Warning: sharks and terrorists

Acording to Russia Today the german news paper Bild, warn us that terrorists can attack people on italian or spanish beaches.
It seems that the terrorist will infiltrate as african salesmen, and put bombs on beaches, or they will shoot people as they did in Tunisia.
I think that the beaches can be defended, Israel has beaches and I didn't heard on any attack on the beach.
Anyway lets suppose the worst happens:
You are naked on the beach and a terrorist is aproaching you with a gun.
What you do?
Run in water and swim away underwater. The bullets lose their energy in a dense liquid as water. See the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzm_yyl13yo

Game of chicken

Angela Merkel Chancellor of Germany bowed to the will Turk president Erdogan and allowed prosecution of comedian Jan Boehmermann for insulting the turkish president.

The Chancellor of Germany swerved aside last year when president Putin invaded Crimeea.

Angela Merkel is constantly avoiding conflict.

The base of the submission is conflict avoidance. The lions listen to the tamer's whip because they avoid conflict not because they are weak and the tamer strong.

We listen to our bosses not because they can beat us but because we want to avoid a conflict that can finish bad for us.

The human race it seems started as a matriarchy, Pharaoh's married their sister because the power was transmitted from mother to daughter. Some populations from remote Tibet and Tuareg from Sahara, are still ruled by matriarchs.

But now the patriarchy in the rule, even in most democratic countries, the politics is a boy's game, in which from time to time a brilliant woman has success.
Why?
The answer is in the Agela Merkel''s actions:
She is superior to Erdogan and Putin as education.( Erdogan was footbal player, Putin was a KGB officer, while she was a physics researcher.)
She is a better ruler than both. Germany didn't had internal unrest till the arrival of Syrian refugees. Turkey has problems with kurds. Russia with every nation that they occupied, mainly with muslims.
She stayed 11 years in power in a democracy where you cannot use force to intimidate opponents as in Russia, or close down newspaper and block youtube as in Turkey.
She is modest and doesn't have dreams of grandeur as Putin the Tzar of Soviet Union and Erdogan the Sultan of the new Turkish empire.
She is a leader of an economic power, in which citizens from both Turkey and Russia want to emigrate.
Yet, she makes concessions to both leaders.
Males play often the game of chicken. One classic case is when 2 men drive one toward each other in a collision course, and the one who swerves is "chicken" and lost status and respect of the spectators.
The best example is in movie "Rebel without a cause" with James Dean.
When 2 men compete the level of testosterone rises and the most rational thinker can be attracted in a deadly game.
Also in this game, being rational doesn't pay off. If you see a drunk men driving the other car, you will swerve, you cannot intimidate an irrational man.
The chicken game is game of guts, the most irrational and determined opponents wins.
Image now a chicken game between a man and a woman.
The man emboldened by testosterone, will forge ahead, while the woman thinking about future deadly consequences will swerve.
Angela Merkel swerved when Putin entered in Crimea because she thought at long term consequences on the German economy.
She swerved again,when Erdogan requested punishment for the German comedian, because she doesn't want to break relationship with ally that can keep millions of Syrians arriving in Germany.

History is a long list of wars, or chicken games between different groups.
Who swerved, or avoided a confrontation lost, not only that battle but also the future battles because they send the message that they do what ever it takes to avoid war, and they attracted other enemies who wanted their land and women.
Because women are tend to avoid conflict the most they swerved most and the matriarchy has lost ground in face of patriarchy.
The chicken game is fatal for both sides, and the only rational choice is to not playing it or both players to swerve.
If the women would ruled the empires from beginning of XX century we would not have WWI, because one of women leader would swerve, in that particular game of chicken.

The terrorism is a game of chicken between state and terrorists.
The terrorists as in a classic game of chicken show that they are irrational, (they behead hostages and destroy monuments) in hope that the government will swerve and make concessions.
The government must show it efficiency and ruthless, in order to discourage terrorist from taking action.

How to gain a game of chicken ?
Don't enter in a game of chicken. The game of chicken is a game of status. Go somewhere where the status is not important.
Make sure that the opponent that doesn't swerves gets a heavy loss if he wins.
For example: the Moldavian light cavalry in the Battle of Grunwald, run away in forest when they met Teutonic knights. The Teutonic knights believing that they won this "chicken game" they follow them in the forest were were butchered by hidden Moldavian forces.

From United States to disunited Europe

I have read a recent article which describes the 6 rebellions, before the American Revolution. One of the main grievances of the rebellious colonists against British government was that it took no actions against of the native Americans who attacked colonies.
So the rebels took the matters in their own hands and massacred every native American that they encounter, including the peaceful native Americans that were baptised and tried to adopt English customs.
Now the people from Western Europe are complaining that the government don't do enough to stop the attacks of the terrorists.
It is the danger that people will take matter in their hands and start to attack Muslims.
The trend is started, in East Germany the refugee from Syria are attacked by extreme right, despite the fact that all the terrorists attacks from London,Madrid,Paris and Bruxelles were done by citizens born and raised. in that countries.
In 1775 a complacent British government and support from France and Spain for rebels, split the 13 colonies  from British Empire.
Now a complacent European Commision and a right wing movement fuelled by Russia can split the European Union.
The cracks appear, an old member of European Union, Britain is asking itself if it worth pursuing the dream of European Union.
The Eastern Europe integrated itself in EU because of Russia scare, the Western powers accepted them because they sought economic expansion, cheap labour,new resources and new markets.
Now the western powers are upset because the ungrateful ragged child who begged to be received in EU, doesn't obey orders and doesn't align to the interests of the West, and doesn't want refugees.
The difference between British Empire and EU is that between the actors it is a dialogue and no one can use force, I think that Europe will be reorganized and strengthen. What we see now is a powershift from its centre in Bruxelles, to Poland in East and to the Britain in West.
The problem will be in Eastern Europe where the only check for corrupt politicians is the Bruxelles.

Trump card 2

I saw a video from Steven Colbert show in which Mr. Colbert  mocks Mitt Romney who attacked Donald Trump and call him a phoney.
Mr. Colbert called anti-democratic  Mitt Romney's request that all the republican voters to vote against Trump.

In Romania democracy was saved when right and left united and voted against the demagogue Vadim Tudor who promised executions on stadiums.

In France the democracy was defended when the left and right "ganged" (to use Steven's Colbert term) against Jean Marie LePen and stopped this xenophobe and extremist to take control of a big European nation and a nuclear power.

Donald Trump can be stopped if his adversaries from left and right are united. If some of the other candidates will give up and only one will remain, maybe Trump will not be to one step far from the White House.
Steven Colbert is leaning towards democrats, and his attacks against a anti-Trump coalition, and the presence of Donald Trump in his shows, make me think to a democrat plot to have Donald Trump as republican candidate.
Mr. Obama said that Trump cannot be president, but once another president said about another psychopath that he cannot win.
It was German president Hindenburg, who declared that Hitler could not manage the ministry of post.

The Trump card 1

When the ex. prime minister Victor Ponta lied us, and some people believed I thought that our democracy is immature only 25 years old and people are still gullible.
But in a democracy of more than 200 years, Donald Trump is lying and he is believed.
I think the television and the podium have special powers.
If you are drinking with your buddies a beer and you say that you don't know anything about KKK, you be kicked out of the bar because you are lying.
But if you are on a podium or in front of a TV camera, you can say the same thing and be believed.
In fact you can say anything and you will be believed.You can say that you are successful businessman.
I think that the podium and the TV camera offer special powers.
Maybe because it is hard to reach in front of a TV camera or on a podium, and if you succeed to reach these places, means that you either smart or either connected, and you get the respect of the people who don't have access. Some private clubs have the same magic.
Or maybe people have low standards and don't care any more about politicians say.

Regarding Trump.
I saw few days ago a clip in which comedian Joey Diaz is accusing Donald Trump having Mafia connections while he was building in New York.

He didn't brought evidence but it is possible. It is possible that Donald Trump has some skeletons in the closet. Why none comes forward with evidence? Why FBI doesn't make an enquiry? Maybe somebody wants that some republican candidates to lose.
Maybe they want that Trump to be a candidate to the presidency.
Any sane person which will have to choose between Trump and other candidate, will choose the other candidate.
If Trumps wins the race to nomination, the republicans will lose the presidency.

Cand educatia si tehnologia nu folosesc la nimic

La spitalul Marie Curie sunt 16 bebelusi bolnavi deoarece au fost hraniti cu sarmale si piftele.Stau si ma intreb, atunci cand oamenii erau anafabeti, cate cazuri erau ?
Cred ca atunci oameii isi foloseau bunul simt si nu dadeau carne procesata la bebelusi.

2016 elections in US: First, do not harm

Bill O'Reilly said at Steven Colbert show that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are the same, they represent the angry Americans.
Maybe they represent the angry Americans but their approach to solving the US problems is different.
Bernie Sanders represents the left political current influenced by what is happening in Europe. It is a current that favour collectivity than individualism.
Donald Trump would represent the individualistic America, in which you have to defend you own interests with little regard to others.

The Republican Party are attacking Bernie Sanders view as unamerican. But why it is colective action seen as unamerican? After all the American Revolution and all the wars, except Vietnam were a collective action.
In nature when a group of social animals are under threat they cooperate, when they are safe, they compete.
US is separated by 2 oceans by the rest of the world, and has 2 weak neighbours and it was seldom under direct threat, and this favoured competition.

In contrast the European countries were always on the threat of their powerful, neighbours, so they had to utilise at maximum they human resources.
The high education was created in Europe by the state to have functionaries,engineers and military personal that were needed.
The free education was used to promote ideas of common origin and common language among different men coming from different provinces.

I think, now US feels more on the pressure from other countries, and it must shift from an individualistic ideology to a more collective one.
After the Word War 2 it was the only industrialized nation that wasn't destroyed, so few years they were number 1 producer of good in the world. But now China is producing 30% of the goods from the world.
The dollar was the worlds preferred currency, till euro appeared.
USA still has a powerful military but it expensive maintain it and more expensive to use it.

The US poor classes feel the pressure of globalisation and emigration.
If some is born in a poor family in US it doesn't has the hopes of an East European, an Indian or of a Chinese to go to college, to work hard and to land in a good job, and to help the family in this way.

He must go to work. But were?
The manufacturing was moved to China. The services were taken by Indians. The agriculture is made by Hispanics.

What a president can do about it?

Let's suppose that a Mexico-USA border wall will be built and all illegal emigrants will be sent home. Who will pick the produce for low wages? None, the fields will be fallow, the farmers bankrupt, and the US will have to import the produce that till now was produced in the country.
Ok, let's suppose that the Americans are ready to pay more for vegetables in order to sustain their economy.
Service industry: how you can stop companies using customer care centers in Indian, when for 1000$ you can hire 3 college graduates? You cut off  the communication with India?
The US government cannot stop companies to bring foreigners to work in US with temporary visa and they want to shut off all the calls with India?

And companies will be more competitive globally because they will use more expensive American workforce while other companies will use cheaper workforce from India?

How can a president stop China from selling cheap goods in US?
They will make an embargo?
China will sell in Mexico and then the merchandise will be sold in US.
And not all Chinese products are bad, if you want a cheap electronic device, China is the place to go.

To find a cure to these problems a collective approach is necessary.
The ancients said about cures: "prima non nocere" - first, do not harm.
I think that Bernie Sanders is less harmful:
Ok, maybe the budget will be in deficit, but some kids will be in college and some people will have health care.
Donald  Trump is more harmful,because he can ruin international relations. Already he has lost some business partners due to his anti-muslim stances.
His anti-hispanic rant will alienate the South America.
And his stance against China will make things worse. Let's suppose that he "convince" Chinese president to step back from Asia, and to accept some unfavourable economic treaties. How the chinese president will save face and make Chinese accept these unfavourable treaties if Trump brags about humiliating China?
If the chinese president had to enforce the treaties it he will lose his function and a more anti-american president will rule China, and maybe the things will escalate to a war in SE Asia.
If it doesn't then he will defy USA and Trump will have to enforce the treaties, using military force if necessary.
His domestic economic plan seems good on paper, but I am afraid of his attitude: America is rule by idiots, they need me to tell them what to do.
All the dictators started like this: Mussolini,Hitler,Stalin,Sadam Hussein and Ceausescu.
The started very energetically, the obtained a short term success,  they gained confidence and they thought that they are smarter than average and started to rule personally, and they lead the country to the disaster.