reality checks

reality check

united states of america is quite socialist. a lot of big businesses are subsidized especially by military. i read somewhere mit is mostly military funded? if you are admiring the mit media lab and such things, keep in mind that it is expected a large part of mit research goes into weapons. it would be more appropriate if battlefield photos were on the mit cover.

fundraising is popular in countries which do not have a good social program. it is questionable if it works. people with free time and extra money will help but never as much as when pushed by taxes. taxes make everybody to contribute systematically and not on their whims. countries with lower taxes and excluding social policy (not including medical research and insurance for example) try to motivate their citizens into private fundraising. does this give results? i do not know. if anyone knows any comparative studies please let me know.

i am wondering – if everybody pays appropriate taxes (lets not discuss this now :) ) then why is there a need for individual fundraising and donation.

it is an essential question: is systematic taxation more efficient than individual choice whom you want to help? depends on the whole system.

still a lot of admiration for people who fundraised and donated amazing amounts of money to issues like health and youth.

for sure it makes sense to fundraise for causes in countries which do not have a substantial gdp (like tahiti).

very important fact – “99%” of people in american movies and tv series are dressed absolutely horrible. most of them wear big clothes. men’s jackets are very big, most clothing is behind fashion and cheap. i hate big jackets. european movies and tv series are a bit better with clothing.

van gogh is really not such a good artist but i have no idea why he is so popular and expensive. for some reason we are constantly reminded of his extremely overblown worth on media. do tv stations own stock in his work? :) i have seen a lot of his work and at best it is average even for then. maybe i am missing something? clue me in please.

did damien hirst buy his own art?

most people have no clue what they should do, the general attitude of people around the world is resistance toward change. “today i did not get hurt today, i hope tomorrow will be same.” one needs to be quite pissed off to make any change. the other option is change comes by itself, sort of happens, and someone takes the lead just by being there but not really planing the change – this is the most efficient way. by this definition having insight to what kind of change is not good.

if someone would ask you where would you like to live in 1980s if you were smart you would say yugoslavia. even government dissidents had it easy back then. probably the best place to be at in 80s. probably the worst place to be in 90s (after iraq). not a very good place to be in 2000s.

visiting paris is great, living in paris sucks… unless you have an outrageous salary. even then it is questionable. there is nothing new going on there, there are three art show openings every night but it is the same 100 people migrating from one to other and everything else is the same. they are only pushing the stats.

people are absolutely totally irrational. is any attempt in explaining anything rationally a failure.

only real reason to exercise is to avoid shitting my own pants during the last few years of my life. i am not even sure if this will make any difference or if shitting my pants is bad in the first place. certainly is better if i can be active for as long as possible. anyone craving for some kind of results in exercise needs a reality check (unless you are making money from results).

everybody should do an mma match once in their life. street fighting is for pussies, you can always cheat. is there anything more liberating than having your ass kicked? what matters is giving it your best. everybody gets their ass kicked. you can be on top only for a moment. top is a point of view.

sports rules have been changed over centuries to make sports easier and easier for athletes. 100 years ago sports were much more brutal. today much more people can participate in sports, in the future even more will be able to do it without permanent damage. sport was never meant to be nice and fun, it was always about militant brutality. maybe in 1000 years civilization will finally accept sports as a pastime (we lay our hopes in genetic engineering).

these are questions… not statements… even though they read like statements.

please comment.