Tedenski izbor


reading-stairs

Across Eastern Europe, local oligarchs and investment groups — some directly connected to their countries’ political leadership — are snapping up newspapers and other media companies, prompting deep concerns among journalists and others about press freedom.

It is just one of an array of developments across the region raising questions, a quarter century after the fall of the Berlin Wall, about progress toward Western standards of democracy and free speech. As in Russia, there are increasing worries about a potentially dangerous concentration of power in the hands of people who have managed to acquire both wealth and political influence and are increasingly extending their control to media outlets.

Oligarchs of Eastern Europe Scoop Up Stakes in Media Companies – Rick Lyman, The New York Times

***

Povprečna mesečna bruto plača zaposlenih v slovenskih sindikatih je po podatkih državnega statističnega urada avgusta letos obsegala 2.445 evrov. Za primerjavo: povprečna slovenska bruto plača je avgusta letos dosegla 1.517 evrov.

Plačni rekorderji so po podatkih iz baze GVIN v Sindikatu zdravstva in socialnega varstva, ki ga vodi Zvonko Vukadinovič. Lani je povprečna bruto plača v tem sindikatu, ki sicer zaposluje pet ljudi, znašala 5.071 evrov bruto. Med prvo deseterico najbolje plačanih sindikalistov se uvršča tudi Sviz Branimirja Štruklja s povprečno plačo 2.607 evrov bruto. Ob tem povejmo, da več kot 2.600 evrov zasluži le 10 odstotkov najbolje plačanih v državi.

Razkrivamo: sindikalisti med slovenskimi plačnimi rekorderji – Jurij Šimac, Jure Ugovšek, Finance

***

You can’t succeed in politics if you give too much appearance of despising the low arts by which we govern ourselves. Fastidious distaste for the roughness and meanness of political life may work in a seminar room, but it’s fatal on the campaign trail.

This distaste is common among people who’ve enjoyed success outside of politics, in academia or journalism or business, and who go into politics with the reasonable assumption that the prestige they achieved in their former profession should automatically transfer into politics. It doesn’t. People who think they’re entitled to standing—because they are brainy, rich, or famous—almost always lose. They forget you earn your standing, you are not entitled to it. That’s the best thing about democracy, the single reason why we’re not yet entirely governed by wealthy oligarchs.

I may have come into politics with an unacknowledged condescension toward the game and the people who played it, but I left with more respect for politicians than when I went in. The worst of them—the careerists and predators—you find in all professions. The best of them were a credit to democracy. They knew the difference between an adversary and an enemy, knew when to take half a loaf and when to insist on the whole bakery, knew when to trust their own judgment and when to listen to the people.

 I Wish Someone Had Told Me This Before I Became a Politician – Michael Ignatieff, The New Republic

***

Dejstvo je, da je ta družba, ta politična nomenklatura, ta slovenska levičarska falanga spravila SDS na rob propada. Bolj kot s političnimi metodami – legitimnimi ali nelegitimnimi, obsojanja ali skomiganja z rameni vrednimi – pa jim je to uspelo s psihološko vojno proti njihovemu karizmatičnemu voditelju. Pravilno so domnevali, da se mu bo nekega dne utrgalo in da bo pri tem nastal vtis, da ni poti ne nazaj ne naprej.
Odnos politike in javnosti do SDS – in obratno! – je vseh dvajset let nekakšna samouresničujoča se prerokba. Dogaja se to, kar hočejo drugi – oni pa ostajajo na svoji liniji.

Na svoji liniji: edini možni reset SDS – Marko Crnkovič, Požareport

***

Spodaj objavljam, kar sem bil takrat napisal. V skoraj štirih letih se je zgodilo marsikaj. Zadeva Patria je naredila svoje. Marsikaj, kar je SDS v začetku leta 2011 še bila, danes ni več. Marsikaj, kar bi leta 2011 lahko postala, danes ne more postati več.

(…)

SDS nagovarja ljudi, ki niso bili prijatelji prejšnjega režima. Niso se mogli okoriščati z drobnimi privilegiji, s katerimi je prejšnji režim kupoval ljudi. Ker niso bili pri koritu, so bili tudi luzerji tranzicije. Več jih je iz podeželja kot iz mesta, več je revnih kot srednjega sloja, prej so manj kot bolj izobraženi. Nezadovoljni so, razočarani, terjajo popravo krivic. Nekateri nosijo v sebi veliko bolečino in dosti grenkobe. Te znamo nagovoriti.

Ampak jezik, s katerim jih nagovarjamo, prispeva proporcionalni delež tega, kar Drago Jančar v Viziji 20+20 označi kot »Drobnjakarski pragmatizem in provincialna prepirljivost« ki da »blokirata kreativni zanos, jemljeta veter iz jader vsakemu poskusu drznejše plovbe skozi sodobne ekonomske in kulturne tokove, v celotni družbi ustvarjata ozračje negibnosti in lenobnega samozadovoljstva

V SDS smo nezadovoljneži in nergači. Jamramo čez komuniste, bivše komuniste, tranzicijske bogataše in povzpetnike in sploh vse, ki so po krivici (kdo pa tudi po pravici) uspešnejši ali bogatejši od nas. Znamo kritizirati, interpelirati, blokirati, preiskovati, sklicevati izredne seje in referendume, vihteti kazalec in moralno dvigati obrvi ob aferah, od kokaina do bulmastifov. In še vsaka manjša zadeva nam pride prav, vsaj za na spletno stran ali pa tiskovno konferenco. Bolj ko vse to počnemo, bolj smo naši, bolj smo »ta pravi«.

Spomini na neko resetiranje – Žiga Turk, Čas-opis

***

But modernisers have two great faults. The first is to assume that what is modern is inevitable. Soviet Communism was modern once, and part of its power lay in its claim that it was inevitable. It wasn’t, and now it is dead.

The second is to equate modernity with virtue and so to treat its critics as moral inferiors. In Britain, the saga of same-sex marriage is a classic case. Parts of the Western world are heading in that direction: “therefore” it must be welcomed: “therefore” its opponents are bigots: “therefore” they should be virtually disqualified from public office.

All those “therefores” are wrong. A moderate conservative approach would try to balance the age-old, universal view that marriage is between a man and a woman with tolerance of homosexual relationships. This balance was achieved by civil partnerships, but violated by the way that Mr Cameron casually imposed gay marriage. His approach insulted settled beliefs, and therefore wounded him politically more than people like to state directly. In times of wrenching economic change, social conservatism (not to be confused with social authoritarianism) helps reassure people. Instead, we have had doctrinaire, finger-wagging modernism from a party that calls itself Conservative. And, broadly speaking, the better off and better educated have been lecturing the less fortunate. Again, a reason to edge towards Ukip.

Ukip’s Rochester win shows voters no longer trust the main parties – Charles Moore, Daily Telegraph

***

On a une gauche européenne sociale qui préfère parler de politiques publiques (policies) plutôt que de politique (politics). Ce discours-là ne peut pas battre la Manif pour tous. Beaucoup de gens sont heurtés par la société de la rentabilité dans laquelle on vit, une société du chiffre où on évalue les enfants dès 3 ans. Les conservateurs de la nouvelle génération proposent une vision du monde philosophiquement contre-révolutionnaire mais qui répond à ces aspirations-là, en rejetant le productivisme, le consumérisme, et l’économie inféodée à la finance. Ils trouvent écho dans la société. Mais il y a aussi une France qui ne supporte plus de vivre dans la société d’Eric Zemmour. Qui parle pour cette France-là? Qui s’insurge ? Être à gauche, ça ne consiste pas, comme le décrit la Manif pour tous, à être un libéral-libertaire fanatique de GPA et désireux de vendre des bébés sur Internet à des consommateurs américains. Il y a la place pour un mouvement républicain qui s’appuie sur les idéaux égalitaires. La République n’est pas qu’un bataillon de CRS filmé par BFM TV : au-delà du maintien de l’ordre, la République c’est aussi la générosité.

Gaël Brustier: “La Manif pour tous est un combat pour l’hégémonie culturelle” – Mathilde Carton, Les In Rocks

 

***

Across the United States and Europe, sexual partnerships between persons of the same sex are being legally recognized as “marriages,” thus abolishing in law the principle of marriage as a conjugal union and reducing it to nothing other than sexual or romantic companionship or domestic partnership. The unavoidable message is a profoundly false and damaging one: that children do not need a mother and a father in a permanent complementary bond.

To insist on the truth that neither mothers nor fathers are expendable is not to dishonor anyone.

Marriage and the Black Family – Jacqueline C. Rivers, Public Discourse 

***

If your go-to image of a student is someone who’s free-spirited and open-minded, who loves having a pop at orthodoxies, then you urgently need to update your mind’s picture bank. Students are now pretty much the opposite of that. It’s hard to think of any other section of society that has undergone as epic a transformation as students have. From freewheelin’ to ban-happy, from askers of awkward questions to suppressors of offensive speech, in the space of a generation. My showdown with the debate-banning Stepfords at Oxford and the pre-crime promoters at Cambridge echoed other recent run-ins I’ve had with the intolerant students of the 21st century. I’ve been jeered at by students at the University of Cork for criticising gay marriage; cornered and branded a ‘denier’ by students at University College London for suggesting industrial development in Africa should take precedence over combating climate change; lambasted by students at Cambridge (again) for saying it’s bad to boycott Israeli goods. In each case, it wasn’t the fact the students disagreed with me that I found alarming — disagreement is great! — it was that they were so plainly shocked that I could have uttered such things, that I had failed to conform to what they assume to be right, that I had sought to contaminate their campuses and their fragile grey matter with offensive ideas.

Free speech is so last century. Today’s students want the ‘right to be comfortable’ – Brendan O’Neill, The Spectator

 

***

Pornography is an act of disgust, for by visually isolating the sexual organs for the sake of stimulus and libidinous pleasure, it places its viewer in contact with the genitalia considered as objects unto themselves. Once the desire for physical pleasure evoked by the visual stimulus of genitalia is satisfied, the genitalia lose their “erotic light” and reassume their status as organs with functions quite apart from that of sexual gratification. They become disgusting.

Thus the faces of pornography and pornographic advertising are usually sneers, and expressions of lust tend to mimic a barely suppressed nausea. Within the pornographic, Eros never smiles, never laughs, never plays — she is busy holding down and warding off disgust by the force of sexual arousal. The sin of pornography is not that it makes sex too free and casual, but that it makes it something serious — a suppression of disgust that is doomed, at the end of the day, to return to it. The tragedy of pornography is not that it makes men and women lust after each other, but that it makes them disgusted by the images of each other.

Are the Genitals Beautiful? – Marc Barnes, Bad Catholic

***

Molti dei triestini in platea non sono mai entrati nel teatro della Kulturni Dom, sono quelli che, come me, stanno seguendo la scena con un occhio ai sottotitoli. L’effetto è ancora più straniante perché non viene giustificato, lascia credere l’incredibile e, al tempo stesso, mostra l’occasione perduta: quindi avremmo potuto fare così? Parlarci? Dialogare? Trieste, una città in guerra è uno spettacolo concepito in occasione del centenario, ma di fatto, grazie all’intuizione del giovane regista Igor Pison, i due testi di Marko Sosič e Carlo Tolazzi sono stati manipolati e fusi in una pièce sul linguaggio. A Trieste la Grande Guerra è stata solo l’esordio di un conflitto che le due comunità autoctone hanno condotto e, potremmo dire, interpretato per tutto il Novecento. L’italianizzazione coatta degli sloveni, le foibe titine, la divisione in zona A e zona B, le manifestazioni contro il bilinguismo, e sempre l’ombra della cortina di ferro alle spalle del Carso e la possibilità che la paranoia si trasformi in odio personale; possibilità la cui soluzione ottimale è stata una surreale convivenza tra estranei.”

Trieste, città in guerra. Dialogo sul palco tra italiani e sloveni – Mauro Covacich, Corriere della Sera

***

Naj se torej omejim le na nekaj vtisov, kot so se mi porajali ob nedeljskem spremljanju njegove posvetitve v stolnici sv. Nikolaja. Njena najopaznejša značilnost je bila, da so razen v vznesenih obrednih obrazcih skoraj scela umanjkale velike besede. Kako drugače kot pred slabima dvema desetletjema, ko smo bili še mladi petelinčki in smo za velike praznike namesto nevpadljive pridige patra Zoreta na Tromostovju poslušali med oboki iste stolnice, v kateri so ga sedaj posvetili, rafale težkih misli in izjav ter imeli o vsaki izmed njih občutek, da izraža ravno tisto, kar nas trenutno najbolj žuli. Šele čez veliko časa smo se zbudili v bridkem spoznanju, da ni zaradi velikih besed Cerkev iz neke pravljične, v mitične višave povzdignjene preteklosti nič bliže, da pa ji zaradi od besed vse drugačnih dejanj pod nogami spodmika sedanjost.

Nič takega se ni dogajalo v nedeljo. Nabito polna stolnica, zaradi katere sem si sicer čestital, ker sem se zadnji hip odločil zgolj za spremljanje slovesnosti po televiziji, me je skupaj z na prvi pogled nenavadno kombinacijo dvornega baročnega ambienta, baročnih latinskih mašnih napevov in lesene pastirske palice novega nadškofa spomnila predvsem na genialnega Dominika Smoleta. In na zaključek njegove resda kisle pokristjanjevalne drame Krst pri Savici. Tudi za zbrano ljudstvo v Nikolajevi stolnici bi lahko kot za njegove Slovence, ki na koncu napolnijo oder, rekli: Vsak zase stoji težko in trdo, kakor da bi pognal korenine. Če kaj, kaže njih drža pač to, da so tukaj.  Da, namesto vzvišenih fraz je bil v ospredju ta molčeči, preprosti, a v plašč prostora z žlahtnim izročilom oblečeni (še) biti tukaj.

Biti tukaj – Aleš Maver, Časnik

***

Naš kulturni model je v marsičem posnetek tistega iz petdesetih, šestdesetih let 20. stoletja. A odtlej se je ogromno spremenilo, vzniknile so, denimo, nevladne organizacije, ki ne delujejo za zasebno zabavo, saj krepko spreminjajo javni prostor in je tudi njihov obstoj pravzaprav v javnem interesu – pri čemer je tistih 0,5 odstotka dohodnine, s katerimi jih državljani lahko podpremo, za njihovo delovanje odločno premalo. Kosovel je poudaril še, da je v Sloveniji težko govoriti o trgu za kulturo, še zlasti pri vseh zadevah, ki imajo opravka s slovenskim jezikom (knjige ni mogoče prepustiti trgu). A kako iznajti sistem, da bodo uporabniki lahko nagradili tiste izdelke, dogodke, ki so zanje relevantni? Vprašati se moramo, kaj je v javnem interesu, kaj je dovolj dobro, da dobi javna sredstva, je razmišljal Kosovel. Presenetil ga je podatek, da je kar 90 odstotkov vseh sredstev iz razpisov ministrstva za kulturo šlo v Ljubljano. »Razumel bi, če bi bila ta številka 70, toda 90 odstotkov!« je vzkliknil. Kakovost in relevantnost kulturnih dogodkov in vsega, kar se odvija s podporo javnih sredstev, bi morali po njegovem mnenju ocenjevati tudi ljudje, ne le neke strokovne komisije na ministrstvu.

Prispevki k spremembi slovenskega kulturnega modela – Pogledi

***

The Russian state has always done everything it could to conflate love of country with love of government, arguing that one is indistinguishable from the other.

This is why Russians who love their homeland but question their government are once again being cast as ‘enemies,’ ‘traitors,’ and ‘fifth columnists.’ They are hounded and threatened in both public and private. This is why independent media in Russia is not just in a precarious position anymore but has been almost declared anathema. The simple calculation made says that Russia equals the Kremlin. As it permeates most aspects of public life, the state is declared to be the face and soul of the Russian nation.

(…)

And because the Kremlin’s strategic thinking is more short-term than long-term, casting the government as the soul of the nation has become a kind of band-aid solution to this multitude of problems. Sure, things may be hard, the message goes, but the government is the glue that’s holding everything together —criticising us is like criticising the ground beneath your feet. People fall for this argument because they don’t feel they have a choice. The problem of autocracy is that it is like a perpetually collapsing house of cards. It leaves the people living under it few alternatives apart from propping it up, or being buried underneath it.

Kremlinophobia, russophobia, and other states of paranoia – Natalia Antonova, Open Democracy

Advertisements

Prosimo, upoštevajte, da so komentarji namenjeni civizirani izmenjavi mnenj

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s