Queen Marie of Romania

Elvis by the Presleys:)

unseen neurosurgeon:)

“Life starts all over again when it gets crisp in the fall.”

http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/245494-the-great-gatsby?auto_login_attempted=true

Visconti, 1963:)

olive's wisdom:)

"Huggin' up the big monkey man"

Surveillance of the global economy The IMF is mandated to oversee the international monetary and financial system and monitor the economic and financial policies of its 188 member countries. This activity is known as surveillance and facilitates international cooperation. Since the demise of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates in the early 1970s, surveillance has evolved largely by way of changes in procedures rather than through the adoption of new obligations. The responsibilities of the Fund changed from those of guardian to those of overseer of members’ policies. Some entities that are not themselves IMF members also contribute statistical data to the systems: Palestinian National Authority – GDDS Hong Kong – SDDS Macau – GDDS European Union institutions: the European Central Bank for the Eurozone – SDDS Eurostat for the whole EU – SDDS, thus providing data from Cyprus (not using any DDSystem on its own) and Malta (using only GDDS on its own) Conditionality of loansIMF conditionality is a set of policies or “conditions” that the IMF requires in exchange for financial resources.The IMF does not require collateral from countries for loans but rather requires the government seeking assistance to correct its macroeconomic imbalances in the form of policy reform. If the conditions are not met, the funds are withheld. Conditionality is perhaps the most controversial aspect of IMF policies.The concept of conditionality was introduced in an Executive Board decision in 1952 and later incorporated in the Articles of Agreement. Conditionality is associated with economic theory as well as an enforcement mechanism for repayment. Stemming primarily from the work of Jacques Polak in the Fund’s research department, the theoretical underpinning of conditionality was the “monetary approach to the balance of payments." Criticisms The IMF has the obstacle of being unfamiliar with local economic conditions, cultures, and environments in the countries they are requiring policy reform. The Fund knows very little about what public spending on programs like public health and education actually means, especially in African countries; they have no feel for the impact that their proposed national budget will have on people. The economic advice the IMF gives might not always take into consideration the difference between what spending means on paper and how its felt by citizens. For example, Jeffrey Sach's work shows that "the Fund’s usual prescription is 'budgetary belt tightening to countries who are much too poor to own belts'. "The IMF’s role as a generalist institution specializing in macroeconomic issues needs reform. Conditionality has also been criticized because a country can pledge collateral of “acceptable assets” in order to obtain waivers on certain conditions. However, that assumes that all countries have the capability and choice to provide acceptable collateral. It is claimed that conditionalities retard social stability and hence inhibit the stated goals of the IMF, while Structural Adjustment Programs lead to an increase in poverty in recipient countries.The IMF sometimes advocates “austerity programmes,” cutting public spending and increasing taxes even when the economy is weak, in order to bring budgets closer to a balance, thus reducing budget deficits. Countries are often advised to lower their corporate tax rate. In Globalization and Its Discontents, Joseph E. Stiglitz, former chief economist and senior vice president at the World Bank, criticizes these policies.He argues that by converting to a more monetarist approach, the purpose of the fund is no longer valid, as it was designed to provide funds for countries to carry out Keynesian reflations, and that the IMF “was not participating in a conspiracy, but it was reflecting the interests and ideology of the Western financial community.” Overseas Development Institute (ODI) research undertaken in 1980 pointed to five main criticisms of the IMF which support the analysis that it is a pillar of global apartheid. Firstly, developed countries were seen to have a more dominant role and control over less developed countries (LDCs) primarily due to the Western bias towards a capitalist form of the world economy with professional staff being Western trained and believing in the efficacy of market-oriented policies. Secondly, the Fund worked on the incorrect assumption that all payments disequilibria were caused domestically. Fourthly is the accusation that harsh policy conditions were self-defeating where a vicious circle developed when members refused loans due to harsh conditionality, making their economy worse and eventually taking loans as a drastic medicine. Lastly is the point that the Fund's policies lack a clear economic rationale. Its policy foundations were theoretical and unclear due to differing opinions and departmental rivalries whilst dealing with countries with widely varying economic circumstances. Impact on access to food A number of civil society organizations have criticized the IMF’s policies for their impact on people’s access to food, particularly in developing countries. In October 2008, former U.S. president Bill Clinton presented a speech to the United Nations World Food Day, which criticized the World Bank and IMF for their policies on food and agriculture: We need the World Bank, the IMF, all the big foundations, and all the governments to admit that, for 30 years, we all blew it, including me when I was president. We were wrong to believe that food was like some other product in international trade, and we all have to go back to a more responsible and sustainable form of agriculture.—Former U.S. president Bill Clinton, Speech at United Nations World Food Day, October 16, 2008 Impact on public health In 2009 a study by analysts from Cambridge and Yale universities published on the open-access Public Library of Science concluded that strict conditions on the international loans by the IMF resulted in thousands of deaths in Eastern Europe by tuberculosis as public health care had to be weakened. In the 21 countries to which the IMF had given loans, tuberculosis deaths rose by 16.6%. In 2009, a book by Rick Rowden titled The Deadly Ideas of Neoliberalism: How the IMF has Undermined Public Health and the Fight Against AIDS, claimed that the IMF’s monetarist approach towards prioritizing price stability (low inflation) and fiscal restraint (low budget deficits) was unnecessarily restrictive and has prevented developing countries from being able to scale up long-term public investment as a percent of GDP in the underlying public health infrastructure. The book claimed the consequences have been chronically underfunded public health systems, leading to dilapidated health infrastructure, inadequate numbers of health personnel, and demoralizing working conditions that have fueled the “push factors” driving the brain drain of nurses migrating from poor countries to rich ones, all of which has undermined public health systems and the fight against HIV/AIDS in developing countries. Support of military dictatorships The role of the Bretton Woods institutions has been controversial since the late Cold War period, due to claims that the IMF policy makers supported military dictatorships friendly to American and European corporations and other anti-communist regimes. Critics also claim that the IMF is generally apathetic or hostile to their views of human rights, and labor rights. The controversy has helped spark the Anti-globalization movement. Arguments in favor of the IMF say that economic stability is a precursor to democracy; however, critics highlight various examples in which democratized countries fell after receiving IMF loans.

right before 22 of July 2011, in Norway!!.....

Crown prince defies Baku trip critics June 6, 2011 Crown Prince Haakon led a Norwegian delegation to an oil industry conference in Baku in … Crown Prince Haakon led a Norwegian delegation to an oil industry conference in Baku in Azerbaijan as planned on Monday, despite widespread and unusual criticism of the royal trip. Haakon hasn’t commented directly on either the trip or the criticism, thus defying human rights organizations and various commentators who wanted him to stay home. Newspaper Aftenposten even wrote two separate editorials about the issue, first urging state officials to drop their plans to have Haakon along and “let the crown prince stay home.” When neither palace nor government officials responded, Aftenposten followed up with another appeal on Saturday, claiming that it “still wasn’t too late” for Crown Prince Haakon to change his mind and agree with the positions of human rights activists who view Azerbaijan as one of the most brutal and repressive regimes in Europe. Norwegian state oil company Statoil, which is among the most active foreign oil companies in Azerbaijan, has “closed its eyes” and invested heavily “in a land pervaded by corruption,” wrote Aftenposten’s editorial writer. The newspaper’s leadership said it agreed with Bjørn Engesland of the Norwegian Helsinki Committee, who claims along with other human rights activists that the royal visit can be used by Azerbaijan’s dictator as “undeserved recognition” of a regime Norway “has all reason to distance itself from.” The crown prince’s royal role leaves him unable to take up political issues, critics have argued, or to criticize Azerbaijan’s “systematic violations of human rights.” Even Norway’s political leaders have been silenced by Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev, according to WikiLeaks documents obtained by Aftenposten. Aliyev was, for example, furious after a former state secretary in Norway’s oil ministry dared to take up issues like human rights and freedom of expression during a meeting in June 2007. Anita Utseth of the Center Party was yelled at, wrote an American ambassador at the time, with Aliyev telling her she had no right to take up such questions. Several meetings between government authorities in Azerbaijan and the visiting Norwegians were suddenly cancelled, Utseth confirmed to Aftenposten last week. In a later meeting with British oil firm BP, Aliyev also complained that it was “unacceptable” for Norway to try to teach him about human rights. He threatened that Statoil wouldn’t win a lucrative contract to sell gas from the second phase of the large Shah Deniz area of the Caspian Sea. That would indicate that the Norwegian politicians traveling with Crown Prince Haakon on this week’s trip risk jeopardizing new contracts if they bring up Azerbaijan’s human rights violations, although State Secretary Espen Barth Eide has claimed that such visits offer an opportunity to do so. Opposition politicians, including Peter Gitmark of the Conservative Party, went to the unusual step of also advising Crown Prince Haakon against making the trip, because it could lend legitimacy to Azerbaijan’s brutal regime. “It has hardly happened earlier that a leading opposition party has so clearly offered advice on how a member of the Royal Family should take care of his role as a representative of Norway abroad,” Aftenposten wrote, adding more unusual royal criticism of its own in light of Haakon’s earlier commitment to furthering human rights: “When the Crown Prince allows himself to be used by Norwegian authorities as a door-opener, to strengthen ties with this regime, it smacks unfortunately of embarrassing hypocrisy.” Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK) has also aired critical reports of Haakon’s trip, but offered another view over the weekend. NRK’s veteran Russian and Soviet Union reporter Hans Wilhelm Steinfeld interviewed an editor in Azerbaijan who was recently imprisoned, Eynulla Fatullayev, and who said he was glad Norway was involved in the country. Both Statoil’s investment and visits by Norwegian authorities including Crown Prince Haakon could have positive influence on human rights issues, said Fatullayev, who was released after serving four years of a 15-year term for criticizing Aliyev’s regime following pressure from countries including Norway. “I want to thank Norway for supporting and defending freedom of expression here in Azerbaijan, over many difficult years,” Fatullayev told NRK. He also planned to meet Crown Prince Haakon during this week’s visit. http://www.newsinenglish.no/2011/06/06/crown-prince-defies-baku-trip-critics/ http://my.telegraph.co.uk/hatefsvoiceofpeace/hatefsvoice/81/dictatorship-covered-in-oil/ HRH Crown Prince Haakon’s attendance at the Bilderberg Group’s conference in St. Moritz raises concerns in Norway. Last Updated on 13th June 2011 at 20:15. Elitist Following his controversial attendance at the annual opening of International Caspian oil and Gas Exhibition in Baku earlier this week, The Crown Prince has been censured this time for attending the elite Bilderberg meeting at St. Moritz’s Suvretta House hotel. “When you have a Monarchy, the Monarch should remain neutral, not himself in an elite club such as this. They enjoy each other’s company and glorify their position. The Crown Prince is about to become entangled in a exclusive upper-class,” Professor of Political science Trond Nordby told NRK. HRH was one of over 100 invited participants comprising politicians, bank owners, journalists, business leaders, and industrialists. Other Norwegians present were Conservative Party (H) leader Erna Solberg, Egil Myklebust, former Chairman of the Board of Directors SAS, Norsk Hydro ASA, amongst others. NRK reports Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg also attended Bilderberg. According the group, this year’s themes were “Challenges for Growth: Innovation and Budgetary Discipline, the Euro and Challenges for the European Union, the role of Emerging Economies, Social Networks: Connectivity and Security Issues, New Challenges in the Middle East, Conflict Areas, Demographic Challenges, China, Switzerland: Can it remain successful in the future.” Conspiracies, or crap? View of Suvretta House in summer Courtesy of Suvretta HouseThe Bilderberg Group, which marked its 50th anniversary this week, is known for holding annual meetings with select invited participants. The only information to become public is attendees’ names. No media coverage is allowed, and the hotel perimeters are always guarded. Bilderberg claims to be “a small, flexible, informal and off-the-record international forum in which different viewpoints can be expressed and mutual understanding enhanced.” Nevertheless, the group’s “off-the-record” aspect is the cause of global conspiracies, reports the BBC. Whilst former journalist turned activist Tony Gosling has a problem with the secrecy, BBC News journalist Jonathan Duffy describes the group of being “an elite coterie of Western thinkers and power-brokers, accused of fixing the fate of the world behind closed doors.” “Crap! There's absolutely nothing in it. We never sought to reach a consensus on the big issues at Bilderberg. It's simply a place for discussion," says the Bilderberg Group’s co-founder former Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Dennis Healey. “Bilderberg is the most useful international group I ever attended. The confidentiality enabled people to speak honestly without fear of repercussions. In my experience the most useful meetings are those when one is free to speak openly and honestly. It's not unusual at all. Cabinet meetings in all countries are held behind closed doors and the minutes are not published." he continues. The meeting ended today. http://theforeigner.no/pages/news/crown-prince-haakon-attracts-more-criticism/

aristocrats..."cats":)

balcanic upper class gossip - Un ete inoubliable (1994) O vara de neuitat old communist ladies nostalgia

Comunismul hipsteric III

Castro şi Che Guevara, criminali patologici, dar idoli ai Hollywoodului, au fost intelectuali, studiind dreptul, respectiv medicina. Lenin a fost intelectual, Mao a fost un splendid intelectual autodidact, Pol Pot a fost intelectual, ce să mai vorbim de părinţii fondatori, Marx şi Engels! Intelectualii, nu proletarii, au creat şi au “pus în operă” catastrofa comunistă. Iar unii, deloc săraci, deloc puţini, deloc lipsiţi de mijloace şi influenţă, ar vrea să desăvîrşească azi lucrarea, tiptil, chiar în America, în bîrlogul fiarei capitaliste, ca s-o răpună definitiv. Speculînd emoţiile publicului. Prin propagandă abilă. Generatoare şi de producţii artistice de mare succes. Minţi, deci exişti Filme, romane, cîntece (gen Imagine al lui John Lennon, adică Manifestul Partidului Comunist în rezumat), destinate în primul rînd tinerilor. Mari creaţii de inoculare metodică, în masă, a comunismului reinventat, rebotezat, culmea, “liberalism”. Mari triumfuri propagandistice. Mari izbînzi ale spălării pe creier. Minciuni, care acoperă realitatea cumplită. Peste 100 de milioane de morţi, în numele utopiei egalitariste. Şi cifra creşte. Dar, evident, aceste lucruri trebuie ascunse. Şi sînt, cu enorm profesionalism, cu nesfîrşită grijă. Văzînd filme măiastre, din gama Wall Street, o fire mai superficială poate să ia ficţiunea drept realitate şi s-o generalizeze. Aha! Asta înseamnă capitalism! Ăştia sînt afaceriştii! Jos capitalismul! E un truc de mare succes. Aberaţia ridicată la rang de regulă. Cîte filme s-au făcut, însă, la Hollywood, pentru marele public, despre revolta proletară din Germania de Est, din 1953, despre seria revoltelor muncitoreşti de la Gdansk, din Polonia, despre revoltele muncitoreşti din Valea Jiului sau de la Braşov, de sub comunism? Nu prea s-au făcut. Comunismul hipsterilor n-are ce face cu adevărul. Trebuie să întreţină minciuna, prin ficţiune. De ce? Ei, na. Au un vis. Totul pentru victorie! Dacă ar reuşi să impuna comunismul în America, hipsterii cred că s-ar aranja definitiv, planetar. Nu şi-ar mai bate capul cu concurenţa. N-o să mai fie concurenţă. Capitalismul e greu. Trebuie să faci chestii tot mai bune, pe care oamenii să vrea să le cumpere şi de la tine, nu doar de la alţii. Capitalism sucks. În comunism, de pildă, vor fi numai filme excepţionale, făcute de cei mai buni cineaşti, după o planificare corectă şi cu tematică justă. Finanţate generos de Stat, de la buget, prin comisii alcătuite din cei mai buni specialişti. Adică tot ei, hipsterii. Creatorii nu vor mai ceda în faţa presiunii comerciale, a preferinţelor publicului. Fără prostituţie! Va fi doar artă adevărată. Cui nu-i place, e prost. Sigur, finanţare vor primi doar cei care au fost în prima linie a luptei, pe frontul cultural. Cam despre asta e vorba, în hipstereala lor. Bani şi putere, pentru cine merită. Ei stabilesc cine merită. Punct. Fără concurenţă. Tot aşa şi în televiziune, presă, industrie, finanţe, comerţ, medicină, învăţămînt, în orice domeniu în care concurenţa îi deranjează pe hipsteri. Iar prelucrarea şi cooptarea publicului se face, evident, prin mass-media şi industria de divertisment. Comunismul hipsteric e demult implantat la Hollywood, cu rădăcini adînci. Cîte filme americane despre avantajele nete ale capitalismul aţi prins? Cîte producţii elogioase despre Ronald Reagan aţi văzut? Cîte filme sau seriale în care Preşedintele Republican al SUA este personajul pozitiv? Păi n-aţi prea văzut. Ca regulă, Republicanul e personajul negativ. Preşedintele pozitiv, bun la suflet, e din Partidul Democrat. De stînga. Partidul foştilor stăpîni de sclavi. A căror “justificare morală” era că pe negri nu-i duce capul, trebuie să aibă cineva grijă de ei, să-i îmbrace, să-i hrănească, să-i educe, să-i adăpostească. Sigur, trebuie şi ei să muncească, în schimb. Mai bine minciuna cool, decît adevărul pur Tot aşa e şi cu masele largi, populare (la poulime, selon Oprescu). Fiind cretine, trebuie să se ocupe elita intelectuală de soarta lor. Avînd puterea absolută. Elita de stînga, fireşte. Doar ea merită să decidă cine e promovat, dintre plebei. Nu competiţia liberă, piei Satană! De aceea, nu trebuia insistat nici pe faptul că Partidul Republican, al lui Lincoln şi Reagan, a fost creat ca partid antisclavie, iar Democraţii, stînga lui Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama, sînt urmaşii sclavagiştilor, cu interesante contribuţii şi de la Ku-Klux-Klan. Dar, sigur, ce contează adevărul? Comunismul hipsteric e mult mai cool. Şi dă rezultate minunate, planetar. Atît de bune încît, iată, în opinia semi-glumeaţă a colegului Mantzy, parcă şi Ponta merită încă o şansă, poate mai atrage nişte tineri în PSD, dintre cei emancipaţi, care citesc cronici despre filme de la Hollywood ca There Will Be Blood, bazat pe un roman al scriitorului socialist american Upton Sinclair. Bună, nu? Hollywoodul în ajutorul lui Ponta. Ei, de-aia sîntem unde sîntem. Pentru că ficţiunea e luată drept realitate, zilnic, prin milioane de ecrane. Pentru că emoţiile primează în faţa raţiunii. Din necunoaştere, din naivitate, din hipsterism… Cu prietenie, ca întotdeauna, Alexandru Hâncu http://www.kmkz.ro/opinii/editorial/comunismul-hipsteric-iii/

A Woman of Substance

Noapte buna, copii!:)

Occupy……Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria!!!!

The Kurdish people are an Iranic ethnic group, descendants of Medes, whose origins are in the Middle East. They are the largest ethnic group in the world that do not have a state of their own. The region of Kurdistan, the original geographic region of the Kurdish people and the home to the majority of Kurds today, covers contemporary Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria.

Sora-Soarelui

DUMBRAVA MINUNATA Maria Mirabela [1981]

"What we do in life echoes in eternity."

....tocmai la pont!!:))

“Four legs good, two legs bad.”:)

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

function is given / se da functia.....

Grammy Awards, 2013

Judaism Rejects Zionism!

https://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&q=judaism+rejects+zionism&um=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42080656,d.bGE&biw=1920&bih=871&wrapid=tlif136044947099810&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=vi&ei=B9AWUe7hFOik4ATt-YCYBg

The Taming of the Shrew - Shakespeare:)

Child Beauty Pageants - Stolen Childhood

P.S. ….applying for any job in this world required regular if not OVER qualifications. While becoming a RESPONSIBLE parent doesn’t require any. Welcome to “reality”, folks!!!

Melody:)

Life and death, energy and peace. Gia Marie Carangi

“Life and death, energy and peace. If I stop today it was still worth it. Even the terrible mistakes that I made and would have unmade if I could. The pains that have burned me and scarred my soul, it was worth it, for having been allowed to walk where I’ve walked, which was to hell on earth, heaven on earth, back again, into, under, far in between, through it, in it, and above.”

"Preppy!!":))