N O W ,    L O O K    H E R E !


          Chris MYRSKI,     Sofia, Bulgaria,    2001 ...

           — — — — —

     There is no idea about the cover, because in this book are gathered great variety of different journalistic materials, it is not a work of fiction, and such books are usually not illustrated.


     [ Remark: As far as the book is enormously big it is published here, by old habit, in small booklets amounting to about 50 (to 100) KB, containing normally from three to five papers. Here we continue the Section "For Newspapers" with the next three materials. ]

           — — — — —


     I. For Journals
     II. For Newspapers
     III. Feuilletons
     IV. Others

           — — — — —

           Contents Of Section "For Newspapers"

     The truth about Bulgaria
     About the market and the Bulgarian
     Five years of devastation
     Do you want to lose your 13th pension?
     Time to draw conclusions
     About the elections and the demos

     Requiem for one coalition
     Something more about democracy
     What we have messed with the Currency Board
     Convergence, what is this?
     Why the communism has fallen down?

     And where are we?
     Predictions for the year 1999
     Can the Bulgarian pay 50% taxes?
     Reflections on the eve of the "holiday"

     About democracy and melioration
     About democratic phenomenon
     A step forward and two back
     Again sharp turn

     Oh God, what we eat!
     Why the cocks crow early morning?
     Does global warming exist?

     The fatal 2013 year in Bulgaria
     Why we vote, when we ... don't vote?
     About the fascism from common sense positions

     About the Social Ministry in Bulgaria
     How to improve democratic protests?

     Read Chris Myrski (in the sense of political reviews)
     Thoughts about Ukraine

     ... new for newspapers

           — — — — —

          OH GOD, WHAT WE EAT!

     I have bought myself recently some bouillon from one of the big supermarkets, and as far as it was sold in 4-5 varieties (chicken, veal, sour cream, etc.) I decided to read how do they differ. Well, it turned out that ... with nothing significant, i.e. with the essence! Because the only natural ingredients were about 5% highly shredded carrots and crumbled parsley, and the main component of the "bouillon" was — try to guess it! — dextrin (well, maltodextrin, but this surely must be nearly the same) i.e. we

     eat glue!

     Well, I have already bought it, because they, the ingredients are specially written with the most tiny possible font (4 or 5 pixels, something of the kind), so that even a person with normal eyesight could not have read it without magnifying glass, all the more such like me, exceeded already the 60, so that later (I brought with me magnifier) checked also other firms, and everywhere the bouillons now (I don't know how long, but before some 20 years and in one normal Western country it was not so) were made with dextrin. Then I recalled myself that sometime earlier we have somewhere in the basement dextrin in powder and one winter ... it was attacked by rats (and they are mammals like we, aren't they, so that it isn't harmful to the health) and I was pacified by this and ate it, little by little, and, hmm, my bowels did not glue together. But it turns out that

     the best that can be said about food products that are sold nowadays is are they harmful or not to the health,

and such is the function of some control bodies which exist by us, but otherwise, from what they are made — well, mainly according to the price, but there are no problems to buy something expensive and also faked.
     Or another example, the ice-cream. Back in the totalitarian times existed chiefly three kinds of it: milk, sour cream, and chocolate, and it was possible to find sometimes also fruit one, but people did not like it much for they knew that it was mainly frozen fruit pulp. The milk ice-cream, however, was made out of milk (and out of what else, might have exclaimed one "totalitarian" person), the sour cream one respectively out of sour cream (and it was felt, no deception), and the chocolate one was chiefly of milk but with added cocoa (and maybe some sour cream). Now there are probably more than hundred kinds of ice-cream (not all of them at the same time in a given shop, but as articles), only read out of what they are made. Well, there are about 20 (!) ingredients, where are preservatives, flavours, some components like Е###, what is some number according to the European (and maybe worldwide) standards for organic products, but surely artificial, including egg powder, but

     there is no natural milk!

     Well, there is milk powder (even not condensed, just dry, milk), but this is not the same. I have kept for some time a tomcat at home and remember well — what means that I am speaking from personal experience, but who does not believe me can check alone —, that I have poured in his bowl a little of such dissolved milk (for we have drunk such, was it with coffee, or with tea, or then as pure milk, and some even have made it sour), but he did not want. Now I am not pretty sure whether he did not at all want, or after some time went and licked a bit, but he definitely did not like it, while when it happened that I bought sometimes a bottle of fresh milk in bulk from a peasant woman (which for this reason become forbidden to be sold officially, because it is natural and can compete with the big business), then he smelled it closed through the cap already from the door and began to circle around me like ... like a cat around a pail with milk, right? So that difference positively existed, because the animals have instincts, they can't be fooled with advertisements.
     Or let us take, for example, the vinegar, which is offered, one beside the other, of two kinds, apple and wine, and there are even pictured apples or grapes, but when you begin to read the components it turns out that it consisted of 5 percent (there is also 6%) purified acetic acid Е###, only that that kind where is pictured red grape contains also colorant. This is the situation. Similarly many (again more than hundred articles in principle) soft drinks, which are cheaper than mineral water, sold for 40-50 stotinki (i.e. 20 euro-cents) per 2 l (and even till 3) bottle, but contain only essence (and by this half of the price goes for the packing). And earlier (say, a century back) when was spoken about lemonade people understood squeezed lemon juice (respectively, for orangeade — orange one, not made out of ... pumpkin, i.e. if there is at all something natural). Or also the wines, which are likewise of many different sorts, but when are sold cheaper than the grape they surely can't be natural, no matter that they have decent taste, and degree, too (because this wine in bulk, which can be found on the bazaar, it consists, in recompense for its natural ingredient, mainly of tap-water).
     There is no sense to talk about mincemeat, sausages, special salami (Bulgarian lukankas or soudjouks), various snacks, pellets, corn sticks or flakes, and many others, really industrially manufactured products of food industry. (I have heard from somewhere that the crab sticks were made from crabs only at about 10 percents.) And the eggs that are sold to us, as it turned, were mainly unfertilized. In the sense that, in order to make the hen laying, some cock has to have "known" her, but maybe this is only a pair of times, and then they leave her to lay eggs by habit, there is no sense to "make expenses" for a cock at least once in a week, say, because the cock is unnecessary expenditure for the company, isn't he? And for this reason there is difference between eggs and eggs, as is said, between these, that are sold as usual, and these, that can be bought from some peasant woman (not that they are "unusual", but the yolk has another colour). Id est, the hens are treated like the cows, who, after they give birth once, then all the time give milk (and for that reason in Italian, I'll tell you, exist two kinds of cows: the ones are called vaccas, who have, hmm, udder, i.e. something vacuum-like — to give the easiest explanation —, and the others are muccas, because they say "moo", what they do because they want that somebody milks them).
     There are many examples, and I will give more others, but in order to prevent you, in some extent, from unnecessary disappointments let me list half a dozen of rules (some of which I have mentioned earlier, but in another context).

     1. Use home animals for testing,

of what is really natural or not. The same procedure with the powdered milk and the cat, I suppose, can be applied also with some mincemeats or sausages and dogs. The animals, as I mentioned, are not easy to be deceived by packages or advertisements, they either like some thing (because it is natural) or don't like it (and surely will not be delighted by some soya meatballs, for example, which is said to be very nice food, but taste like nothing).

     2. Check how the things are spoiling,

and by the way they destroy, by the kind of products in which dissolves a given product, judge about its main ingredients (respectively, fractions). This is especially actual for the bread and various bakery products. Here also the things are like with the sorts of ice-cream, earlier there were mainly three types of approved bread (white, dobrudzha, i.e. from the area Dobrudzha on the north-east of Bulgaria, and tipov-typical — as bread for some types of people, like I use to joke, because tip in Bulgarian means usually a guy, fellow, yet slightly scornfully, but in principle this is the most black bread), and now there are hundred assortments (and every time emerge new ones), but they put in them whatnot "improvers", preservatives, flavors, and other additions (normally about 5-10 components). The "game", however, becomes obvious when the bread begins to spoil, because then it begins to grow mouldy, but in all colors of the rainbow. Earlier (it even earlier, as some guys say, and I also can confirm this, the ... condoms were as if harder, while now they only bend all the time, ah?) has existed one kind of mould, blue-greenish one, and it, as far as I know, is good and useful is some sense, because from it was made the penicillin, and there also exist blue and green cheeses, and other similar moulds, i.e. this is normal process of transformation of matter, when these things are natural. But the today's white, chiefly, kinds of bread (at the black ones this is not so noticeable, or maybe they are harder to be falsified and for that reason they cost higher — because earlier was on the contrary, the typical bread was the cheapest), when you leave them in the usual cellophane bags in which they, who knows why, are sold,

     these breads begin to get in multicoloured spots,

which are in some places greenish (this is good, were only all kinds of bread such), in other yellowish, up to bright orange, and in other more then black like coal, and in addition to this they become sticky to the touch and glue together. You check this with a piece of bread, this is quite interesting experiment (in warm weather and outside the fridge, of course).
     I suppose that similar tests can be performed also with mincemeat and sausages (they, really, become not only green, but yellow, too, and inflated), and in addition emerges a "characteristic" smell. The natural meat, it is more endurable and hard, it tries to dry up, is not made with water (in which is dissolved soya or also potato puree; or powdered milk, if it is about special and endurable salami). Even with the vegetables this is not devoid of meaning, because I have long ago come to the conclusion (not that it is very hard to come to it) that the nitrated products spoil faster and simply become watery and begin to rot. Now, however, have emerged various mutated vegetables, where the situation is exactly on the contrary, what we will clear in the following point.

     3. Avoid mutated products, which can be recognized mainly by their hardness and endurance,

because in order that the vegetables have become bigger, or more cold-tolerant, are performed (surely, you judge by the consequences) such mutations, which must increase the cellulose in the fruits or vegetables. For example, the "winter" strawberries, which are ten times larger than the normal cultivated (which are ten times larger than the wild ones — in the sense of volume this is so, because if each dimension grows only two times, than raised to the third power this gives 8), obviously must be very hard, and they are as if the most tender of all fruits (to remind you about your "fragile", which is French fragile meaning the same or delicate or brittle, and there fraise is exactly strawberry; this is seen also in Italian, where these words are, respectively, fragile and fragola). But well, this can be accepted, they are soft fruits, so that some enforcement hinders them not much. But if you buy yourself potatoes out of season (for example in May, June, yet also in other time) and decide to cook them with meat, then the meat in usual pot will be cooked roughly for one and a half hour, while for the potatoes will be necessary at least one whole hour more.
     Similarly you may "suffer" also with some tomatoes, which, if they were completely spherical, could have been used, I suppose, as ...billiard balls! Or also with aubergines, possibly with big peppers, cornichons, and others. It is possible that too much cellulose is not harmful, I am not sure, but they are difficult to digest; besides, the taste of such "forced" vegetables is different. People, after all, are not ruminating animals, for to be able to absorb each green (or red, respectively) thing. Put in another way:

     compare the time for cooking of the products,

and if they need significantly more time to boil, then they are not from the "normal" ones. Such products are met as if mainly when the normal ones are not in their season, but not always; I have the suspicion that also the hot pepper, and from here the sugar one and hardened not in its proper time, too, is also somehow mutated, or there is in effect some other "forcing" intervention, because they are now with very hard peel, grow quite big, become cheaper significantly earlier, and are really hot, while earlier it was not so. There is significant difference in the hardness between the tender winter hothouse products, and the winter, or even not exactly such, but hard as stones, vegetables. At least to little children don't give such food, who knows how will react their young stomachs.

     4. Do not buy out of season goods.

     They are somehow forced to bear fruits not in the proper time, and this is done not only with the temperature, but with various additions in the soil, it can't be otherwise. Besides, it is obvious that they are 3-4 times more expensive than the normal ones in their season, what in addition to their different taste (for they are, as a rule, more tasteless) is sufficient indication to avoid their usage; the only reason to buy them is if you have just so much money and don't know what to do with it, or then have become already such snob that can not at all imagine how can eat something preserved, when can buy it in fresh form. Now, I don't say that one can not buy at least once in a month winter tomatoes or cucumbers, or something of the kind, but for preparation of the food is absolutely clear that the preserved goods (sterilized or salted) are very suitable. Generally, don't forget the very old rule: everything has its time.

     5. Do not buy advertised goods.

     This thing I have said several times in other places and it is obvious for every a little bit reasonable human (even for, ha, ha, women, too), but who knows why the people — and I mean not at all only teenagers, who have brains like a chicken, as is said, or already senile pensioners — are caught on ads and look exactly for the most advertised products. This is not reasonable because the ads in no case — but really not in a single one — are information about the product (as even I have though earlier), no, they are only way to fool you to buy something from the given company, not from some other; and in addition to everything else you have to pay also the ad, even for those who do not buy the product (!), for the simple reason that there is nobody else to cover these expenses, if not the clients. I personally am feeling insulted when am forced to pay also for this, that am forced to listen or look at their nonsense (not to say bullsh##), and do the most reasonable thing, i.e. counteract the ads in all possible ways. More than this, I use the ads ... against themselves,

     buying nothing if it is actively advertised,

i.e. I think that if some product is advertised then I should not buy it — clear and simple, isn't it? Because: which products are between most advertised? Well, let us say: soft drinks (because they are only water and essence and without them, more than obvious, you can do), cigarettes and alcohol (because they are harmful to the health and everybody knows this), various snacks, chewing gums, or sweets, at retail (which, being small and in luxurious packings, come out most expensive, calculated on kilogram), all modern and luxurious things for highlife and the snobs (which are advertised because are not necessary and otherwise people would not search for them), taverns and restaurants, places for recreation, airline companies, passenger cars, and other things without which one can freely do (or if you need them then you will look for them at that moment, not when they are blinding your eyes and deafening your ears), in the recent time all mobile operators (because they, obviously, have decided that now is the moment to gain something forcing you to pay according to some "plans" for services that you do not succeed to use, but pay in advance), and other similar things. So for example, if I have guessed earlier that the bouillons, or ice-creams, are often advertised goods, I wouldn't have, maybe, bought them, but a pair of times in an year one can allow himself to be misled, if by little everything is allowed, the important thing is that this does not become your (bad) habit. (So, for example, I don't buy myself ... women's sanitary pads, because our ads, when the democracy just came to us, have begun exactly with this, so that I am consecutive, am I not?)

     6. Read the small letters,

because, in the end, they for that reason force the firms to show components and origin of the products, for the people could — but if they want, and if they have enough brains for this — not buy things that they don't want to, i.e. in order to was not so easy to be deceived. In other words, if you want to be deceived, then there are no problems for this, it always will find someone to do it (there are enough advertisements and politicians), but if you occasionally don't want this (i.e. if you are among, so, 5-10% relatively intelligent people, like myself), then to be able to orient yourself. And this not only is right for the clients, but causes no special discontents amidst the firms producers or the sellers, because the main part of the people will, all the same, be cheated, surely. ( For example, they quietly write on the label "apple vinegar", and paint also an apple, and there is written, with normally big letters, that it can be used for "bettering of the taste", and together with this write that it consist of chemically pure acetic acid — in this way both, the wolf is satiated, and the lamb is alive, right? Or another example, they advertise some as-if-medicine, which, however, only does not harm, but whether it helps solely God knows, and show you how it passes through the bowels, or where else it passes, and at the end chew hastily the phrase "Before use read the leaflet.", so that nobody could have legally accused them in anything, and in this way they wash their hands like "mister" Pontius Pilatus, who has decided, instead of to prosecute our Christ, to let the very people inculpate him — one ancient example for the use of democracy, if one gives a thought to the matter. )
     But when the point is in this, what can be written on the goods, then I have a proposition, because this, what is written on some articles, that they are natural — say, bio-something, or pure-meat for the meat — is not enough, for the reason that these products are somewhere about 10 - 15% of the sold (at least in Bulgaria) and they are 2-3 times more expensive, and when so between rarely bought, while the left more than 80% of the goods as articles, or more than 90 as bought by people, remain without indication for their naturalness. I have in mind that they are maybe not quite natural, but there is something natural in them, they might not be full forgery (mentè in Bulgarian, like, e.g., the Arab marzipans, on which despite this is written "chocolate", or like the mentioned acidic vinegar, or the bouillons). This what I propose is to mark also all products where is practically nothing natural, they are pure essence or imitation, what is not very hard to discover because is known what must be put in the given product, i.e. with the given name (like, for example, they have begun already to write on some kinds of yogurt in Bulgaria "milk product", because know very well that this is not natural yogurt). Here has to be used some short word which is widely known also on the West, what means that it has to be Greek and/or Latin, and I thing the best choice for this purpose is pseudo, what can be shortened to pse, at least because in Bulgarian (but it's Slavonic word) "pse" means a dog (say, pse-vinegar, pse-chocolate, etc.), and even to the single Greek letter "ψ", written in black paint and put in a circle! In this way will be known that what is not "pse" is more or less decent, while all "pse"-things are pure imitation or falsification; usage of other words like: ersatz, substitute, imitation, likeness, at cetera, in my view are not so universal and elegant like my proposition. I suppose that this will not cause special objections between the companies-producers, but will be much more correct in regard of the clients.

     Well, in broad lines, this is all. We are cheated, and will be cheated, when we don't object to this, and are shown concerns only in order not to be poisoned with something harmful. Everybody has the right to choose. I personally long ago, even from totalitarian years, when the cheating of sellers and producers was significantly lower (on the account of bad assortment, of course), has avoided soft drinks, also bought alcohol, we have made at home pickles for the winter, jams, juices, have fabricated wines from wild fruits, have collected mushrooms, and what only could,

     buying predominantly basic goods,

without which is impossible, and which are falsified less of all, like: sunflower oil, sugar, vinegar, salt, meat bur when you see it with the bones, ocean fishes (rarely from the rivers), broilers (they might be fed artificially, but their flesh is more tender), butter (then it was not mixed with margarine), bread (I said that in that time it was natural) or flour, white cheese (also natural) or usual cheese (it was then only of two sorts: "Balkan" and "Vitosha", and nobody bothered to "modify" it with different additions), coffee, occasionally by a pair of oranges or lemons, and as if this was all. The left we have made at home, i.e. we cooked. Now the young perhaps don't know that ... the milk is given by cows, and maybe think that there is a tap in the shop, where from they fill the packings — whether I know, when one looks at the ads (yet the ads are according to the people in the country — in each place and time are shown different ones, such that are well taken by the people) one can think it is so, that we all have already become morons.
     And as far as I am convinced that some 99% of all people (at least in Slavonic countries, if not also with some digits after the decimal point) are not pretty clear on the issue what means the word "moron" (and in English etymological dictionaries is said that this is "neologism" in the language, but without special explanations) let me tell you what I think on this question. Well, moron, quite obviously, comes from the Latin, where moria is stupidity, what (also unquestionably) is from old Greek, where μωρια was madness, but the Latin morus, what is from Greek μωροσ means ... well, one small mauve or violet fruit, the mulbery (that is better to be called tut, because it so is in Russian and it was so in Persian)! Now it becomes clear that here intervenes the mauve colour (it is morav in Bulgarian), which comes exactly from the Greeks (though the colour can vary much and in the English maroon is given as chestnut one, but this must be the same, because here is the French mauve that you have taken, too, and it means light-violet), and that here are also the eggplants (in Bulgarian "blue tomatoes", or moravi, like noun), but the problem is that as meaning in old Greek μορια (and mark the letter "o") were some sacred olives (in general, small and "silly" fruit, like the tuts). Yet it doesn't become clear (and nobody explains this — except your author, of course) while the moravi-maroon tuts, or the (traditional, for there are other varieties) colour of eggplant, has to be related with the stupidity, and this 25 centuries now, roughly speaking? But it is related because ... well, you dress in maroon-violet clothes and see what people will think about you! Id est this is some extremely bright and outrageous colour with which one only wants to show off (if there is nothing else with), and the greater part of simpletons do exactly this, they "put on maroon clothes", figuratively speaking, in order to become more interesting. Well, on such people rely mostly the advertisements, these are the snobs. They are not bad people, in principle, even

     the contemporary consumer society rests mainly on the snobbism of people,

but they do unnecessary things, they boast not with things that are intrinsic to them personally, but with something with what they want only to show off (like, for example, to bore their tongue and stick there some shiny precious stone), and this was thought from the intelligent then Greeks and Latins for exhibition of stupidity. Well, it is quite natural that the ads were directed exactly to such "pillars" of consumer society. If you are one of them then forget everything what I have told you till now, but if you are not so elementary, or at least don't want that you were easily fooled, then read again at least the bold words, perhaps something will remain in you head.

     Sep 2012

     P.S. As far as here it goes about various deceptions with goods it might be suitable to add also a pair of paragraphs about some legal frauds, which the shops apply. Their main strategy is to throw some "baits", obviously, and I have spoken on this issue long ago, but in the recent time I was impressed by two new modifications.
     The one I call deferred payment, and it is reduced to this, that sometimes some shops offer products on obviously dumping prices, and even for half price, but this is done only several times, until people don't begin to search for these things, and then they are sold on prices with about 20 percents more expensive than the normal price (in order to make up for the lost). When they must begin with the raising of prices the shops know, because they monitor their turnover, and if there is increased demand then they increase the prices. This is obvious, but this variant is reduced to paying of the same products later, i.e. when one buys cheaper he does not pay the real price, but later on he pays and overpays it. This, what the client has to do, is to look not to mistake the phase and buy when it is more expensive (hoping that it will become again cheaper; yet also because one has already gone to the shop — the presetting is very big hindrance), but to stop at once to by there for some time (say, for half a month - a month). This is an honest outwitting, but why the poorer one, i.e. the client, has to lose?
     The other method is the so called distracting maneuver (or, maybe, "red herring"), by which they speak to you about things that are not at all substantial, but can easily confuse you (how it often happens), because one continues to rely on the normal human logic and comes to conclusions which are not at all true. For example, when somewhere is written that the product contains vegetable fats (this concerns the white and other cheeses) one thinks that the fats, after all, are not so important, the point is that this was milk product. Yeah, but here is the point, that in these products is just no milk (well, or almost no), and for that reason such white cheese costs even less than the curds, while otherwise it should have been twice to thrice more expensive. Again "honest outwitting" (i.e. legally the companies are not guilty), but the client suffers.
     Well, there are also other variants, for example is cited something that is in no way verified, say that the product in question is with 20% cheaper, bot nobody guaranties to you that they compare with the correct price and not with some invented one (for there are no fixed prices in the market economy). And in most cases it happens to be exactly so. Or that there is lessening of the price with ... 3%, what presupposes that one thinks about 30%. Or they change the places of some goods, and if one does not open wide his eyes he will take something that is just today there, but is significantly more expensive. Or for example, that some melted cheese with dill is on 30% cheaper, but close to it stays a sort with coriander, which is very similar, but is on normal price. And other similar tricks for "baliks" as we say in Bulgaria (what, in fact, is Turkish, the "i" is read as in "girl", and it means small fish), or also for "gulls" (because that is where from comes the English word gullible as naive, easy to be deceived).
     In general, I have succeed to find only one advantage from such cheating of the clients — for I, surely, am trying to counteract — and this is that in this way the shop just keeps your tonus, keeps you fit in this way, does not allow you to loosen yourself, to grow old, in the end, because, as I suppose many readers know, the first signs of aging are reduced to impeded changing of your habits, to difficult adaptation to new things, due to the delaying of your reactions. So that, if there is a wish, one can benefit from a number of inconveniences, or else to allow the others to deceive him how they only can. Well, each has his (democratic) right of choice.
     Aug 2013

      — — —

          (or what the birds teach us)

     Well, I can answer at once this question, but I don't know whether this will satisfy you or not. The cocks crow because in this way they greet the sun, at least the third cocks, and the first ones feel some glimmers (that there is not, for example, solar eclipse). So do all birds, especially the city pigeons, or country crows; they, as soon as the sun rises, and at once soar in flocks (summer and winter) and begin to cry "Grah, grah, hello Rah, hurrah Rah!" or something of the kind in their language. About the sparrows I am not sure whether they do so or not, but about the ostriches, for example, I have heard that they every morning with the raising of sun have begun to spin like crazy, because they are too heavy to fly, but something deep in their hearts simply does not allow them not to greet this ancient god Ra (or even Raykyu, in some Bulgarian dialect). So that, you see now where from people have learned, and also named this god, and where from come all Auroras, aureoles, et cetera, which are Latin and older words.
     But compare all the same how immediate (like children) are the birds in their exaltation, and how feigned and silly behave the people especially the Christians, when ascribe to the gods their own shortcomings, like vanity, selfishness, cruelty, and so on. Because such is the idea of the old, maybe already from 5 - 10 thousand years, habit to burn something fragrant, or at least a candle, and think that the fume, which rises up, where must abide the gods (because they, you see, can't be below, they have to be someplace high up, for they are good gods and see everything), gives some pleasure to the gods (who, otherwise, are maybe only sighing about this, thinks a given person of them or not, for they have just nothing else to do except to crave for our veneration), and are especially delighted when one mumbles under his breath some prayer to them (because they, without special prayer, would not at all guess, thinks he about them or not). This is reasoning on the level of kindergarten, but the people, i.e. all believers, do exactly so. While the birds are simply happy, that a new day comes, that they have lived up to it (because the night is a kind of sleeping, temporary death — well, if we don't count the night birds).
     But were it only this people would have been priceless. Yet they insist to show their love and veneration to the gods chiefly ... killing somebody for the purpose, and in the best case these are animals. Because of this the names of priest in the Western languages (and probably also in the old Eastern ones) are related with some mincing, cutting (of the throat), i.e. they are "sacre" (what, more that obvious, correlates with the sword or saber, or Bulgarian and Eastern sekira, or Russian sech as to cut, and many other similar words); by us, the Slavs, those names are related as if only with the candles and the light (the priest is sveshtenik in Russian and the candle is svechka /svesht), i.e. they are holy persons (and the latter word is from the halo of the sun), but otherwise we also do various sacrifices with animals (or at least eat such animals on various holidays). Now, I do not discuss here the topic that people are carnivores and eat animals (because this is God's work, we are made so, can't eat grass), but this that we think that when we roast the meat on fire and when the fat begins to drop, then the fumes raise high and reach the gods, and we later eat the animal only for this reason that it does not spoil, but we have killed it for our God, in the name of God (for example, Bulgarian Gergiovian lamb on the day of St. George). And not only when we "communicate" with the gods, but also when we ... give our oaths (in Slavonic) we cut something (because there the oath is kletva and to cut in Bulgarian is kaltsam, klatsna), or at least I think so, that the words are related, and in this way, releasing a little of our blood and smudging with it our hands, or whatever other place, we guarantee our faithfulness to something or somebody. And don't think, please, that this is true only for the Slavs because the English swear /swore /sworn is related — surely, you just ponder a bit about this — with the sword.
     Or take also the Hebrews, who think that some animals are "kosher", or good, sanctified, like birds and fishes, for example, while the pigs are bad animals, and when so then they are not to be eaten. But then, what turns out, ah? Hmm, it turns out that the good has to be killed and the bad has to be left to live! Such is the logic of this ancient religion, what, if you ask me, is pure perversion.
     And the birds, because we have begun with them, don't kill in the name of their sun, no, they kill in the name of feeding of their body, and, as a rule, they eat different flies, beetles, worms, i.e., insects, which are at least tiny and somehow difficult to provide them with a "soul", because they have no sense of pain; or else they eat fish (if they are sea birds), but there is enough fish in the seas and it will be in all cases eaten by some things (most often by bigger fishes). Because the birds of prey, these that eat their own kind, or small mammals, are only an exception, they are probably just 5% of all birds. With what I want to say that the birds are also carnivores, but there is difference between their approach to the preys and the human one.

     But let us continue with ornithological questions. How you think, why the birds ... defecate in flight, in this way (and in Bulgarian): hvar, tsvar, hvar, tsvar (and the vowel here is like in "girl"; and the first thing is dialect for to fly, the second one is dialect for to chirp, but then "tsvakam" is to squirt noisy, like when spitting)? It is clear that when they fly they can't descent each time down to the land to empty the bowels, and also by their imperfect food processing, for they have no excretory system, everything goes out through one and the same orifice, liquid and solid, and when this is done speedily — because in flight is necessary much energy (look how much petrol swallow the modern airplanes) —, then the components of food can't be extracted good and many of them will remain in their droppings, in view of what also today the bird guano is considered the best natural fertilizer (only that is not applied now because comes out very expensive). But not only this, because they do not defecate in their nests! I personally have had recently the opportunity to convince myself in this, for the reason that a ... she-pigeon, in the most direct meaning of the word, has begun to nest on my balcony (it doesn't matter that I am on the fifth floor, but I have greenery there, and the majority of people have already closed their balconies, so that the birds have not a big choice). Now, I have given her water, bread crumbs, apple pieces, but she not only did not eat whatever, but did not relieve herself there, only the male, who visited her approximately as often as a patient is visited, i.e. two-three times in a week, sat on the parapet of balcony and left a bit of droppings but aside. So that the birds are clean animals.
     Well, the hens do this in the hen-house, that's for sure, but they because of this stay on some rod, on a roost, in order not to sit on their faeces (plus considerations of security, of course). So that I want to say that a heap of animals, who just walking on the road are dropping, from time to time, some "tarts", are doing this again for hygienic reasons about their "nests", in this way even if they are forced to do it there, then this will be several times less and rarely, and by this they try to stay on feet — the horses, cows, and others —, as if only the sheep and pigs are sprawling where they will. The people in this regard are not to be reproached, but it is, still, interesting to mention that the toilette is placed usually exactly ... in the center of the house, not somewhere to the side, say, by the door.

     And why, you think, the pigeons are cooing? Well, this question must be very easy (at least for Bulgarians): because they want to "chukat themselves", in Bulgarian, naturally, what means, sorry, to copulate (literally to hit, crash, like nuts). All sounds and kisses, and mutual knocking with their beaks, they also ... shove tongues (only that I don't know which ones more often, the dames or the males), all this is only prelude to the game of love. And which coo most of all? The males, surely, it is so by all birds — by the canaries, probably by swallows, too, by nightingales, peacocks (they boast with their tails), cocks, and so on. A, there is one kind of bird (it has to be oriole in English) which is called in Bulgarian "chicho-pey" (where chicho is uncle and pey is to sing), but this is only not to chock the children, I'll tell you, because one will hardly pronounce the sound "ch" with a beak (it is "chovka" in Bulgarian); with "tsovka" one can say only "ts". For this reason I hear many times as some small bird (I can't see it, it sits high in the boughs) cries "tsitsa-ta", "tsitsa-ta" (and "tsitsa" is a teat) so that it turns out to be also a cynic.
     So up till the insects including the females are the main sex, they are bigger and more universal (remind yourself that by the ants and bees all working individuals are undeveloped females, i.e. "virgins", males there are 1-2%, if not less), but from the birds and above, and especially by the mammals, the males are the kings, while the dames are impersonal, like, hmm, like hens. Because the hens when raise their voices, ah? Well, when they lay an egg, then they turn around, look at it, and begin to boast what a big egg they have "produced", don't they? And what do they say? Surely "co-co", right? Well, exactly for this reason the syllable "co" in Latin (in Slavonic it is "ko", and it has to be the same in Arabic, Hebrew, and others) for all Western languages means something related with (at least) two things or individuals, something interwoven, twisted. For example: cooperation, corporation, correlation, copulation, correspondence, construction, constatation, contestation, condensation, consumation /consumption, container, contour, corruption, commune, conjuncture, compromise, commercion, continuum (and from here also Slavonic konets as end, I suppose), the copy (together with Slavonic kopie as spear), the choir /chorus /Slavonic hor (what is nearer to the Greek original), the cosmos (which is related with the ... hairs and cosmetics, as something nice and ordered), to conserve, the commander, context, Bulgarian (i.e. Turkish) komshia as neighbour, the (French) cauchemar (where you have changed the first part to "night" but left the second the same as -mare), and many many others, literally thousands of words! And if you ask yourself, why exactly the hens have given us this syllable, not, say, the cows, then the answer is in this, that hens have run in every home, where cows, sheep, etc., rarely, they were led out to graze in flocks, they have not done this thing so often, while the hens were under the nose of everybody and their "co-co" was heard every day by all.

     And, generally, if life in the air was not so exhausting, the birds would have long ago become masters of the earth, for you know that in many myths exist all sorts of bizarre flying animals — dragons, angels, devils, demons, witches, and even flying carpets. One mode dimension is not a trifle, it gives wider look at the things, at life. And also just imagine how ... romantic is a journey to the hot countries in winter, while it is impossible to live there in summer, so that, let us now return back, and so every year. This hardens the character and the nerves, and leads to interesting life. I, personally, think, that the reason why the human has become master of the earth is not so much in his hand, or in his brain, or in the vocal cords and speech, though this, surely, is of big importance, but in his ... imperfection, he is good for nothing concrete, and when so he is simply forced to push ahead, to do something for to survive (but I have discussed this thesis in other places, so that it is not necessary to indulge in it also here).
     And the birds exceed us, or at least give us an example, also with this, that it is possible to live interesting (and enjoy the sun, because we have begun with this here) without necessary killing one another, in order to "improve" or select themselves. Because the birds, as also all animals, in one or other extent, limit their population due to conflicts with the environment, with the nature, with some predators, they have problems with the sustenance, while the humans have limited it, at least until the time of Karl Marx, till the middle of the 19th century, or before the industrial revolution, mainly as result of battles with his fellows and neighbours — and this, more often than not, without whatever special need. But now we are not in position to limit it even in this way, and 50 - 100 millions killed seems not enough for us. So that, I don't know, maybe it isn't bad to look from time to time at different animals, if you want also at hens and cocks. They have something to teach us.

     Sep 2012

      — — —


     When I pose so the question then I, presumably, have doubts in this. My view, which I will extend in this paper, is such, that there is not so much global warming as global stirring of the weather. We will see now whether it is so, in what it is expressed, and what can be done in order to eliminate it, if we want to, because it can happen that this is not so bad. But let us begin.

     1. Is the weather warming everywhere?

     Look, if the weather was warming in global scale then there would have been changing of the integral parameters, as is said, i.e. of the average temperature, the polar caps would have been melting, the level of oceans would have been raised and some countries would have been flooded (like Holland, for example), but such things, if I am not mistaken, are not happening. The average yearly temperature I have not heard to have been raised even with one degree Celsius for the last 30-40 years; maybe there is some increase with tenths of a degree, but this is not so substantial for to pay much attention to it. There are talks that the polar caps can begin to melt, chiefly on the North one, where there is no land but only water, but for the moment this as if is not observed, at least more than the normal, because, all the scholars state this, the weather is warming since the last glacial period (what are some 10 - 20 thousand years, I think) anyway, it warms a bit, but this is a slow process. In Holland there are not floods, and there, where such disasters happen, they are result of torrential rains, landslides, hurricanes, but not of some constant raising of water level in the oceans (with, say, more than a centimeter in an year).
     And I have also some personal perceptions, being already in my sundown, as is said, and the only thing that I recall myself is that roughly 40 years before was quite cold in St. Petersburg (then Leningrad) and in Moscow in winter (up to 30-40oC below zero), but this maybe was not all the time, just for a pair of weeks, what happens also now sometimes. In Bulgaria some warming in principle is not felt. When I begin to think that it as if begins, because in summer it becomes very hot, almost difficult to breathe, then unexpectedly it turns colder with about 20 degrees, and in addition comes cold winter. Now, this winter, 2012 (in January) was quite cold by us, the consumption of central heating was with about 30 percent bigger then in the previous one, the spring was late with almost a whole month (no matter that the Easter fell pretty early, and this holiday marks the beginning of ... the season of pasture, which is pasha in Bulgarian — at least I think so), but after this has come an August weather already in May, and the delay was caught up somewhere in June, and was so hot all the summer, with record high temperatures in the end of September, and even to the very beginning of November it reached above 20oC in the day, so that, one thing to the other, as if everything was as before.
     And don't forget also the "normal" warming due to the carbon dioxide, which comes from the industry and this is so for at least one century, i.e. the greenhouse effect, so that there is nothing new for the last 20 - 30 years. Even this CO2 is only 0.03% (and this is so now as if millions of years), what can't be said that is much, and it is result not of warming of the weather but of working of industry, so that even if there is some warming it is consequence of something else.

     2. What is stirring and mixing?

     Well, there are stirring the layers of air, the seasons are confusing, straightly said, there are no more seasons! As I said, there happen pretty often big changes, jumps, in the temperature, as above (in the winter), so also below (in the summer), and not with 5-10oC, but at once with about 20 degrees, and not for a pair of days, but for 2, and sometimes even 3, weeks. One has always to keep at hand different clothes, neither the summer is summer, nor the winter is winter, because both, the summer may become hotter than normally, and winter colder. As best seasons, at least in Bulgaria, begin to form themselves the spring and the autumn, in spite of this (or exactly because of this), that there are rainfalls and it is cloudy. Still, we have come to no special natural disasters in Bulgaria (maybe only the normal floodings and danger of such because of the artificial water reservoirs).
     Putting this in other words can be said that this, what is observed, is strong turbulence of the air masses, heavy winds. The climate begins to become in some extent like in the desert, with this difference that there is very hot in the day but very cold in the night, and wood and stone crack because of these extreme differences, while here these changes happen for a period of 2-3 weeks, but the point is again in the differences, not in the average temperature. Imagine now for a moment that it comes such hurricane wind which instantly reaches from the poles to the equator, and vice versa. What will happen then? Well, there will equalize the temperatures on the poles and on the equator, and we will come to some average temperature, and by this will melt the polar caps entirely and occur all sorts of cataclysms (not counting the hurricanes), but even in this case it wouldn't be properly to speak about global warming — because the temperature has not risen, the average temperature for the entire globe has remained the same. So that I will take now that have succeed to convince you in some degree.

     3. Why the weather is mixing?

     Well, going out of the analogy with the desert, it has to be clear that the winds blow because, for one thing the air is stirring, and, for another thing, there is nothing to stop the wind. There can be some other moments but they are not so substantial. And now: what stirs the air? Well, how do you think, what can buzz and thump and make wind, ah? It can happen that some volcano erupts, or that somewhere exists artificially made "volcano", i.e. bombing, where all these are shakings and concussions of the air, but they, after all, are in great extent localized, they can't include the whole Earth (people don't fight everywhere, at present the Americans have oriented themselves to the Arabs, they are not enough white, I think, but this is just another story, or as the Russians put it, "from another opera"). The main thing that buzzes, however, are the airplanes! I don't believe, if you have grown as much as to read these lines, to have never been on some airport and to have not heard how are buzzing the taking off planes (and the landing ones, too), and not to know how they are roaring in the air while flying. Now, if I decide to quote you with how much in an year increase the passenger kilometers flown, I will surely make a mistake, but for the last one century they, a priori, have grown, almost certainly, hundred times (!), and each thing that grows (at least within a human life, in order to be noticed) more than twice must make us think.
     But we don't want to think, for each cares only about himself and there is still lacking global insight in regard of a heap (of all more important) social problems. We wait, according to one not much decent "hen" expression, till the egg begins to go out from our bottom, and just then begin to think (that, for example, there is nowhere to lay it). Because in its time so were killed all (or almost all) bisons, respectively Indians in United States, almost all whales in the oceans, or almost all elephants, and sundry other examples, because we have widely exceeded the limit of 2-3 times. For this reason, by the way, the Americans are compelled to fight, but really, not like in the cinema, with the Arabs, because the oil consumption increases twice, say, each 10 years (if not less than that), what for half a century makes approximately 30 times — the exact data is something like that. And it is perfectly clear that if for a voyage from Europe to America is, still, convenient to use a plane, than in many other cases of shorter than 1000 km distances, for which there are roads by land, is not at all necessary to do this, but we are doing it because this is possible, and also because this turns to be cheaper for us, right? In the same way as with the killing of whales, about which I have mentioned, or of elephants, and so on.
     And the other moment is this, that there is nothing to stop the wind, and these are, also obviously, the trees, or simply greenery, which softens the climate. When I have mentioned the deserts I was not much away from the truth, because in one New York, for example, are hardly more trees than on the corresponding area of Gobi Desert (with exception of Central Park). Id est, our towns, from the viewpoint of greenery, have turned to deserts, there are high-rise buildings there, they stop somehow the wind, but this is not the same what do the trees, there are differences in thermal coefficients, in absorption of moisture, and in other points. And if rising up, in order to save place, we think that we solve the problems, then this is not at all so, because around the building is spent as much and more space for parking lots, and first of all for streets. And what about the suburban roads and highways? Looking from high above the city, town, and for a long time also the suburban regions look like Moon or Martian landscapes, and the highways, they are like the Martian canals, maybe a bit narrower than the latter, but with tendency to "grow fat". And all this because, saying it most succinctly, the people on Earth have become overmuch and we as if wait that something has lessened our population at least hundred times!
     In this case, I don't know, but the greenhouse effect, as much as it existed, is maybe even a positive occurrence, because it, not much, but still, restrains the big fluctuations in temperature, i.e. shows some stabilizing influence (there are no greenhouses in the deserts, right?).

     4. Why the authorities deceive us?

     So that, if I am right — what obviously is so, give it alone a though —, then arises the quite reasonable question: why those, who must be better informed in the things, i.e. the politicians, at least consulted by various scientists, speak to us about Global warming? Well, maybe because it is more profitable in this way, right? More profitable for the politicians, what means for the business that stays behind them (because this is the quintessence of capitalism in economic regard: ruling of some business groups), as well also for us alone (because we want all this: to fly when we like fast and cheap, to live in cities, to drive fast cars, to have jobs, and so on). Unwillingly there again come to my mind the poor whales from the past.
     And in addition to the airplanes and cars there is one more direct impact on the business, the production of some goods and services is increasing, because if we not only are heating in winter but also are cooling in summer, then this means that is used more additional energy, respectively the costs for the population are enhanced, and from here the wins for the business are higher; similarly is also with other products, because when the weather often changes and blow strong winds, then we need better isolated homes, and other things. So that the common, average, human is not in position to judge rightly what would have been better for him, even if he alone could have shown direct influence, i.e. it is not like almost not to fly and live in villages. But, still, think a little prognostically, at least a tiny bit forward in the time, and remember the equalizing of temperatures on the poles and the equator, because there is where to we are moving.
     Now, the problems, surely, are complicated and mutually related and we can not correct them at once, but we can at least begin to move in the right direction (not in the wrong one), and I will propose here some measures for the purpose. The question with the overpopulation, however, remains, for it is too complicated to be co-opted also here, but let me remind you that according with the official data the population on Earth is doubling for 35 years, what gives quite precisely three times by so much in a century, or 2*2*2 = 8 times, or that after one century, if this tendency remains the same, then we will be 50 milliards or billions on the "globe" (for 6*8 = 48, but we are now above 6 mlrd)! After one more century this will give 400 mlrd, and after one more than this we will be already 3 giga people (not bytes). To me this seems pretty scaring, but don't know how it is to you.

     5. What we can do, in order to stop this stirring of the atmosphere?

     Well, look, the question is first of all in our view to the world, it is a question of philosophy, of way of live, of moral values, let us not deceive us that it is not so! If we do not hurry so much to live and make career (as if there were no other beings before us for milliards of years, and as if there are not remaining other milliards before the Sun extinguishes), if we do not insist to be present everywhere in person (when we can see on the screen almost everything), if we do not like living in anthills and prefer to abide in normal one- or two- story houses and amidst nature, if we do not like to multiply in such horrifying proportions, and so on, the things will not be so dangerous. Id est, if we are not so vain and do not live only in the current day, and if we don't rush so at the word "new", then everything will be rosy. But this means to a great extent to renounce the Western way of life, the Western values, and return to the old Eastern theosophies. I personally don't see why we should not do so, because in the result of very big haste, somewhere after the times of Karl Marx and till the current days, we are coming only to cataclysms, but I am already in old age, so that the young ones can hurry, when they so much want it. For this reason I will propose also some chiefly palliative measures, but which can lead to some results, and at least will slow down this process of stirring of the atmosphere.
     Firstly about the airplanes: but this is elementary (as everything genius) and consist in introducing of excise on the airline kilometers (for people and goods), in order that after about 20 years they became unprofitable, and even after a decade people began to consider the point and decrease the flights. And isn't it so with the cigarettes? One exemplary proposition for the exact percents is the following: by 5% (up to 10% — this can be discussed and corrected during the introduction) an year increasing of airplane tickets and prices of aircraft transport. In such case, if one has to fly somewhere at a distance of 600 km, for example, and if it turns out to be twice more expensive than if he uses bus or train, then he nearly always will refuse to fly. In addition to this is necessary to begin gradual elimination of all short airplane flights, beginning with distance of 300 km (hardly somebody uses plane for such distance), and this length has to grow yearly with 30 km, for example, till we reach 1000 km minimal distance.
     In regard of the greening I have also simple proposition: at every new building site has to be required that on each square meter built-up area (i.e. covered earth, but is it building, or road, or something else that performs auxiliary functions, this doesn't matter) allocate just as much green area, where the half of it must be occupied by trees (together with all needed equipment, were it for watering, were is for support of the plants, i.e. the things must begin at once to function and wait only that the trees grow up); yet if it goes about building in city conditions, or where already exist something built, then at 1.0 sq.m. built-up area require 0.5 sq.m. green area and 0.5 sq.m. solar batteries, taking into account that this does not lead to decreasing of the living area even without increasing of the height of building! And how I imagine the latter, the reader may ask, that we will demolish 2 decares (0.2 hectares) apartment building and on its place will raise also 2 decares home plus 1 decare green place and 1 decare solar batteries, ah? Well, quite simple, will be used also the roof and the roads, because solar batteries can be put everywhere (also on walls and windows), not only horizontally, and if they are at an angle of 45o then this gives increase of the area 1.4 times (square root of 2, if we are more precise, what is 1.4142...), and even can be done this and that, i.e. on the roof can be greenhouses, which will be covered at least by half with solar batteries (and they can be in two layers, so that there was possible to move them and in this way to hide the sun, if it is too hot, what will also increase the area of solar batteries, but if it is cloudy then they can leave, say, 50% of the light.
     These measures can be applied even right away, but after approximately 10-20 years surely will be no problems with the solar batteries. The latter will not immediately stop the wind, naturally, but they will give electricity, what means that will be burned less — whatever it ware —, and will be, respectively, less smoke. To add also that if the synchronization of produced electric power in voltage with the power grid will turn to be difficult then can be made additional contacts for DC power with voltage, say, 12 V (or 24 V, or how it will be decided), which could be used for powering of computers and heating devices. These ideas can be evolved a little, but we will make this in the next section.

     6. What can be expected in the near future?

     Solar batteries can be put also along the roads (or on high pillars in the middle of the roads, in the dividing strip of highways), and also on boards of the roads can be required building of strips (with width of 5 to 10 meters) with trees, were they fruit-bearing or not, or vines, palmettos, greenhouses, et cetera. There is also nothing impossible if there begin to build also ... homes, of course, because there is nothing bad in this that people live amidst the nature, and also around the roads, i.e. on the roads. And in this case it turns out that Arabia will really benefit, for they have enough sun there, and if there will be also electricity, then water will flow, too, and roses will blossom, and greenhouses will emerge, and grass will begin to grow (around the roads, little by little), and lambs to bleat, and so on.
     I also see nothing bad if will be revived, as far as possible, also the cruise travels, as part of the rest (or as the whole relaxation), in the way as it was for many centuries (for example, I have heard that now can be built quite contemporary ... sailing ships, with computerized navigation, as well as with engines in case of necessity, pretty modern, so that one would be simply glad to undertake one such tour on a boat of this kind, if there was just the money ready). As also to minimize all possible trips with the use of computerized presence (for conferences, business meetings, etc.). A three-dimensional virtual presence would be quite enough at least in 3/4 of the cases, and this means lessening of the travels 4 times.
     I also think that it will cause no difficulties to move in many factories and large enterprises (with more than, say, 50 employees) to work 3 days in week by 10 hours, where people stay overnight there — either in dormitories, or in caravans, with all possible amenities —, what will give reducing of the travel from 5 (or, eventually, 4) times in week to a single time, and this is not only economy of fuel, but also of time, and is more comfortable (and, if you want, will allow to become better "acquainted" with the female or male colleagues in today's "no-families" world). The same idea can be applied also in the education, where the children learn chiefly before computer screens, and visit the educational institution more or less 1/5 of the time, i.e. once in a week, if they are in the school, or for a week once in a month (or one and a half), if they are students from universities and colleges.
     Add to this also the electric mobiles and you will see how both, the deforestation will decrease, and the winds will weaken. And if the people decrease also their own number (somewhere about 50 - 100 millions — I have considered this question in other places), this will lead to the elimination of wars, too (because: why must people kill one another if there is everything for everybody?) and our problems will almost disappear.

     Nov 2012

      — — —


Сконвертировано и опубликовано на http://SamoLit.com/