But it all depends on who controls it.

23. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
a) In Romania, the mass media is independent.
– Agree: 62%
– Disagree: 31%
My answer: Disagree, in most cases.
b) In Romania, the mass media serves the people’s interests.
– Agree: 69%
– Disagree: 27%
My answer: Disagree, obviously.

24. Overall, what is your primary source of information?
– Television: 71%
– Internet: 13%
– Written press (newspapers, magazines): 9%
– Radio: 6%
My answer: Internet. I do go through the newspapers dad brings daily, but I rarely get much information from them and usually look up anything that does catch my eye on-line as well anyway. The fact that he usually just gets tabloids certainly doesn’t help.

25. During a normal weekday, how many hours do you spend on average following politics or current events on:
a) Television? 2.7 hours on average.
My answer: No time at all on an average day. I only follow the news on TV when something really important is going on and I believe the coverage is good.
b) Radio? 1.3 hours on average.
My answer: No time at all, period.
c) Written press (newspapers, magazines)? 0.8 hours on average.
My answer: About 15 minutes, I think.
d) Internet? 0.8 hours on average.
My answer: Varies greatly, but actually following such news… Maybe I could say 30 minutes? I read quickly.

26. Can you tell us how much did the Internet help you:
Note: Notice the huge number of people who didn’t answer this, 64-65% on each part of it. Still too few people using the Internet…
a) Keep in touch with people or groups who share your passions or hobbies?
– Very often: 12%
– Pretty often: 10%
– Rarely: 4%
– Very rarely / never: 10%
My answer: Well, since I only keep in touch with people on-line, it has to be very often.
b) Keep in touch with people or groups who share your religious or philosophical beliefs?
– Very often: 6%
– Pretty often: 7%
– Rarely: 5%
– Very rarely / never: 17%
My answer: Since these are not primary criteria, I pretty rarely met such people, but I’ll say pretty often because all those I did meet were met on-line, obviously.
c) Take part in common actions in support of the same viewpoint?
– Very often: 4%
– Pretty often: 6%
– Rarely: 7%
– Very rarely / never: 17%
My answer: Clearly very often, especially if petitions count.
d) Keep in touch with people or groups who share your political opinions?
– Very often: 5%
– Pretty often: 4%
– Rarely: 5%
– Very rarely / never: 22%
My answer: I’ll say pretty often, because I only started to seriously get involved in this before last year’s presidential elections.
e) Get involved in actions organized by the groups or organizations you are a member of?
– Very often: 3%
– Pretty often: 5%
– Rarely: 4%
– Very rarely / never: 24%
My answer: Once again, very often if petitions count.
f) Take part in street protests?
– Very often: 1%
– Pretty often: 2%
– Rarely: 3%
– Very rarely / never: 29%
My answer: Let’s say rarely because I was sort of around at one and meant to take part in another but got cold feet when I got there and saw how few people had gathered…

27. How interested are you in politics, overall?
– Very interested: 11%
– Pretty interested: 27%
– Not really interested: 31%
– Very little / not at all interested: 30%
My answer: Pretty interested, but that’s about things that deal with politics in general, not the mockery that passes for politics here now.

28. How often do you discuss politics and its effects on daily life?
– Daily: 28%
– A few times per week: 31%
– A few times per month: 13%
– Once per month or less: 13%
– Never: 14%
My answer: Considering how often I butt in when Remus or his associates post something, I’ll say daily.

29. How often do you end up thinking that politics is too complicated for you to understand?
– Always: 7%
– Often: 29%
– Sometimes: 34%
– Never: 25%
My answer: Quite frankly, never. Sometimes I understand all too well…

30. How often do you think that politicians think the same as people like you?
– Always: 2%
– Often: 9%
– Sometimes: 37%
– Never: 46%
My answer: Well, sometimes, some of them, those that never end up having a lot of authority. But even they usually quickly get over it, unfortunately.

31. Do you approve of making voting mandatory in Romania?
– Yes: 60%
– No: 36%
My answer: No. Just make it very clear that anyone who doesn’t vote has no right to complain afterwards. But also only allow people to vote if they prove that they’re at least somewhat informed.

32. Do you approve of reducing the voting age, so people will be able to vote at 16?
– Yes: 30%
– No: 65%
My answer: Yes, but keep in mind what I said above. Regardless of age, voting should be a privilege you earn once you prove you are at least somewhat informed regarding the options available and the issues at stake, not a right you automatically have.

33. Do you believe elections in Romania are frauded?
– Yes: 80%
– No: 10%
My answer: Yes, but I think the “voting machines” of PDL and PSD were pretty equal for the past few years, so I don’t really think this affected which of them won, but only made them appear to dominate the political scene more than they really did, since PNL could steal far fewer votes than either of them, UDMR could perhaps only work in the small area it more or less controls and the other parties never had the strength to do anything along these lines.