Um daqueles nazistas bem conhecidos teria afirmado -- no que na verdade é uma adaptação mal feita de uma peça de teatro de um simpatizante da causa -- que quando ouvia a palavra cultura, "tinha vontade de sacar o revólver": Wenn Ich Kultur hore [trema no "o"], entsichere Ich meine Lugar..." (ou algo parecido; desculpem, estou citando de memória).
Pois bem, quando eu leio algo parecido com o que vai abaixo, fico logo com vontade de sacar a minha pluma -- no caso, acessar meu teclado -- para desmantelar o manancial de bullshits que suspeito possam existir em textos escritos com tal inspiração.
Desculpem se estou enganado, mas se trata da publicidade de um livro novo que acabo de receber, na qual figura este trecho:
"... constitui um elemento central da problemática do mundo contemporâneo, tanto do ponto de vista da realização do processo de acumulação capitalista – e, por consequência, de justificativa das ações do Estado em direção à criação dos fundamentos da reprodução – quanto do ângulo da (re)produção da vida, que se realiza..."
Não sei por que, mas quando alguém fala de "acumulação capitalista", é porque se trata de um irremediável acadêmico sonhador, incapaz de compreender o mundo como ele é, e que recorre a conceitos vazios para disseminar mais do mesmo...
Acho que estou ficando intolerante com o besteirol universitário...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Mostrando postagens com marcador big bullshit. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador big bullshit. Mostrar todas as postagens
quinta-feira, 10 de março de 2011
terça-feira, 28 de setembro de 2010
Vivendo e aprendendo: um pouco de cultura inutil...
Poderia ser também: pausa para o besteirol, mas não é.
Creio que pouca gente conhece a origem da palavra shit, embora muitos usam o famoso bullshit.
Enfim, certos serviços burocráticos, pela linguagem usada, têm a peculiaridade de produzir muito bullshit, mas não estou denunciando ninguém. Apenas trazendo um pouco de cultura geral para deleite dos curiosos e sedentos de saber...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Living and learning
Manure... An interesting fact
Manure : In the 16th and 17th centuries, everything had to be transported by ship and it was also before the invention of commercial fertilizers, so large shipments of manure were quite common.
It was shipped dry, because in dry form it weighed a lot less than when wet, but once water (at sea) hit it, not only did it become heavier, but the process of fermentation began again, of which a by product is methane gas of course. As the stuff was stored below decks in bundles you can see what could (and did) happen.
Methane began to build up below decks and the first time someone came below at night with a lantern, BOOOOM!
Several ships were destroyed in this manner before it was determined just what was happening.
After that, the bundles of manure were always stamped with the instruction 'Stow high in transit' on them, which meant for the sailors to stow it high enough off the lower decks so that any water that came into the hold would not touch this volatile cargo and start the production of methane.
Thus evolved the term 'S.H.I.T' , (Stow High In Transit) which has come down through the centuries and is in use to this very day.
You probably did not know the true history of this word.
Neither did I.
I had always thought it was a golf term.
Creio que pouca gente conhece a origem da palavra shit, embora muitos usam o famoso bullshit.
Enfim, certos serviços burocráticos, pela linguagem usada, têm a peculiaridade de produzir muito bullshit, mas não estou denunciando ninguém. Apenas trazendo um pouco de cultura geral para deleite dos curiosos e sedentos de saber...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Living and learning
Manure... An interesting fact
Manure : In the 16th and 17th centuries, everything had to be transported by ship and it was also before the invention of commercial fertilizers, so large shipments of manure were quite common.
It was shipped dry, because in dry form it weighed a lot less than when wet, but once water (at sea) hit it, not only did it become heavier, but the process of fermentation began again, of which a by product is methane gas of course. As the stuff was stored below decks in bundles you can see what could (and did) happen.
Methane began to build up below decks and the first time someone came below at night with a lantern, BOOOOM!
Several ships were destroyed in this manner before it was determined just what was happening.
After that, the bundles of manure were always stamped with the instruction 'Stow high in transit' on them, which meant for the sailors to stow it high enough off the lower decks so that any water that came into the hold would not touch this volatile cargo and start the production of methane.
Thus evolved the term 'S.H.I.T' , (Stow High In Transit) which has come down through the centuries and is in use to this very day.
You probably did not know the true history of this word.
Neither did I.
I had always thought it was a golf term.
quarta-feira, 14 de julho de 2010
Espioes, burocratas e desperdicio de dinheiro...
Grandes impérios cometem grandes bobagens, como gastar o dinheiro dos contribuintes com perfeitas inutilidades, do tipo espionar os vizinhos e os supostos contendores estratégicos. Grandes ditaduras cometem mais besteiras ainda, pois não precisam prestar contas do dinheiro estatal (arrecadado do público do mesmo jeito) para ninguém.
Durante anos, décadas, URSS e EUA espionaram-se reciprocamente, sem qualquer resultado efetivo que fosse capaz de mudar a história. Até a queda da decadente União Soviética, a CIA ainda pensava que se tratava de uma grande potência, quando era um Estado em estado falimentar, e com sérios problemas alimentares...
Ambos os impérios gastaram dinheiro à toa, para absolutamente nada, pois o que quer que tenham espionado não mudou aquilo que Duroselle chamava de "forças profundas da história". A URSS caminhou inexoravelmente para o brejo, e os EUA, sempre previstos para entrar em declínio irresistível na próxima crise do capitalismo -- com toda a excitação de acadêmicos a esse resoeito -- continuam por ai, desafiando prognósticos e surpreendendo os incautos.
Não que os EUA não façam bobagens, não. Eles fazem, e muitas. Mas, como disse certa vez Winston Churchill, eles terminam fazendo a coisa certa depois de todas as tentativas erradas que empreendem...
Sistemas abertos e flexíveis são auto-corrigíveis. Sistemas fechados e autoritários são capazes de fazer muito mais bobagens, impunemente, até algum grande desastre...
O artigo de Tom Friedman foca nessas ironias da história.
Acho que ele está certo. Por que, diabos, os russos querem espionar coisas, e pagar por elas, que eles poderiam perfeitamente recolher nas universidades e instituições abertas dos EUA?
É preciso ser muito besta para pagar por informações disponíveis livremente.
Enfim, todos os Estados fazem esse tipo de bobagem: acham que um serviço de "inteligência" vai ensinar mais do que a simples observação da realidade.
Mas, para isso, é preciso ter a mente aberta, funcionar sem viseiras mentais.
Certas pessoas tem dificuldades com esse tipo de prática.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Op-Ed Columnist
The Spies Who Loved Us
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
The New York Times, July 13, 2010
I was on vacation when the story broke that 11 Russians had been charged as sleeper agents planted in America by Moscow’s spy agency to gather intelligence on the United States and to recruit moles who could gain access to our top secrets. My first reaction was: This may be the greatest gift to America by a foreign country since France gave us the Statue of Liberty. Someone still wants to spy on us! Just when we were feeling down and out, the Russians show up and tell us that it’s still worth briefcases of money to plant people in our think tanks. Subprime crisis or not, some people think we’ve still got the right stuff. Thank you, Vladimir Putin!
Upon reflection, though, it occurred to me that this is actually a good news/bad news story. The good news is that someone still wants to spy on us. The bad news is that it’s the Russians.
Look, if you had told me that we had just arrested 11 Finns who were spying on our schools, then I’d really have felt good — since Finland’s public schools always score at the top of the world education tables. If you had told me that 11 Singaporeans were arrested spying on how our government works, then I’d really have felt good — since Singapore has one of the cleanest, well-run bureaucracies in the world and pays its cabinet ministers $1 million-plus a year. If you had told me that 11 Hong Kong Chinese had been arrested studying how we regulate our financial markets, then I’d really have felt good — since that is something Hong Kong excels at. And if you had told me that 11 South Koreans were arrested studying our high-speed bandwidth penetration, then I’d really have felt good — because we’ve been lagging them for a long time.
But the Russians? Who wants to be spied on by them?
Were it not for oil, gas and mineral exports, Russia’s economy would be contracting even more than it has. Moscow’s most popular exports today are probably what they were under Khrushchev: vodka, Matryoshka dolls and Kalashnikov rifles. No, this whole spy story has the feel of one of those senior tennis tournaments — John McEnroe against Jimmy Connors, long after their primes — or maybe a rematch between Floyd Patterson and Sonny Liston in their 60s. You almost want to avert your eyes.
You also want to say to Putin: Do you mean you still don’t get it?
Everything the Russians should want from us — the true source of our strength — doesn’t require a sleeper cell to penetrate. All it requires is a tourist guide to Washington, D.C., which you can buy for under $10. Most of it’s in the National Archives: the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. And the rest is in our culture and can be found everywhere from Silicon Valley to Route 128 near Boston. It is a commitment to individual freedom, free markets, rule of law, great research universities and a culture that celebrates immigrants and innovators.
Now if the Russians start to find all that and take it home, then we’d have to start taking them more seriously as competitors. But there is little indication of that. Indeed, as Leon Aron, director of Russian studies at the American Enterprise Institute, noted in a recent essay, President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia just announced plans to build an “Innovation City” in Skolkovo, outside Moscow. This “technopolis” is planned as a free-enterprise zone to attract the world’s best talent.
There is just one problem, notes Aron: “Importing ideas and technology from the West has been a key element in Russia’s ‘modernizations’ since at least Peter the Great in the early 18th century. ... But Russia has tightly controlled what it imported: Machines and engineers, yes. A spirit of free inquiry, a commitment to innovation free from bureaucratic ‘guidance’ and, most important, encouragement of brave, even brash, entrepreneurs who can be confident they will own the results of their work — most certainly no. Peter and his successors sought to produce fruit without cultivating the roots. ... Only a man or woman free from fear and overseers can build a Silicon Valley. And such men and women are harder and harder to come by in Russia today. ... Disgusted and scared by the lawlessness and rampant corruption. ... Russian entrepreneurs are investing very little in their country beyond their immediate production needs.”
No, everything the Russians should want from us is everything they don’t have to steal. It is also everything we should be celebrating and preserving but lately have not: open immigration, educational excellence, a culture of innovation and a financial system designed to promote creative destruction, not “destructive creation,” as the economist Jagdish Bhagwati called it.
So, yes, let’s swap their spies for ours. But let’s also remember that being spied on by the Russians today is not an honor. It’s just an old habit. Because they are no longer our peers, except in nuclear weapons unlikely to ever be used. The countries we need to be worried about are the ones whose teachers, bureaucrats, savers, investors and innovators — not spies — are beating us in broad daylight at our own game.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on July 14, 2010, on page A27 of the New York edition.
Durante anos, décadas, URSS e EUA espionaram-se reciprocamente, sem qualquer resultado efetivo que fosse capaz de mudar a história. Até a queda da decadente União Soviética, a CIA ainda pensava que se tratava de uma grande potência, quando era um Estado em estado falimentar, e com sérios problemas alimentares...
Ambos os impérios gastaram dinheiro à toa, para absolutamente nada, pois o que quer que tenham espionado não mudou aquilo que Duroselle chamava de "forças profundas da história". A URSS caminhou inexoravelmente para o brejo, e os EUA, sempre previstos para entrar em declínio irresistível na próxima crise do capitalismo -- com toda a excitação de acadêmicos a esse resoeito -- continuam por ai, desafiando prognósticos e surpreendendo os incautos.
Não que os EUA não façam bobagens, não. Eles fazem, e muitas. Mas, como disse certa vez Winston Churchill, eles terminam fazendo a coisa certa depois de todas as tentativas erradas que empreendem...
Sistemas abertos e flexíveis são auto-corrigíveis. Sistemas fechados e autoritários são capazes de fazer muito mais bobagens, impunemente, até algum grande desastre...
O artigo de Tom Friedman foca nessas ironias da história.
Acho que ele está certo. Por que, diabos, os russos querem espionar coisas, e pagar por elas, que eles poderiam perfeitamente recolher nas universidades e instituições abertas dos EUA?
É preciso ser muito besta para pagar por informações disponíveis livremente.
Enfim, todos os Estados fazem esse tipo de bobagem: acham que um serviço de "inteligência" vai ensinar mais do que a simples observação da realidade.
Mas, para isso, é preciso ter a mente aberta, funcionar sem viseiras mentais.
Certas pessoas tem dificuldades com esse tipo de prática.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Op-Ed Columnist
The Spies Who Loved Us
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
The New York Times, July 13, 2010
I was on vacation when the story broke that 11 Russians had been charged as sleeper agents planted in America by Moscow’s spy agency to gather intelligence on the United States and to recruit moles who could gain access to our top secrets. My first reaction was: This may be the greatest gift to America by a foreign country since France gave us the Statue of Liberty. Someone still wants to spy on us! Just when we were feeling down and out, the Russians show up and tell us that it’s still worth briefcases of money to plant people in our think tanks. Subprime crisis or not, some people think we’ve still got the right stuff. Thank you, Vladimir Putin!
Upon reflection, though, it occurred to me that this is actually a good news/bad news story. The good news is that someone still wants to spy on us. The bad news is that it’s the Russians.
Look, if you had told me that we had just arrested 11 Finns who were spying on our schools, then I’d really have felt good — since Finland’s public schools always score at the top of the world education tables. If you had told me that 11 Singaporeans were arrested spying on how our government works, then I’d really have felt good — since Singapore has one of the cleanest, well-run bureaucracies in the world and pays its cabinet ministers $1 million-plus a year. If you had told me that 11 Hong Kong Chinese had been arrested studying how we regulate our financial markets, then I’d really have felt good — since that is something Hong Kong excels at. And if you had told me that 11 South Koreans were arrested studying our high-speed bandwidth penetration, then I’d really have felt good — because we’ve been lagging them for a long time.
But the Russians? Who wants to be spied on by them?
Were it not for oil, gas and mineral exports, Russia’s economy would be contracting even more than it has. Moscow’s most popular exports today are probably what they were under Khrushchev: vodka, Matryoshka dolls and Kalashnikov rifles. No, this whole spy story has the feel of one of those senior tennis tournaments — John McEnroe against Jimmy Connors, long after their primes — or maybe a rematch between Floyd Patterson and Sonny Liston in their 60s. You almost want to avert your eyes.
You also want to say to Putin: Do you mean you still don’t get it?
Everything the Russians should want from us — the true source of our strength — doesn’t require a sleeper cell to penetrate. All it requires is a tourist guide to Washington, D.C., which you can buy for under $10. Most of it’s in the National Archives: the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. And the rest is in our culture and can be found everywhere from Silicon Valley to Route 128 near Boston. It is a commitment to individual freedom, free markets, rule of law, great research universities and a culture that celebrates immigrants and innovators.
Now if the Russians start to find all that and take it home, then we’d have to start taking them more seriously as competitors. But there is little indication of that. Indeed, as Leon Aron, director of Russian studies at the American Enterprise Institute, noted in a recent essay, President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia just announced plans to build an “Innovation City” in Skolkovo, outside Moscow. This “technopolis” is planned as a free-enterprise zone to attract the world’s best talent.
There is just one problem, notes Aron: “Importing ideas and technology from the West has been a key element in Russia’s ‘modernizations’ since at least Peter the Great in the early 18th century. ... But Russia has tightly controlled what it imported: Machines and engineers, yes. A spirit of free inquiry, a commitment to innovation free from bureaucratic ‘guidance’ and, most important, encouragement of brave, even brash, entrepreneurs who can be confident they will own the results of their work — most certainly no. Peter and his successors sought to produce fruit without cultivating the roots. ... Only a man or woman free from fear and overseers can build a Silicon Valley. And such men and women are harder and harder to come by in Russia today. ... Disgusted and scared by the lawlessness and rampant corruption. ... Russian entrepreneurs are investing very little in their country beyond their immediate production needs.”
No, everything the Russians should want from us is everything they don’t have to steal. It is also everything we should be celebrating and preserving but lately have not: open immigration, educational excellence, a culture of innovation and a financial system designed to promote creative destruction, not “destructive creation,” as the economist Jagdish Bhagwati called it.
So, yes, let’s swap their spies for ours. But let’s also remember that being spied on by the Russians today is not an honor. It’s just an old habit. Because they are no longer our peers, except in nuclear weapons unlikely to ever be used. The countries we need to be worried about are the ones whose teachers, bureaucrats, savers, investors and innovators — not spies — are beating us in broad daylight at our own game.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on July 14, 2010, on page A27 of the New York edition.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)