De impuestos

Con la indignación que me llena cada vez que veo las noticias, que ya sé que son esencialmente desinformativas... pero con la ineptitud que veo en la clase política (nada nuevo, teniendo en cuenta su catadura moral -bien baja-, su capacidad de análisis y gestión -ah! ¿tienen estudios?-, su don de lenguas -ar iu tokin tumi?- y su rostro duro como la piedra), me dan ganas de entrar a degüello.

Y no se me ocurre mejor manera que dejando de pagar impuestos. Que no, que no lo haré (nunca se sabe quién puede estar escuchando), pero sería lo lógico, lo propio, lo inteligente... porque es la única manera de que les duela. Lo malo es que dolería a los funcionarios antes que a ellos, pero el mensaje sería claro: la función pública tiene que ajustarse, tanto o más que la privada... y de momento, ni lo han hecho, ni se les ve capaces de hacerlo... y ni siquiera se les ve las ganas o la intención. Sencillamente, hay que cortarles la cabeza. Ah... ¿que no se puede? Bueno, en Bruselas han sobrevivido sin gobierno central durante muchos muchos meses... y eso seguro que les ha ahorrado un buen dinero.

Suena mal, lo sé... pero si empezásemos a pensar que es NUESTRO dinero el que malgastan a espuertas, quizá actuaríamos de forma distinta. Y yo tengo ganas de ponerme violento con la indolencia de esta gente y la forma como toman las decisiones. Claramente no tienen ni idea de lo que es la gestión... y nadie parece hacerles sufrir a ellos en sus carnes las consecuencias de dicha mala gestión. En tiempos se les apedreaba o linchaba. Hoy se supone que hay mejores maneras, más... civilizadas... pero si no asumen la responsabilidad y no dimiten (digo los que están)... y encima prometen más de lo mismo (más gasto, a costa de más deuda... y todo imagen y más imagen, que redunda en una pérdida de credibilidad porque no está sustentada en hechos)... quizá los idiotas somos los que aguantamos sin más.

Desde luego, si el día de mañana gano mucho dinero, me gustaría que la función pública no se dedicase a malgastarlo en mala gestión. No confundir mala gestión con un alto gasto en Sanidad, Educación, etc... porque esta gente no ha entendido que no es una cuestión de cantidad, sino de organización. Se trata de hacer más con menos (o al menos, lo mismo, con menos dinero). Si no asumen que eso es la competitividad y el progreso... y no se les exige, estamos abocados al desastre.

Por cierto... en Occidente varios países han permitido cambios institucionales de calado (Francia, sin ir más lejos, cambió de régimen con De Gaulle... en los 50-60)... si aquí el rollo de las Autonomías no convence a nadie, ¿por qué no un modelo federal? O algo, que liquide de una vez la insensatez de que nada esté fijado y todo sea negociable según el equilibrio de poderes del momento...

Sex, sacred?

It is very obvious that sex is a key function for any species. Sex for reproduction... as ultimate function, but since reproduction and survival is linked to number of occasions that sex happen, let's say that sex is the motor.

Looking at the Nature, with capital letter, we see different approaches to sex. Anything... from 1st mate being your mate for the rest of your life... to sex with as many mates as possible, as often as possible. In mammals, supposedly the superior dominant branch on Earth (let aside the microscopic world) it's just about the same. At some point, we think, the man, with his aggressive and supposedly intelligent mind, decided that some order and regulation was needed... very likely to ensure that one individual heritage was passed on to his children... and not anybody's that could have had sex with his mate. So marriage, in different version, was born. Marriage is definitely a social convention. It is public, it intends to show to the other members of the clan the union between the 2 individuals as to prevent other individuals from trying to mate them and it also provides a public view of who is inheriting whatever is to be inherited. Surnames probably have a similar function. And this is pretty common in all human settlements.

At some point, religion came to work and ... in many cases, declared that the sex was a sacred thing. Such a natural thing... was elevated and considered something to be protected, to be regulated and to be saved. Yes... more than sex, it was all what it involved that was protected, and above it all, the reproductive consequence of sex. But still... sex was not allowed in the streets, it had to be practiced (preferably) in the intimacy of the bedroom, it was also surrounded (in the civilised world) with a whole set of elements that made it special (special seductive clothes, special flowers and decoration, special fragrances, special gifts, special occassions... everything special). So... what was so special about sex? I don't know, but it is clear that the amount of effort put into making sex a very special, very high, very difficult, almost misterious... is significant. It definitely makes it more "valuable" (maybe more desirable, too)... and people is also willing to do more things (for it). Ok... maybe it's not only sex that they look for, maybe there is also love... but that sex is an important driver, I think is clear.

Today there is this trend to banalize sex. Practice it, the sooner, the better. The more promiscuous, the more knowledgeable. The more you practice... the happier you will be. Oh... well... this is maybe at the other end of the balance... but between the sex-for-reproduction-only and the sex-with-all-at-all times there is a wide field to play... and I think most of people are still, happily, in the area where sex is a desirable part of love, which is the ideal... but since this one is a bit elusive, sex can provide some fun while we seek our perfect match. But this fun is not forever... and we should not miss the main target when seeking. Some people take some more time to find out...

My point today was that the sacralization of sex had a purpose that we should not miss when we downgrade it to a more common need.

Conan, the barbarian.

Did you ever read "Conan, the Barbarian", from Robert E. Howard? I mean any of the books, written in the 30´s of the 20th Century.

I read one of them, only once. I was 25. And I loved it. I read it in English (maybe it helped to not find the story too "teenager" the fact of reading in a foreign language), the level of vocabulary was quite good (at least higher than I expected and certainly higher than today´s standards) and the speed of the storyline was amazing. The story was simple, the characters ellaborated, the descriptions brief enough to set the stage for a wealth of action.

For once, it was a good surprise in reading something "new". I did not bother searching for more books of the same... maybe because I was too busy at the time, but I was enlightened with the strength of the story and the characters. Of course, I had seen the film and seen some cartoons... and in general my expectations were low before I started reading... but were totally exceeded. I strongly reccomend it.. if you like simple, direct, fresh stories. I wish I could be so direct.

It sold 12 Million books worldwide.

What? Did you expect me to write about serious stuff or politics all the time?