World today (Ni Srbija ni zemlje u okruženju)

[Meho Krljic]

Često kažemo da je njihova sadašnjost naša budućnost, ali ovde slobodno možemo da kažemo da je naša prošlost njihova sadašnjost:

Peter Oborne je bivši politički komentator poznatog britanskog konzervativnog dnevnika Telegraph. Ovde objašnjava zašto je otišao iz novine. tl;dr - zato što je Telegraph posto Blic... Heh, čak je i sajt na kome Oborne ovo objavljuje neka vrsta britanske, fensije, varijante našeg telepromptera...


Why I have resigned from the Telegraph   

Five years ago I was invited to become the chief political commentator of the Telegraph. It was a job I was very proud to accept. The Telegraph has long been the most important conservative-leaning newspaper in Britain, admired as much for its integrity as for its superb news coverage. When I joined the Telegraph had just broken the MPs' expenses scandal, the most important political scoop of the 21st century.
I was very conscious that I was joining a formidable tradition of political commentary. I spent my summer holiday before taking up my duties as columnist reading the essays of the great Peter Utley, edited by Charles Moore and Simon Heffer, two other masters of the art.
No one has ever expressed quite as well as Utley the quiet decency and pragmatism of British conservatism. The Mail is raucous and populist, while the Times is proud to swing with the wind as the voice of the official class. The Telegraph stood in a different tradition. It is read by the nation as a whole, not just by the City and Westminster. It is confident of its own values. It has long been famous for the accuracy of its news reporting. I imagine its readers to be country solicitors, struggling small businessmen, harassed second secretaries in foreign embassies, schoolteachers, military folk, farmers—decent people with a stake in the country.
My grandfather, Lt Col Tom Oborne DSO, had been a Telegraph reader. He was also a churchwarden and played a role in the Petersfield Conservative Association. He had a special rack on the breakfast table and would read the paper carefully over his bacon and eggs, devoting special attention to the leaders. I often thought about my grandfather when I wrote my Telegraph columns.
'You don't know what you are fucking talking about' Circulation was falling fast when I joined the paper in September 2010, and I suspect this panicked the owners. Waves of sackings started, and the management made it plain that it believed the future of the British press to be digital. Murdoch MacLennan, the chief executive, invited me to lunch at the Goring Hotel near Buckingham Palace, where Telegraph executives like to do their business. I urged him not to take the newspaper itself for granted, pointing out that it still had a very healthy circulation of more than half a million. I added that our readers were loyal, that the paper was still very profitable and that the owners had no right to destroy it.
The sackings continued. A little while later I met Mr MacLennan by chance in the queue of mourners outside Margaret Thatcher's funeral and once again urged him not to take Telegraph readers for granted. He replied: "You don't know what you are fucking talking about."
Events at the Telegraph became more and more dismaying. In January 2014 the editor, Tony Gallagher, was fired. He had been an excellent editor, well respected by staff. Mr Gallagher was replaced by an American called Jason Seiken, who took up a position called 'Head of Content.' In the 81 years between 1923 and 2004 the Telegraph had six editors, all of them towering figures: Arthur Watson, Colin Coote, Maurice Green, Bill Deedes, Max Hastings and Charles Moore. Since the Barclay Brothers purchased the paper 11 years ago there have been roughly six more, though it is hard to be certain since with the arrival of Mr Seiken the title of editor was abolished, then replaced by a Head of Content (Monday to Friday). There were three editors (or Heads of Content) in 2014 alone.
For the last 12 months matters have got much, much worse. The foreign desk—magnificent under the leadership of David Munk and David Wastell—has been decimated. As all reporters are aware, no newspaper can operate without skilled sub-editors. Half of these have been sacked, and the chief sub, Richard Oliver, has left.
Solecisms, unthinkable until very recently, are now commonplace. Recently readers were introduced to someone called the Duke of Wessex. Prince Edward is the Earl of Wessex. There was a front page story about deer-hunting. It was actually about deer-stalking, a completely different activity. Obviously the management don't care about nice distinctions like this. But the readers do, and the Telegraph took great care to get these things right until very recently.
The arrival of Mr Seiken coincided with the arrival of the click culture. Stories seemed no longer judged by their importance, accuracy or appeal to those who actually bought the paper. The more important measure appeared to be the number of online visits. On 22 September Telegraph online ran a story about a woman with three breasts. One despairing executive told me that it was known this was false even before the story was published. I have no doubt it was published in order to generate online traffic, at which it may have succeeded. I am not saying that online traffic is unimportant, but over the long term, however, such episodes inflict incalculable damage on the reputation of the paper.
Open for business? With the collapse in standards has come a most sinister development. It has long been axiomatic in quality British journalism that the advertising department and editorial should be kept rigorously apart. There is a great deal of evidence that, at the Telegraph, this distinction has collapsed.
Late last year I set to work on a story about the international banking giant HSBC. Well-known British Muslims had received letters out of the blue from HSBC informing them that their accounts had been closed. No reason was given, and it was made plain that there was no possibility of appeal. "It's like having your water cut off," one victim told me.
When I submitted it for publication on the Telegraph website, I was at first told there would be no problem. When it was not published I made enquiries. I was fobbed off with excuses, then told there was a legal problem. When I asked the legal department, the lawyers were unaware of any difficulty. When I pushed the point, an executive took me aside and said that "there is a bit of an issue" with HSBC. Eventually I gave up in despair and offered the article to openDemocracy. It can be read here.
I researched the newspaper's coverage of HSBC. I learnt that Harry Wilson, the admirable banking correspondent of the Telegraph, had published an online story about HSBC based on a report from a Hong Kong analyst who had claimed there was a 'black hole' in the HSBC accounts. This story was swiftly removed from the Telegraph website, even though there were no legal problems. When I asked HSBC whether the bank had complained about Wilson's article, or played any role in the decision to remove it, the bank declined to comment. Mr Wilson's contemporaneous tweets referring to the story can be found here. The story itself, however, is no longer available on the website, as anybody trying to follow through the link can discover. Mr Wilson rather bravely raised this issue publicly at the 'town hall meeting' when Jason Seiken introduced himself to staff. He has since left the paper.
Then, on 4 November 2014, a number of papers reported a blow to HSBC profits as the bank set aside more than £1 billion for customer compensation and an investigation into the rigging of currency markets. This story was the city splash in the Times, Guardian and Mail, making a page lead in the Independent. I inspected the Telegraph coverage. It generated five paragraphs in total on page 5 of the business section.
The reporting of HSBC is part of a wider problem. On 10 May last year the Telegraph ran a long feature on Cunard's Queen Mary II liner on the news review page. This episode looked to many like a plug for an advertiser on a page normally dedicated to serious news analysis. I again checked and certainly Telegraph competitors did not view Cunard's liner as a major news story. Cunard is an important Telegraph advertiser.
The paper's comment on last year's protests in Hong Kong was bizarre. One would have expected theTelegraph of all papers to have taken a keen interest and adopted a robust position. Yet (in sharp contrast to competitors like the Times)I could not find a single leader on the subject.
At the start of December the Financial Times, the Times and the Guardian all wrote powerful leaders on the refusal by the Chinese government to allow a committee of British MPs into Hong Kong. The Telegraph remained silent. I can think of few subjects which anger and concern Telegraph readers more.
On 15 September the Telegraph published a commentary by the Chinese ambassador, just before the lucrative China Watch supplement. The headline of the ambassador's article was beyond parody: 'Let's not allow Hong Kong to come between us'. On 17 September there was a four-page fashion pull-out in the middle of the news run, granted more coverage than the Scottish referendum. The Tesco false accounting story on 23 September was covered only in the business section. By contrast it was the splash, inside spread and leader in the Mail. Not that the Telegraph is short of Tesco coverage. Tesco pledging £10m to fight cancer, an inside peak at Tesco's £35m jet and 'Meet the cat that has lived in Tesco for 4 years' were all deemed newsworthy.
There are other very troubling cases, many of them set out in Private Eye, which has been a major source of information for Telegraph journalists wanting to understand what is happening on their paper. There was no avoiding the impression that something had gone awry with the Telegraph's news judgment. At this point I wrote a long letter to Murdoch MacLennan setting out all my concerns about the newspaper, and handing in my notice. I copied this letter to the Telegraph chairman, Aidan Barclay.
I received a cursory response from Mr Barclay. He wrote that he hoped I could resolve my differences with Murdoch MacLennan. I duly went to see the chief executive in mid-December. He was civil, served me tea and asked me to take off my jacket. He said that I was a valued writer, and said that he wanted me to stay.
I expressed all of my concerns about the direction of the paper. I told him that I was not leaving to join another paper. I was resigning as a matter of conscience. Mr MacLennan agreed that advertising was allowed to affect editorial, but was unapologetic, saying that "it was not as bad as all that" and adding that there was a long history of this sort of thing at the Telegraph.
I have since consulted Charles Moore, the last editor of the Telegraph before the Barclays bought the paper in 2004. Mr Moore confessed that the published accounts of Hollinger Inc, then the holding company for the Telegraph, did not receive the scrutiny they deserved. But no newspaper in history has ever given an unfavourable gloss on its owner's accounts. Beyond that, Mr Moore told me, there had been no advertising influence on the paper's news coverage. 
After my meeting with Mr MacLennan I received a letter from the Telegraph saying that the paper had accepted my letter of resignation, but welcomed my offer to work out my six-month notice period. However in mid January I was asked to meet a Telegraph executive, this time over tea at the Goring Hotel. He told me that my weekly column would be discontinued and there had been a "parting of the ways".
He stressed, however, that the Telegraph would continue to honour my contract until it ran out in May. For my part I said that I would leave quietly. I had no desire to damage the newspaper. For all its problems it continues to employ a large number of very fine writers. They have mortgages and families. They are doing a fine job in very trying circumstances. I prepared myself mentally for the alluring prospect of several months paid gardening leave.
Story, what story? That was how matters stood when, on Monday of last week, BBC Panorama ran its story about HSBC and its Swiss banking arm, alleging a wide-scale tax evasion scheme, while the Guardian and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists published their 'HSBC files'. All newspapers realised at once that this was a major event. The FT splashed on it for two days in a row, while the Times and the Mail gave it solid coverage spread over several pages.
You needed a microscope to find the Telegraph coverage: nothing on Monday, six slim paragraphs at the bottom left of page two on Tuesday, seven paragraphs deep in the business pages on Wednesday. The Telegraph's reporting only looked up when the story turned into claims that there might be questions about the tax affairs of people connected to the Labour party.
After a lot of agony I have come to the conclusion that I have a duty to make all this public. There are two powerful reasons. The first concerns the future of the Telegraph under the Barclay Brothers. It might sound a pompous thing to say, but I believe the newspaper is a significant part of Britain's civic architecture. It is the most important public voice of civilised, sceptical conservatism.
Telegraph readers are intelligent, sensible, well-informed people. They buy the newspaper because they feel that they can trust it. If advertising priorities are allowed to determine editorial judgments, how can readers continue to feel this trust? The Telegraph's recent coverage of HSBC amounts to a form of fraud on its readers. It has been placing what it perceives to be the interests of a major international bank above its duty to bring the news to Telegraph readers. There is only one word to describe this situation: terrible. Imagine if the BBC—so often the object of Telegraph attack—had conducted itself in this way. The Telegraph would have been contemptuous. It would have insisted that heads should roll, and rightly so.
This brings me to a second and even more important point that bears not just on the fate of one newspaper but on public life as a whole. A free press is essential to a healthy democracy. There is a purpose to journalism, and it is not just to entertain. It is not to pander to political power, big corporations and rich men. Newspapers have what amounts in the end to a constitutional duty to tell their readers the truth.
It is not only the Telegraph that is at fault here. The past few years have seen the rise of shadowy executives who determine what truths can and what truths can't be conveyed across the mainstream media. The criminality of News International newspapers during the phone hacking years was a particularly grotesque example of this wholly malign phenomenon. All the newspaper groups, bar the magnificent exception of the Guardian, maintained a culture of omerta around phone-hacking, even if (like the Telegraph) they had not themselves been involved. One of the consequences of this conspiracy of silence was the appointment of Andy Coulson, who has since been jailed and now faces further charges of perjury, as director of communications in 10 Downing Street.
Urgent questions to answer Last week I made another discovery. Three years ago the Telegraph investigations team—the same lot who carried out the superb MPs' expenses investigation—received a tip off about accounts held with HSBC in Jersey. Essentially this investigation was similar to the Panorama investigation into the Swiss banking arm of HSBC. After three months research the Telegraph resolved to publish. Six articles on this subject can now be found online, between 8 and 15 November 2012, although three are not available to view.
Thereafter no fresh reports appeared. Reporters were ordered to destroy all emails, reports and documents related to the HSBC investigation. I have now learnt, in a remarkable departure from normal practice, that at this stage lawyers for the Barclay brothers became closely involved. When I asked the Telegraph why the Barclay brothers were involved, it declined to comment.
This was the pivotal moment. From the start of 2013 onwards stories critical of HSBC were discouraged. HSBC suspended its advertising with the Telegraph. Its account, I have been told by an extremely well informed insider, was extremely valuable. HSBC, as one former Telegraph executive told me, is "the advertiser you literally cannot afford to offend". HSBC today refused to comment when I asked whether the bank's decision to stop advertising with the Telegraph was connected in any way with the paper's investigation into the Jersey accounts.
Winning back the HSBC advertising account became an urgent priority. It was eventually restored after approximately 12 months. Executives say that Murdoch MacLennan was determined not to allow any criticism of the international bank. "He would express concern about headlines even on minor stories," says one former Telegraph journalist. "Anything that mentioned money-laundering was just banned, even though the bank was on a final warning from the US authorities. This interference was happening on an industrial scale.
"An editorial operation that is clearly influenced by advertising is classic appeasement. Once a very powerful body know they can exert influence they know they can come back and threaten you. It totally changes the relationship you have with them. You know that even if you are robust you won't be supported and will be undermined."
When I sent detailed questions to the Telegraph this afternoon about its connections with advertisers, the paper gave the following response. "Your questions are full of inaccuracies, and we do not therefore intend to respond to them. More generally, like any other business, we never comment on individual commercial relationships, but our policy is absolutely clear. We aim to provide all our commercial partners with a range of advertising solutions, but the distinction between advertising and our award-winning editorial operation has always been fundamental to our business. We utterly refute any allegation to the contrary."
The evidence suggests otherwise, and the consequences of the Telegraph's recent soft coverage of HSBC may have been profound. Would Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs have been much more energetic in its own recent investigations into wide-scale tax avoidance, had the Telegraph continued to hold HSBC to account after its 2012 investigation? There are great issues here. They go to the heart of our democracy, and can no longer be ignored.

[Meho Krljic]

Živimo u svetu nasilja: u Seulu američki ambasador posječen po licu nožem a u istočnoj Ukrajini "ruski vojnici ginu u velikom broju".

[Anomander Rejk]

Kina ne haje za američke pritiske:
http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2015&mm=03&dd=08&nav_category=78&nav_id=965996

[дејан]

2nd Largest Nationality Living In Each European Country

The map above shows the flag of the 2nd largest nationality, by country of birth, living in each European country. Thus, it may include citizens and those who have moved temporarily for work. Nevertheless, there are many surprises, such as:

Ireland is no longer the largest source of foreign born residents to the UK. Since 2011, they've dropped to 4th, behind India, Poland and Pakistan.
Neither the Cezch Republic nor Slovakia are each other's second largest nationality, despite both being successor states to Czechoslovakia.
Despite both being comprised primarily of ethnic Albanians, neither Kosovo nor Albania are each other's second largest national group.
Poles make up the 2nd largest group in Ireland, Iceland, Norway and Lithuania.
Turks make up the 2nd largest group in not only Germany, but also the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria and Bulgaria.
Although you can barely see it on the map Portugal born residents are the 2nd largest group in Luxembourg, while Brazilians make up the 2nd largest group in Portugal.
The impact of the former USSR can still be fairly clearly seen, given that Russians make up the 2nd largest group in Estonia, Latvia, Belarus and Ukraine. However, in Russia itself Ukrainians are the 2nd largest group.
Similarly Serbs make the 2nd largest group in 4 of the 7 successor states to Yugoslavia (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro) yet Hungarians are the 2nd largest group in Serbia.
Finally, the 2nd largest group in Spain, Italy and Hungary are Romanians not Chadians.
Controversially, the map author decided to include Kurdistan as a separate nation. And states that: "I did have a dilemma with Turkey because although Kurdistan isn't a country, Kurds (who don't consider themselves to be Turkish) are by far the 2nd most popular, and it would be misleading to suggest otherwise."

Finally, because I know somebody is going to mention it, the United kingdom is treated as single country in the map above in keeping with the Countries in the International Organization for Standardization. None of the the 4 constituent countries of the UK is a Sovereign state and thus is not be listed separately.

For more you should also have a look at the Most Popular Migrant Destinations By Country map.

Notice any other interesting, surprising or mistaken things in the map above?

[Ghoul]

Someone On a British Airways Plane Took a Shit So Bad That It Had to Turn Around and Come Back Again
March 16, 2015
Joel Golby 
by Joel Golby
Staff Writer
  Share
  Tweet
No suggestion that this particular airplane is currently weighed down with shit. It's just a photo of an airplane. Photo via Aero Icarus.

This article originally appeared on VICE UK.

A British Airways flight was forced to turn around and land over the weekend because somebody did a shit so bad the plane was essentially rendered useless. Imagine living your life in the knowledge that you once turded so appallingly that a 747-400 had to turn around and land. Your liquid shit bought a £360-million ($533-million) airplane juddering out of the sky. Imagine looking your loved ones in the face after that. Imagine hugging your mom. You couldn't. Your asshole is essentially a terrorist.

Anyway, the BA flight from Heathrow to Dubai on Saturday had to turn around and flop back down again at Heathrow just 30 minutes into the seven-hour flight because somebody did a toilet crime.

Hertsmere Tory councillor Abhishek Sachdev—who has clearly not heard the "he who smelt it, dealt it" directive—happened to be on the flight, and, as well as tweeting his response ("Insane! Our BA flight to Dubai returned back to Heathrow because of a smelly poo in the toilet! 15hrs until next flight... #britishairways") also spoke to the Daily Mail about the ordeal. Again: imagine making a smell so bad a Tory councillor talks to a national paper about it.

"The pilot made an announcement requesting senior cabin crew, and we knew something was a bit odd," he said. "About 10 minutes later he said, 'You may have noticed there's a quite pungent smell coming from one of the toilets.'

"He said it was liquid fecal excrement. Those are the words he used."

Two things:

i. The informed knowledge of the liquid state of the turd in question sort of suggests the pilot actually went and looked at the mess himself, and, in which case, did he hold his special pilot's hat over his nose?

ii. This question always comes up when someone does a shit so appalling that it might as well not be human. We've all seen a bad shit. We've all been to a pub. We've all traveled on a bus at least once in our lives. Everybody in Britain, at some point, has had to piss at a train station. We've all lifted a toilet seat and, like Pandora's Box, stared into the abyss-like doom of someone else's medically inadvisable droppings. But the question is this: how, and more specifically why, is it possible to shit up and around the rim of a toilet and, side-question, how does one shit up a wall?

Ask me to shit up a wall and I would not know where to start. If I was trying, I do not think I could shit along a vertical pane. But there are people out there who seem to manage it on the regular. Do they go to the doctor immediately after? When you "deposit" something so forcefully that it ricochets right back out again, do you go straight to A&E and say, like, "Hello, doctor, something is very wrong with me," or do you, like, try and walk it off? Also, why does this always happen in public toilets?

Anyway, the flight was rescheduled for the next day, and British Airways made a statement saying, "We're very sorry for the discomfort to our customers," before providing everyone on the flight—including the rogue shitter, presumably, whoever they may be—with overnight hotel accommodation.

Safe travels, rogue shitter. Peace be with your lower intestine.

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/someone-did-a-shit-so-bad-a-british-airways-flight-had-to-turn-around-and-land-475

[Albedo 0]

Samo jedan od deset ljudi koji žive u zemljama tranzicije iskusio je uspešnu tranziciju u kapitalizam i više demokratije

http://xxxps.tumblr.com/post/112945851983/kome-je-pao-zid-bilans-tranzicije-u-kapitalizam

[Mica Milovanovic]

Volim te nepristrasne i pouzdane podatke po kojima su Bugari dobro prošli u tranziciji...

[Meho Krljic]

Da, ne pominjemo da je Albanija jedna od najuspešnijih 

[Mica Milovanovic]

Pa, da ti kažem, oni i nisu tako loše prošli u tranziciji... Kod njih se stanje očigledno popravlja. Ali, Bugari... 

[Meho Krljic]

Dobro, ali koliko vidim, Bugari se vode kao uspešni samo po rastu privrede ali ostali indikatori ih nešto ne farbaju u ružičasto... Zanimljivo je ovo i poučno.

[Mica Milovanovic]

Rast privrede je potpuno nepouzdan pokazatelj stanja u državi i uspešnosti tranzicije.
Pogledaj paralelno sa tim stanje zaduženosti zemalja, pa ćeš videti koliko je uspešna tranzicija.

[Meho Krljic]

Upravo to linkovani tekst i govori!!!!!

[Mica Milovanovic]

Ko još čita tekstove, ja gledam slike...

[Albedo 0]

visokoobdareno!

[Meho Krljic]

Evo, da ne ispadne Boris Begović najpametniji:


Thomas Piketty, Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz: The Genius of Economics

[mac]

Ko je ovde crnio Krugmana, pa on ispade ovde gotivan lik.

[Meho Krljic]

Jedino mi pada na pamet Boris, on je držao tvrdu antikejnzijansku poziciju. Ostali su mahom antifridmenovci, bar ovi koji se bakću da pričaju oko ekonomije...

[scallop]

Voleo bih da nam Boris i slični objasne zašto je svet sada u haosu. Neoliberalizam i globalizam nam neumitno dolaze glave. Svet se pretvorio u zelenašku pijacu za one koji ne rade ništa.

[Meho Krljic]

Ne bih da pričam u Borisovo ime, ali videvši šta pričaju neki javniji zastupnici neoliberalizma - B. Begović included - problem je u prevelikoj državnoj regulaciji i dalje.  Američki libertarijanci vrište da ih savezna država guši iako su uspeli da pola Evrope nateraju u napuštanje koncepta države blagostanja i sve što uz to sledi.

[scallop]

Država ili reguliše ili ne postoji. O kompanijskom ustrojstvu svetova i kompanijskim vojskama pisao sam pre više od dvadeset godina. I tada mi je bilo jasno kuda ide svet gde država postane izlišna i smetnja. Ugodnim se čini osećanje da te niko ne sputava, ali nesputani su opasniji. U državi nešto promeniš ako ne ide, posebno ljude na vlasti, ali kako promeniti one koji su zajašili svet i veruju da postoji samo zbog njih. Država postoji radi ljudi u njima, a ne radi uskog finansijskog sloja koji uživa u svojoj moći, a jedino mu smeta što postoji populacija koja mora nešto i da jede. Ako su svi na svetu nekome dužni, ko su ti kojima se duguje?

[ALEKSIJE D.]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/170301921/Uvod-u-Pravo-Radomir-Lukic-5-Knjiga-za-studente-pravnog-fakulteta#scribd
Na žalost definicija je na str. 9.

[varvarin]

Čudno, nije bio islamista...

http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2015&mm=03&dd=26&nav_category=78&nav_id=973184

"Kopilot namerno oborio avion"

Kopilot na letu "Džermanvingsa" 4U 9525 namerno je oborio letelicu, rekao je francuski tužilac, prenose svetski mediji...

[Ghoul]

objavljena fotka kopileta oborenog nemačkog aviona:

[džin tonik]

before ili after?

[tomat]

imao čovek strabizam, nije mogao lepo da oceni kuda leti, odmah ga napali da je namerno.

[džin tonik]

on a serious note, mnogi se vec naginju kroz prozor u stilu vidi kretena sta ucini, zanemarujuci cinjenicu kako mnogi rade poslove koji prelaze njihove sposobnosti, sve u sluzbi ustede i vece konkurentnosti. naprosto je porazavajuce kako se razvili profil i struktura zaposlenih u svim sektorima u zadnja dva desetljeca, opet topic trzista rada.
nije covjek kreten, vec zrtva.

[džin tonik]

s obzirom da se radi o njemackoj, docaram na jednom mnogo upadljivijem primjeru: posta (gule uzivaj)

prije dva desetljeca posta je imala svoje urede, visoko kvalificirano, solidno situirano osoblje, zadovoljne i stalozene ljude i to kao drzavne sluzbenike uz sve pogodnosti. postar je raznosio najvise 20% danasnjeg pensuma. pjeske, ustaljena ruta. posveceni svojoj kljucnoj kompetenciji.

danas je, nakon privatizacije, gro postanskih ureda u sklopu raznih kioska, kafica, prodavaonica kojestarije i u rukama nakon tromjesecnog tecaja osposobljenih nisko-kvalificiranih jeftinih suradnika. toliko ocajno nestrucnih da ne postoji tematika i problem koji ce vas zaobici ako trazite nesto drugo osim obicne markice za standardno pismo.
kod mene je ured u sklopu radnje iskrenog hipija, koji meditira i fuckara nekakve pjesmice, a okupljenu djecurliju ostavlja za pultom da posluzuje stranke. plus, jos su integrirali i bankarske usluge. posta = banka.
postari sada imaju ogroman pensum, razvoze biciklima, a kad ugledate bilo kojeg, uhvati vas jeza. ne pretjerujem, sposobnost citanja adrese vrh im je dometa, u idealnom slucaju.

to slobodno preslikajte i na germanwings, t.j. onu pozadinu istog, koju ne vidite na salteru.

[džin tonik]

objavljena fotka kopileta oborenog nemačkog aviona:

ni u kom slucaju to kako ga prozivas. bi li tebi prijalo da te proglasim kopiletom nakon sto ti zivotinja tutne posao koji ti laska egu, naustrb urednih uvjeta, a nisi mu dorastao?

[Albedo 0]

ti to ozbiljno za germanske pošte? Izgleda da ni Njemci nisu ono što su nekoć bili

[džin tonik]

ne samo za poste, za sve, i ovo nije iznimka, pravilo bato.

[eddie coyle]

http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2015&mm=03&dd=31&nav_category=78&nav_id=975075

[varvarin]

Ovi Jevreji baš nezgodni:

http://www.b92.net/zivot/vesti.php?yyyy=2015&mm=04&dd=07&nav_id=977812

Pronađena Isusova grobnica?
"Geolog iz Jerusalima tvrdi da je pronašao "praktično nedvosmislene dokaze" koji rešavaju dugogodišnju kontroverzu oko mesta na kome se nalazila grobnica Isusa Hrista....Ovo mesto je predmet kontroverzi još od kada je 2007. godine Džejms Kameron snimio dokumentarac "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" u kom je navedeno da su se baš u toj grobnici nalazili kovčezi-kostrucnice sa natpisima "Isus sin Josifov", "Marija" i drugim imenima iz Novog zaveta.Ti natpisi, kao i približni datumi sahrane, izazvali su velike kontroverze, jer bi u tom slučaju značilo da se zapravo vaskrsenje nikada nije desilo. Međutim, kontroverze iz dokumentarca su bile mahom pobijene tvrdnjom da su imena koja se nalaze na natpisima kovčega bila uobičajena za to vreme..."

[Meho Krljic]

Dokazana zločinačka politika Marija Suareza. Izgleda da više ni na Srbe čovek ne može javno da šilji kurac a da mu se neko ne nakači na vrat sa optužbama za rasizam:

Suarez risks hot water over Serbian slur

Madrid (AFP) - Atletico Madrid's Mario Suarez and Miranda could find themselves in hot water after seemingly making an offensive remarks against Serbian referee Milorad Mazic.

The 28-year-old picked up a booking and will miss next week's second leg through suspension.
But he risks much worse than that after claiming UEFA should not have put a Serbian in charge of such an important match.
"The referee was very bad. You can't have a Serbian in charge of a Champions League quarter-final, that isn't taking it seriously enough," fumed Suarez.
"I hope that in the second leg the referee will be better with more fluid and normal decisions.


"The referee wasn't up to it, but they made mistakes as we do.
"The game was very evenly balanced, we know each other so well and the tie is still open."
Suarez quickly tried to backtrack on social media, taking to Twitter to explain his comments.
"I'd like to apologise if anyone was offended by my words after the match, that wasn't my intention," he said.
"I wanted to say that in a match of this magnitude you should designate a referee from a major league."


However, he was backed up by Brazilian international Miranda.
"I am not going to speak about him (the referee), but I think a referee from a minor league shouldn't take charge of these type of games."
Real Madrid's Dani Carvajal also faces a UEFA sanction after punching Mario Mandzukic and allegedly biting the Croatian as they clashed in the second-half.
"I see that after the game I have been accused of biting a rival player, I want to state clearly that I haven't bitten anyone, nor did I try to," Carvajal posted on Twitter.
On the field Real dominated the first half at the Vicente Calderon stadium but couldn't find a way past on-form Atletico goalkeeper Jan Oblak.

[Meho Krljic]

Za slučaj da nam nije dosta širenja straha, panike, nepoverenja i mržnje, etnički i religiozni sukobi se, eto, dešavaju i na izbegličkim plovilima:

Police: Muslims threw Christians overboard during Med voyage

[Ugly MF]

ja se negde zajebavo da sve to sto prelazi u EU odavde preko nas iz svih Muslimanistanova,ide strateski da zauzima busije,sve goli 'sliperselsovi' ,bre! nema tu da neki nije dzihadist ISIS-a...
aman, ovde kod mene Zajecar, granicni prelaz, svaki dan puni taksiji piche za BG a Tutin pa dalje...
A sve mlado zdravo, pravo musko, sposobno za rat, nigdje zena djece i staraca.Sjebala se EU uskoro, zivi bili.

Mogu ja da sam teoreticar kolko ocete, al glup nisam, evo prvi Meho nek kaze ima li muslimana da ne ceka svog Mahdija? Ili da nije dzihadista? To odma nije musliman, koj vam je djavo ljudi?

Od svih na svetu najbolji su oni Muslimani sto su sada Boshnjaci...slanina, rakija i nikad culi za dzihad... takav bre svaki musliman treba biti!

[ALEKSIJE D.]

Dokle ima da se zamajavate tim glupstima? Zna se kako je svet nasao uz trenutku i star je svega oko 6000 godina. Ima skraćeno ovde:
http://www.teorijaevolucije.com/ca2.html
Sve arheološke iskopine su pogrešno procenjene ili falsifikovane.
http://misterije.tk/arheoloska-zataskavanja-kontrola-istorije/
Znajući to, normalno je da se lažni dokazi uništavaju po Africi od ovih novih islamističkih revolucionara.
Šta tu ima komplikovano? Lako je falsifikovati kosti dinosaursa. U razvijenim zemljama se to uči, decu u obdaništu obučavaju da je to zezanje i tome ne treba verovati.
http://forum.burek.com/dinosaurus-za-po-kuci-t24393.imode.html

[scallop]

Eh, moj Aleksije. Kad bi se i nauka "demokratizovala", onda bi svaka budala mogla da postavlja pitanja i sve nauke ovoga sveta ne bi ništa drugo radile nego tragale za dokazima da je postavljač pitanja negde skrenuo. Tako i naši Srbi datiraju 7500. godina istorije, pa čik im dokaži da nisu u pravu. To ne znači da su sve naučne tvrdnje ovoga sveta na sigurnim nogama, ali i nenauka mora da ima čvrste argumente.

[ALEKSIJE D.]

Svi vi grešite.
Istorija Srbije počinje kada je Vuki postao premijer.
Do tada je bila praistorija...

[Albedo 0]

Dinosaurusi su hodali zemljom do prije par hiljada godina, jer kako su uopšte nastale priče o zmajevima!

[scallop]

Evo ti ga još jedan naivac.

[Albedo 0]

išao Marko Kraljević džadom i naišao na brontosaurusa i pokupio ga plugom, izorao s drumom, i poslije pričao kakvo je čudovište savladao. Stvari su jednostavne, ko ima oči neka vidi!

[ALEKSIJE D.]

Bta j e upravu. Dinosaurisi su izmišljitona. Isto tako je izmišljotina da se zemlja okreće oko sunca i da je čovek stigao na Mesec. Mi živimo na ravnoj plogči, iznad nas je pocepana zavesa i od tih rupa mislimo kako su zvezde, Isus nije bio plav, nego zelen i Obama je belac.
Uz sve to celi svet oko nas se pati u nekoj izmišljenoj ekonomskoj krizi koju su osmislili masoni, iluminati, klub 300, a na grudobanu svetskih gluposti stoje naši akademici i nejakim plućima sprečavju prodor klerikarnih ideja u našu napaćenu zemlju, koja preko klizišta pokazuje tendenciju sa sama od sebe pobegne i ostavi živalj ovdašnji u bestežinskom stanju, da lebdi kao jogiji iz zemalja u okruženju.
To je sve već predvidelo udruženje jogi letača i mi treba da im pružimo bezrezevnu podršku.
Te stare, nazadne ideje, retrogradne komunističko - boljševičke naučne lagarije o nastanku sveta i evoluciji odavno su pale u vodu pred dokazima Fra Joalima, Dom Mrđe, ex ministarke prosvete iz vremena Koštunice, otkrićima Baptističkog univerziteta u Bogoti...
Što se malko ne obrazujete?

[scallop]

Tupavi smo i mislimo da je čitanje put do otkrovenja. A jednostavnije je nalupetati se, to je demokratsko pravo. Time se pravilo da svaka budala ima svoje veselje dovodi do kulminacije. Logika je precenjena, a dokazi su mlaćenje prazne slame. Dovoljni su brzi prsti, a još brže mišljenje je besprekorna dominanta. Kao što retardi postaju najangažovanija radna snaga, tako i isprazno tipkanje po tastaturi vodi ka glamoroznoj budućnosti.

[Albedo 0]

i još ubije brontosaurusa, koji je biljojed, a od Muse Kesedžije bježao glavom bez obzira

[ALEKSIJE D.]

Ko je još od čitanja fajdu video? Našem čoveku dovoljno da zakrsti ... I te knjige, idi molim te. lagarije. Sve neke vantazije: te akrepi, te vanzemaljci, te nije ovaj svet ovaj, nego kobajagi dok je stavrni u nekom snu, te skakuću kroz vreme neke karakonđule, letu leteći tanjiri i još to neko čita. Čita dokon svet koji se i sam bavi pisanjem gledajući na TV kako neki tamo mlate pare te misle gde će u ovom našem krezavom i guravom narodu naći budalu kojoj će izbiti kaku paru što je odvojio za dva jajeta i po kile leba...
Sve je to samo kobajagi.
U zemljama van okruženja rade ljudi. kupuju avtomobile, avijone, letu na more i zapiraju se, stanuju u luksuzne kuće gde ne kukuriče petao i ne seri svrake po pragu, sedne na ugrejanu klozet šolju što se sama pere. Tamo, u tom svetu van okruženja, svaki dan je Diznilend, svaki dan šećerna vuna i soda voda, da citiram nekog pametnijeg.
E, ima i to da bidne u Bambilend... ovaj... Diznilendu. Pa će okruženje da dođe i troši pare na naše maloletne ajfonice i ferarice. Ček samo...
Za to vreme iskopavajate mamute oko Požarevaca i nadajte se kako niko neće provaliti da su od drveta...

[Meho Krljic]

Čudi me da Politika nije već prevela i publikovala ovaj tekst iz Telegrapha:

The 900 refugees drowned in the Mediterranean were killed by British government policy

We were warned. We knew the dangers. We let 'migrants' drown




There's something we need to be clear on. The death of 900 refugees – we have to use that blanket term because we don't know the names of the dead, and I suspect we never will – in the Mediterranean over the weekend was not a "tragedy". The word tragedy implies an accidental calamity. An unfortunate confluence of space and time.  There was nothing accidental about the deaths of The 900. They were killed as a direct – and deliberate – act of government policy. EU policy. And British government policy.  In October of last year I wrote about how ministers had adopted a new strategy for dealing with the wave of children, women and men fleeing the charnel houses of Syria and Libya. It involved drowning them.



In the House of Lords, Foreign Office minister Lady Anelay announced: "We do not support planned search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean". The reason ministers no longer supported planned search and rescue operations was, she said, because the government believed they created "an unintended 'pull factor', encouraging more migrants to attempt the dangerous sea crossing and thereby leading to more tragic and unnecessary deaths".
To her credit, Lady Anelay was clear and unambiguous about the rationale behind the decision. People currently believed that if they attempted to reach sanctuary by sea, there was a chance they would be rescued. If the rescue cover was withdrawn, they would not be rescued. They would die. And once enough of them died, then word would finally get back to Syria and Libya that there was, in fact, no prospect of rescue. At which point people would stop trying to make that perilous sea journey. Drown a migrant to save a migrant.



Well, the first part of Lady Anelay's policy is working. Children, women and men are currently drowning in their thousands. It's not yet clear how many more will have to drown before word finally filters down the people smuggling chain. Or if it ever will. But I trust Lady Anelay will keep Drown A Migrant To Save A Migrant under close review.
Sorry, that's cheap. It's not lady Anelay's policy. She's just a junior minister. At the end of the day it's David Cameron's policy. He'll be out on the campaign trail today. I wonder if he'll be given a running tally of the dead.
• The EU migrant crisis explained in 90 seconds
Nick Clegg will be out on the campaign trail too. Since the election started he's been keen to point out those "red line" policy areas where the Lib Dems have held their coalition colleagues to account.
But the policy of drowning migrants to save migrants doesn't appear to have been one of them. In the New Statesman Tim Farron, the Lib Dems' foreign and commonwealth spokesman, wrote how the "tragic deaths" over the weekend were "a wake up call". "We can't just brush aside allegations that smuggling gangs were exploiting search and rescue operations because they knew that people would be saved ... But we also can't turn our backs on the people caught up in the midst of wars in Syria, in Libya, in human rights abuses in Eritrea".
Very eloquent. But Tim Farron and his colleagues did turn their backs on those people. Which is why they are now all dead.
Someone else who's been speaking out about "the tragedy" is Ed Miliband. Taking a break from having his photo taken with a Chester hen party, he tweeted: "Those dying in the Mediterranean are some of the poorest men, women and children in the world. We must act to stop these awful scenes. We are seeing tragic scenes for the second time in days. European leaders must work together to stop more of these drownings taking place".



Again, very poignant and eloquent. But perhaps Ed Miliband could pause to ask himself how a policy of drowning migrants has become politically acceptable in Britain in 2015. Maybe he could have thought about it straight after unveiling what the Guardian described as "a strikingly hard stance on immigration in a key speech to supporters in Heswall, Merseyside.
As part of a five-point plan, he said it was paramount that migrants arriving in Britain should speak English. The Labour leader went further and said his party, if brought to power, would legislate to give NHS regulators the power to ensure medical staff speak English. Miliband also unveiled a crackdown on exploitation of migrant workers – not entirely born out of empathy for the plight of migrants but also to protect the negative impact such abuse has on pushing down British workers' wages".
Or perhaps he could have thought about it when he saw the Labour Party were proudly selling "Controls on Immigration" mugs for £5 a pop. Or as he launched Labour's election manifesto beneath a giant red banner that announced "Britain Can Be Better" with "Controls on Immigration".



The 900 did not fall victim to some tragic accident. They were murdered. Actually, they were massacred.
The policy stipulated they should be left to die. So they died.
The policy was put in place so ministers could look tough on immigration. And now ministers do look tough. Very, very tough.
Parties across the political spectrum have fought to convince the voters that they too believed Britain would be better if we could just get immigration under control. And the death of The 900 will have gone some way to convincing them our politicians are serious.
We have got our wish. The 900 will never set foot here. 900 jobs are safe. 900 houses available for local people. 900 hospital beds left open. 900 empty school desks.
The 900 are gone. Britain is better.

[Meho Krljic]

I na istu temu samo iz Gardijana:


Britain's criminally stupid attitudes to race and immigration are beyond parody

The anti-immigration election rhetoric is perverse – we fear the arrival of people that we have drawn here with the wealth we stole from them




I sometimes wonder if satire has reached a nadir in Britain because British society has itself become a parody of itself. The Chipping Norton Set: the prime minister, a tabloid editor and a Roger Mellie-ish TV icon all conveniently living in the same little town and taking turns at being the centre of scandal, feels like a novel Martin Amis bashed out because his conservatory was leaking. Likewise there has been an element of tragic irony this week as the growing drumbeat of anti-immigration election rhetoric has been punctuated by the mass drowning of migrants.
The SNP's growing popularity has prompted a little low-level press racism of the kilts-and-porridge variety, as an English electorate struggles with the idea that there will be Scottish people holding the reins of power for the first time since the last government. Nicola Sturgeon has been called "the most dangerous woman in Britain", by someone who hasn't met any other Scottish women. Of course, it's difficult to explain to English people that we have always had their best interests at heart – if we hadn't invented penicillin they would have all died in a Greek airport departure lounge. There have already been a couple of amusing moments in the campaign when leaders standing in front of union jacks expounding on the need for a £100bn missile system have taken time out to warn us about the dangers of nationalism. Personally, I think it might be invigorating to have a hung parliament where, before any law was passed, the government had to have an argument with a Scottish person.
"Gosh, you seem awfully good at this. Have you had some practice?"
"I'm not actually part of the Scottish negotiating team, I'm just here to take your drinks order ..."
"Ah, right, could I have a cup of tea?"


"NO."
Ed Miliband's anti-immigration stance is odd: it's hard to vote for a man who doesn't have the confidence to defend his own existence. It seems that his main argument against immigrants is that his dad raised a befuddled fuckwit. Could you hand Labour's "controls on immigration" mug to a guest? There's nothing like jollying up a Macmillan Cancer Support coffee morning by making your neighbours feel like the pakoras were a little unwelcome. Let's not forget where coffee and tea come from: this mug is bitterly opposed to its own contents. Unless you drink hot Tizer from a coffee cup, the drink inside that mug will be an immigrant. The logic of a receptacle for hot beverages provided by slavery and colonisation being anti-immigrant bears no more examination than a pair of homophobic Speedos.
Then there's Ukip, like someone made a heavy-handed version of The Thick of It for ITV. They don't want Britain to be ruled by foreigners – with the notable exception of the royal family. They want an Australian-style points system for immigration. Who knows what this will look like, but my suspicion is "being white" will be like catching the snitch in Quidditch. If we have become a self-satirising society, Ukip are just the broader end, the easy slapstick laughs. They even have a porn-star candidate. Of course, he isn't the first MP to have filmed himself having sex. But he is the first to do so with an adult, whom he allowed to live.
Even our charity is essentially patronising. Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Give him a fishing rod and he can feed himself. Alternatively, don't poison the fishing waters, abduct his great-grandparents into slavery, then turn up 400 years later on your gap year talking a lot of shite about fish.
In a further nod to satire, Comic Relief this year focused on Malawi and Uganda. I didn't see any acknowledgement that Britain had been the colonial power in those countries. "Thanks for the gold, lads, thanks for the diamonds. We had a whip-round and got you a fishing rod."
A lot of racism comes from projection. White Americans have a stereotype of black people being criminals purely because they can't acknowledge that it was actually white people that stole them from Africa in the first place. Today, you have the spectacle of black men being gunned down by cops who, by way of mitigation, release footage to show that the victims were running away. This is what happens when you don't understand or even acknowledge history. You end up in a situation where, when slavery is the elephant in the room in your relationship with African Americans, you think it's OK to say that you killed one of them because he was trying to escape.
Britain is in a similar place with colonialism. We have streets named after slave owners. We profited from a vile crime and feel no shame. We fear the arrival of immigrants that we have drawn here with the wealth we stole from them. For much of the rest of the world we must be the focus of bitter amusement, characters in a satire we don't understand. It is British people that don't learn languages, or British history. Britain is the true scrounger, the true criminal.

[scallop]

V. Britanija je svakako odgovorna, ali uvek može da istakne obim već viševekovne emigracije iz bivših kolonija. Slično bi bilo i sa Holadijom i njihovom "Malezijskom" ili sa Francuskom sa francuskom postkolonijalnom imigracijom iz Severne Afrike. Nemački "drang nach Osten" se kompenzuje sa "Drang nach Westen".  To je jedan od načina da se kolonijalna vremena kompenzuju, ali, Italija ne može da bude odgovorna za imigraciju nastalu apetitima da se podrže "muslimanska" proleća nastala iz želje da se Gadafi i još neki iz Severne Afrike uklone. Ko uzrokuje haos za haos treba i da odgovara. Kolonijalna eksploatacija je zamenjena postkolonijalnom eksploatacijom i krivci stoje po strani.


Moguće je da dojađujem sa svojim stavom, ali, dok trajem, ukazivaću gde su problemi. Ne može se svet pomeriti sve dok se tom svetu ne da prilika. Ne može se svet kontinuirano cediti, a da napreduje. Moguće je da zapadna politika vidi rešenje u davljenju hiljada emigranata kojima su opet uzeli egzistencijalni prostor i uslove, ali cena će biti plaćena. Nema te granice koja migraciju zaustavlja. Zaustavlja je jedino ako kod kuće postoje uslovi opstanka. Tako je bilo od vremena hunters & gatherers i momenta kad je stalno naseljavanje postalo opcija.

[Mica Milovanovic]

Kad smo kod pomeranja u svetu, nedavno sam se raspravljao sa kolegom koji tvrdi da se ukupno blagostanje u svetu neprestano povećava, ma kako to nama izgledalo suprotno. Sad kako meriti blagostanje je relativna stvar, ali, po njemu, ako se posmatraju pojedini objektivni pokazatelji, kao što je prosečno trajanje života, prosečni dohodak po glavi stanovnika (naravno, korigovan za inflaciju), itd. svi oni pokazuju rast. Naravno, dolazi i do sve većeg dispariteta između bogatih i siromašni, to je očigledno, ali, ako se zanemari to subjektivno nezadovoljstvo disparitetom, oni siromašni u proseku bolje žive nego pre dvesta, sto, pedeset godina... Šta mislite?
Je li neko od vas čitao knjigu o kojoj se mnogo priča u poslednje vreme


Capital in the Twenty-First Century[/size] (2013) [/size]Thomas Piketty[/size].


U njoj ima mnogo zanimljivih razmišljanja o tome kuda svet ide i kako da se to promeni...


http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/en/capital21c2

[Meho Krljic]

Pa, da, da, raspravljali smo mi o tome ovde već mnogo puta i ukazivali da zbilja opšte blagostanje u masi raste, indikatori ne lažu. Ali statistika treba da se čita s razumevanjem, jelte, pa tu ima mnogo toga o čemu može i treba da se raspravlja. Kao na primer da je opšte blagostanje u SAD svakako poraslo u poslednjih trideset godina ali ne samo što je više porastao GDP nego prihod po domaćinstvu već je i kupovna moć prosečne američke porodice opala u tom periodu. Kao na primer da je Nemačka uspešno reformama zakonodavstva koje se bavi radom smanjila nezaposlenost ali da je u konsekvenci kvalitet zaposlenosti pao, da ljudi imaju umesto jednog propisnog posla tri privremeno-povremena i objektivno, u masi, niže prihode, nižu socijalnu sigurnost, manje opcija za razvoj karijere itd.

Piketi u svojoj knjizi (koju se nakanjujem da pročitam, dakle, ovo sad pričam iz čitanja opširnih Krugmanovih prepričavanja iste i gledanja Piketija i drugih na JuTjubu) ukazuje na takve stvari i na to da kreiranje nejednakosti vodi u lošem smeru bez obzira što su u toj rastućoj nejednakosti i oni na dnu danas u malo boljem položaju nego pre. Otud se recimo javlja Boris Begović da u Politici u nekoliko tekstova u suštini postavi pitanje "A šta je imanentno loše u nejednakosti?" iako bi čak i ekonomski neobrazovanoj osobi moralo da bude jasno da društvo u kome kapital uvećava bogaćenje po mnogo bržoj stopi nego rad na kraju masu radnika stavlja u poziciju da prestanu da budu potrošači što konsekventno ugrožava i sam kapital.

Itd.