Uncle Ioan - Unchiul Ionica

Uncle Ioan fought in WWII -- he started training in 1938 and was released in 1944 once his weight reached 40 kg due to dizenteria. He was sent to the hospital in Savarsin to recover. He died many years later of cancer of the intestine, which he connected to the privations suffered in the war. While walking in a park in Savarsin, he bumped into King Mihai who was bent over his dog. After a moment of recogniton, Ioan panicked, saluted, and humbly appologized. The king was unconcerned: "nu-i nimic, nu-i nimic"("it's nothing, it's nothing") was all he said. Uncle Ioan remembered this meeting fondly. The king came accross as a kind young man who was not afraid to go out without personal guard. A month or two later King Mihai was tricked into announcing peace via the radio before an armistice was signed, which doomed all forms of negociation and left the military men and the rest of the country at the mercy of our allies, the Russians, who had little mercy to spare. The war had been for nought, but then it almost always is so. The outcome of WWII was particularly brutal for Romania. It not only lost its young men, its buildings and infrastructure, but also lost large parts of its territory. The rest was occupied by Russian army until the communist regime was installed. It was not alone. All of Eastern Europe was plunged into a form of hell labeled communism that it has yet to fully recover from. Ioan did not choose to fight. Once martial law was signed, young men like Ioan never had a choice to begin with.

Ioan had always succeeded against all odds or so the neighbors said. His father was an alcoholic and wasted all money he earned. He had a brother and a sister -- each handicaped. The boy was born without fingers at one of his hands, which turned out to be a blessing in disguise because he did not have to go to war. The girl developed a weak heart after a childhood illness, and was never able to make a lot of effort. She later married a person shorter than normal, who, unfortunately, had a large ego that needed to be reafirmed in bars. I can imagine they had bitter scenes where the father justified his drinking through the health problems of the children. Of all three siblings, Ioan was the only one who had it all: perfect health, intelligence, and the ability to work hard. High expectations of success combined with a fear that he'd turn out like his father, must have weighted hard on his young shoulders. The experience at home would later help him deal with superiors who drank a lot and often had inflated egos.

In addition to bad habbits, and a colorful family, his father also had two sisters, who never had children of their own. They worked as seamstresses and specialized in the making of duvents, which were more expensive than regular clothes. They saw Ioan's potential and sent him off to school. We still own the Signer and Naumann sewing machine that had been their most valued possesion. Ioan turned himself into a scholar by studying hard. The letters he wrote back then revealed an idealistic young man who wrote poems about a first kiss followed by a marriage proposal in verse. When he went to take the Baccalaureat, which was only offered in a few centers in the country, the women in the neighborhood told him: "Go, many young men went, and they all returned just as they left". Against all odds, Ioan did well. He later went to college. There he specialized in Latin, which was as far feteched from the life of his practical aunts as astronomy and astrophysics is today from the life my parents led. They were, however, very proud of him. He, ultimately, became a teacher.

Just as things started to fall into place for him, he met Octavia, a smart and beautiful colleague who taught mathematics. However, once, he passed by her house and she and her two friends invited him in. They cut an apple in four, and shared it amongst gigles and laughter. And then each of the girls smoked a cigar. Ioan was aghast. He was not going to marry a woman with a vice. He had seen enough of that in his father. What he did not know, was that Octavia was not a habitual smoker. The cigars just happened to be around and she did not have anything else around other than the apple to share with her friends. In fact, that was one of the few cigars she had ever smoked. In the rashness of youth, he went off and proposed to another girl instead and like many young men, took the picture of his fiance with him to war.

He did not believe in war. Instead, he thought peace managed by competent leaders who made smart economic choices were the only way out of the looming hell. We still have the news clippings he had gathered with one showing Christ stretching his hands over the many graves generated by WWI, and protesting "Not again!" just as WWII was beginning. However, when Romania passed martial law he had no choice other than to descend into the man-made hell himself. He was the only one in his family who was healthy and so he was taken to be killed or turned into a cripple.

He did not fight in the first line. He went ahead of the first line of soldiers to check that the terrain was free of landmines, and that it was safe to go on. Amongst the men he knew who received the same training, he was the only one to survive. His collegues often fought to go with him on missions because he always returned. They joked that there was a magic aura around him that kept him and those who followed safe. Behind the magic was his ability to trust his own observations obtained directly from the battle field over the orders of his superiors. At least that's what he used to tell us. It must have also helped that he had good eye sight, noticed differences in the terain easily, and was very meticulous. In spite of the horrors of war, most soldiers must have wanted one thing and one thing only -- to return home alive. They also dreamed of seeing their families again, and hoped the war would leave them in one piece.

He did not like to talk about war. They were painful memories AND it was unsafe. After the communists came in power, the men who survived the war and were old enough to fight both the Germans and the Russians became "the enemies" of the people because they had once fought against Russia. The fact that they had no choice did not matter. Uncle Ioan had to bribe officials to give him papers that he had taught during the war because he had been ill. However, when my mother asked how he survived the war, he said he and his men lived because he disobeyed most orders he was given. He went out to check the terrain himself knowing that the order was given by an idiot who had no understanding of the situation in the field and found it easier to send men to their death than to ask questions, and learn enough to take a good decision. The orders were given by career military men. They only came for a few months to do just enough service to get promoted. He then had to go and explain the situation and convince the soon to be promoted jerk in charge that they were wrong without upseting their ego and getting himself court-martialled in the process. This resulted in a number of medals, which he spent the rest of his life hiding. It also resulted in lives saved, which is what he thought mattered.

Once he thought he had gone mad. A colleague came to report on the position of the enemy and his brain was on his sholder. All Ioan could think of was that he was talking to a person who no longer had a brain. And, no, he did not run away. He did the obvious and asked about the brain: "yes, yes, the position of the Germans is what I expected, but what about the brain on your shoulder?". The soldier shrugged and added: "oh, no, Lieutenant, it's not mine. Number 00115 was shot in the tree above me and his brain fell on my shoulder. It just did not fall off, and it did not seem right to shove it to the ground, somehow."

There was no use for money in the war. Yet, since he was educated, he was an officer and had a good salary. So, like most young men, he sent the money home, which his brother and brother-in-law exchanged for bragging rights in bars. When it was obvious that neither the Germans nor the Russians could kill Ioan, they were afraid of what he'd do to them when he came home and found all his savings wasted. Ioan hated bars and never wasted his time there. So, they bought a small plot of vineyard of 1400 square meters on Ioan's name and promptly wrote him about it. From then on, Ioan dreamt of this small parcel of land, and wrote about his plans. Once he returned, the land was lost to the communists. However, my mother now owns it. I have not been to see it since I was my children's age. My brother and I went there a few times and planted a few trees that never lived. People build houses in that part of town today. Perhaps one day one of my children or one of Mihai's children will use this land, but it would not look like in Ioan's dreams. Or we could sell it. Somehow we never managed to get enough courage to sell that, but perhaps the children will. It's worth about 10,000 euros now.

Ioan spent the time before the war, teaching Latin, Greek and Romanian. Once he returned from man-made-hell, Ioan wrote a Latin texbook, which I still have some versions of. He finished it just before latin was removed from the school curriculum, and was replaced by Russian. It had given him something to do while he recovered from some of the illnesses that were the legacy of war, but now it had to be put away together with the medals obtained from the second part of the war, the one against the Germans. The others he destroyed. They did not matter. It was the lives he saved that made the difference and he was not going to endanger the well being of his family by keeping them.

He now taught Romanian, and sometimes Geography, History and a bunch of other subjects for which the highschools in Lugoj did not have enough teachers. Soon after he returned, he found out that his fiance had married. However, Octavia was now teaching in Lugoj, and she was still single. They went out a few times, and he figured out she was not a smoker after all. They soon married quietly and stayed married until his death. He proposed after they had climbed a very steep hill together. Octavia noticed that the cheerful, but hard working young man she had met 15 years ago had changed. She jokingly told him that even so she was better off married to him for the rest of her life than living alone. It would save her from becoming one of the pitied spinsters of Lugoj who could not land a man. She'd say so sometimes even after they were married. She joked that saving her from becoming an old maid was his one great merit. They also still had the picture of his fiance. I once asked Tusa Tavi why she kept it, and what she'd say if she met the woman -- if she'd feel gelous. She quickly answered "oh, no, of course not. She was part of Ionica's past. I can't throw it away. If I met her, I'd simply thank her for leaving Ioan for me."

The subject that he taught did not matter as much as he thought when he was young. The primary thing he tried to teach his students was to be responsible survivors in whatever environment life placed them in next, whether it was they'd be in college, in a prison camp, in a factory, or at home. He never tried writing another book. When I returned to Romania in 2016, the lady who translated the school transcripts for David and Edward had been his student. She said Ioan was a very good, and very strict teacher, and that all his students went to college extremely well prepared.

Once he retired, he and Octavia lived a quiet life. He spent his days in the small garden from our house in Lugoj, and on the banks of the Timis river. He was outside -- often naked from the waist up so that he could feel the sun and the wind -- for as long as it was light, from spring to fall. Constant work, sunshine, the air and the wind help quell some of the anger left inside him. Sometimes that anger bubled to the surface. He once told his wife "you deserved to be slapped", and she answered with a loud statement of her own "Indrazneste!" ("Just dare!"). He might have fought the Germans and the Russians, but he never did dare to strike Octavia.

They had a good marriage, and always found a middle ground on which they were both comfortable. Although he never had the patience to fish himself, he liked to eat fresh fish, and bought fish from other men who caught it the river. My aunt never ate fish. So, their deal was that he would clean the fish, and she would fry it. He cleaned the house, too and kept it clean. My aunt's job was to wipe the dust off the furniture. While he loved the river, she could not swim. So, when he wanted to get across, he would carry her while swimming.

They shared a fondness of children. When the neighbors' little girl woke up, she'd pipe up her morning achievement accross the fence: "Tanti Tavi, facut fata caca la olita". My uncle would answer since he was the one always finding something to do outside: "Bravo, Nana, Bravo!" ("Good Job, Nana!"). At other times, she'd say: "Tanti Tavi, facut fata caca in pantaloni". Then he'd answer "Fui, Nana, fui!". Later the little girl became a lawyer, and said she never noticed it was not my aunt who was praising her.

When he married, Ioan was no longer on speaking terms with his brother or sister. Octavia changed that. She always liked to see the good in people, and to point it out aloud. She also understood that his family was part of him, and that being at peace with them would make him happier. She wanted him to be content even if, perhaps, it was no longer in his nature to be happy.

Unfortunately, once the cancer manifested itself through persistent diareea, they did not want to believe it was cancer until it was too late. He spent the last few good months of his life selling the first editions he had gathered to collectors, and gave the money to Leana, his niece, his brother's only daugther. Then life became hard again and he got back to another form of hell. My aunt cared for him with the help of a neighbour, Ecaterina, who had a been a trained nurse in WWII. Ioan called Keti their guarding angel whenever she came to the hospital to bring them something or when she came to help at home. Octavia recalled how sad she was that the man who used to swim across the river while carrying her along could no longer walk on his own, and had to hold onto her shoulders.

Octavia lived for another 20 years, years that the cancer and the war had stollen from Ioan. Leana is a dentist technician. She must be retired by now. However, she still places flowers on Ioan's grave. My aunt rennounced her right to his family home in the favour of his nephew, Victoras, his sister's only son. Victoras promptly donated the house to his best friend because he hated his wife, a former barmaid from whom he was divorced, and wanted to make sure neither her nor her/their two children inherited it. She had one child while they lived together, and another after she had left him. Since they were still married at the time the second child was born and there were no DNA tests back then, he was left to pay child support for both children after divorcing. It seemed unfair. He was resentful and those who knew him felt resentful on his behalf. However, the best friend turned out to be worse than the former spose. He demolished the house soon after aquiring ownership, and started to build a mansion in its place. Victoras was moved to a shed where he died fairly quickly. He was buried in the family plot, which lies just behind Ioan's grave. Leana places flowers there, too.

If Uncle Ioan had lived today, he would be labeled as a highly functional autistic person. He was extremely well orgainzed, which is why he had survived the war in front of the first line. It was also why he had difficulty in living with the rest of us. He said we wasted half of our life on Earth searching for things because we cannot put them in order. When my aunt was pregnant soon after they married, she was afraid of having a difficult child who would be unkind to her, and aborted. She regretted this decision when she died and told me that I should have a child once I had the means to support myself, and that the father did not matter since I would be raising him/her anyhow. Her dating advice was to drop a pen and see who picked it up. If I liked him, fine, if not, I could try again in a different classroom.

I have wondered if Uncle Ioan was so because of trauma he had suffered. So many children are autistic today. I wonder if we, as a society, manage to traumatize our children far more than the war, the unfair world that led to it and his own family had hurt Uncle Ionica. We seem to hurt our children simply by constraining them "to keep them safe", and through stimulating extreme addiction by placing them on screens so that we can get "other" things done. So very few of them are highly functioning today. Are they survivors with scars that are so deep that they cannot be hidden? sometimes they seem just like the animals we confine to small cages/apartments ... and then argue we have no other choice.

Of course, now, war is looming again on the horizon. And it seemes just as senseless as it seemed in the late 1930s. The house in Lugoj is still full of newspaper clippings about how senseless another world war would be from before WWII, some are even from before WWI, and of letters written by Uncle Ionica from the frontline. That he was organized, it's clear because these documents have been preserved. Some of his letters beg various officials for the assurance of a job upon return, and list his medals. No assurance was ever given. Yet each letter is so full of hope. It is the hope that makes them a heartbreaking read. Others talk about the plot of land he'd never see and what he would plant on it upon return. Almost 80 years have passed, and so much and yet so little has changed. The arguments that there is no other choice other than war are coming up again as the world richest men -- Elon Musk and other actors -- party at Dracula's castle. After all, Elon is right, Dracula's castle is the place to be on October 31.

What do I feel about war? I am sad and angry that young men and women are still sent to fight wars today. We should be fighting unfairness, powerty, disease, and climate change, and winning those battles. Intead, we fight man-made wars that make no sense. People still lose their limbs and sanity in the process even if some manage to stay alive. I am angry that we have puppet leaders who start wars just so that certain groups can hold onto power. I am sad and angry that we still plant bombs, we blow up people, destroy bridges, flatten cities, and sink ships, and cheer these attrocities with the help of the media. We aknowledge that all these will have to be rebuit. Then proudly claim to worry about climate change and keep saying we want to do something about it. Yet holes are dug under the sea so that the gas stored there goes directly into the atmosphere to prevent Russia from selling it. In the same time, people know how important it is that they recycle, and the ultimate goal of the year is to save water, keep the heat down and wash less.

In spite of all this I hope that one day my children will see a world led by people who can make honest, informed choices. I know it's utopic, but I still hope. Uncle Ioan had the same hopes. He loved talent, and was very grateful to live enough to see Nadia Comaneci win her perfect 10. She put Romania on the map like not other person had done it before. He was grateful that her talent was rewarded instead of stomped upon like it was done to so many people, himself included.

The Abortion debate: a mother's view

Women are terminating their pregnancy in today's wealthy societies because they are drowning in unpaid and unseen care work. They often already have children that need everything from their mothers, and "the village" that is so needed to support them simply doesn't exist. And yes, women who terminate don't usually do it because they don't want their baby. They simply see no way to have it. Often it is because they already have children that need everything from their mothers. In our rich Western world, a mother who terminates her xth child is much more respected than one who puts the burden of another "eater" to pay for on the welfare state. The majority of women who terminated a pregnancy in Germany in the 1st quarter of 2022 were already mothers. It is sick and sad, but true.

In Germany, termination is no reproduction right. It is a crime. The relevant paragraph in the law follows right after murder and homicide. We are not free in our choices. Though there is no punishment when strict rules are being followed, it remains a crime, and these women not only carry the loss of their child, but also the stigma of being a criminal.

"Eater" is how people looked at their children in past times, and when it comes to struggling financially or mentally because of a growing family, and, unfortunately, I believe the term is not too far away from reality...

And, no, most women do not chose to terminate a pregnancy because they are afraid of larger vaginas (though I really love that discussion point).

Credit: By Lisann

Note: Communist countries like Romania had an abortion ban. This ban from 1966 is considered one of the attrocities of the 20th century. It resulted in large numbers of unsafe abortions and increased maternal death, and in the building of notorious orphanages.

Unfortunately, criminalizing the termination of pregnancy does not solve the problem. This unseen care work has to be valued and rewarded in order for parents to be able to raise their children in a safe, loving environment. The appreciation of the work done by mothers (and by fathers) then, naturally, can lead to laws and to the building communities that support children and families. Unfortunately, instead of looking for a viable solution, societies find it easier to cause more problems, to criminalize and to blame the already overwhelmed women.

In the past, it was illegal for doctors to advertise abortion in Germany. However, this law changed last week as a response to the US abortion ban. Thanks to Werner for pointing this out.

This is written in response to the previous post: The Abortion Debate: A Man's Perspective

The Abortion Debate: a man's perspective

Forcing a woman to stay pregnant against her will violates a fundamental right of the woman to decide what happens to her body, regardless of consequences to others -- namely the death of her child. But why care what men say when we talk about women's bodies? well, lawmakers and people in leadership positions are all men to a first approximation, and it makes sense to look at the problem from the perspective of those who make decisions.

Whatever law we pass, and whatever position we take as lawmakers, both forced terminations and forced pregnancies will happen in our society. Making abortion illegal at state level is likely to increase the number of children abandoned and satisfy the demands of the adoption market. It will also make it harder for employers, husbands, boyfriends, mothers and others to openly pressure a woman into a termination. A forced termination is a terrible thing, but something that continues to happen throughout our society. This, too, goes very much against the rights of the woman and those of her baby.

The question is how many forced pregnancies are we willing to tolerate in order to eliminate a forced termination? The logic should be like when we give people a vaccine. Vaccines have costs, side effects and, at times, result in the death of the vaccinated. They also result in a reduction in death and disability associated with the disease they are intended to protect from.

The following questions are standard for the vaccine makers is
-- How many people do we need to vaccinate in order to avoid a case of clinical illness
-- How many people do we need to vaccinate in order to avoid a death caused by illness
-- How many people will die due to the side effects of the vaccine for each death avoided due to the disease

The equivalent questions for the case of abortion are
-- How many people do we need to subject to a law forbidding abortion in order to avoid a case of forced abortion?
-- How many people do we need to subject to a law forbidding abortion in order to avoid a case an abortion?
-- How many unwanted pregnancies will continue for every wanted pregnancy that is saved from unwanted termination due to social and peer pressure?

Why do women choose to have abortions when the baby appears healthy and their life is not threatened by the pregnancy? Well, the procedure comes with less risks than carrying the baby to term. In other words, it's easier and people often take the easy route when they have little support along the uphill path. But why not consider alternatives, such as putting the baby for adoption? There is a shortage of babies on the adoption market. Prospective parents face fierce competition and long waiting times. Many don't get the chance to choose which child they adopt and many don't end up getting a child at all. Creating a baby and giving it up for adoption results in the time, money and lives of the adopted parents being invested in the baby. This way, the woman channels resources she'd never have access to into raising her baby. This should be seen as a good thing. Yet, we have vastly more terminations than adoptions. Why??

Pregnancy (1) is a situation where typically 2 people share one body. It's like when people live in the same flat, just a little closer. So close that one is alive inside the other. One of these people, the mother has lived about half of her life without the baby, has had a contribution in choosing the genetic makeup of the child, who is yet to be born. A termination or abortion happens when these two people don't get along. The mother requires immediate separation from the baby, with the understanding that such separation will result in the death of the baby. The Supreme Court is then called to arbitrate this disagreement. The baby is too small to talk. Thus, the judges speak on his or her behalf.

Should the mother continue with her pregnancy, she stands to lose some time from work and potential loss of life and health through complications related to pregnancy and birth, and part of herself. She won't be the same person she was before having the baby if she chooses to keep it. Typically, a six week maternity leave is available in the US for mothers who keep the child. Women who have terminations typically don't want the child or don't think they can handle the upbringing and can't bring themselves to put that burden on somebody else.

Sarah Pallin made headlines when went into labour with her 5th child while giving a talk. She continued her presentation, went to the airport, flew to Alaska, drove to her hospital and gave birth. She then left her child at home and was back at work the following day. She kept the child, but the help available to her meant she had the same childcare burden as a woman putting her child for adoption.

All in all, assuming pregnancy, followed by abandoning the baby, costs a woman 9 months of childbearing, 6 weeks of income and some setbacks in her career. It doesn't sound like much to a man who has never raised children. The unborn baby stands to lose his life. If not aborted people have about 100 healthy happy years to live. It is hard to understand why women assess the value of the 100 years of life the child would have gained through their pregnancy so little that they choose to terminate.

One would assume that, if women were reasonable players, giving due love and consideration to their unborn children, we'd have more unwanted pregnancies ending up in adoption than abortion. Why is this not the case?
Possible reasons are:
-- Peer pressure
-- The most likely culprit is the male partner. Men are forced by law to take responsibility for their children. Thus, if a woman has a child, the man may have to pay something or help a little bit. As such, many men decide against having children. When their partners are pregnant, they pressure the woman to have terminations. If the woman doesn't accept, she usually has to put up with verbal arguments, psychological pressure and, in extreme circumstances, some financial strain and a divorce.
--Sometimes, the mothers or family members pressure women into terminations. Usually, these are again verbal arguments. Sometimes, a little violent, but often not. Maybe, in the eyes of the family, the woman has too many children, or she is at the wrong time of her career to care for a child.

Neither husbands nor families are supportive of the idea of abandoning a child after birth, and they prefer killing the child before birth. This is probably because an existing born child would have a powerful legal claim upon their estate. The child would be entitled to some level of support and inheritance. He could be a nuisance and a burden, even if abandoned.

-- Employers and the State. Often pregnancy can result in loss of income or loss of employment. A woman's career is often set back by pregnancy. Thus, women find themselves under pressure to avoid pregnancies in order to compete professionally and earn good wages.

Both the State and employers are probably accepting of women who abandon their children, although child abandonment isn't necessarily the best thing on a CV.

-- The woman's desire to preserve her body presumably for the purpose of attracting men. Pregnancy is seen as a process that lowers the degree of sexual attractively of a the woman. The consequences of pregnancy, such as extra weight or saggy breasts are also seen as not terribly sexy by men. So is a larger vagina, as may be the case after childbirth. Many women look great after having children, but this is often a concern and reason to have a termination instead of a successful pregnancy followed by child abandonment.

-- Inability to abandon a child. In some situations, a woman is not able to abandon her child. It may be unacceptable to her religion, or family or public image. What would the world think of Ivanka Trump if she choose to abandon a child, instead of having a termination? Most likely no one would ever know if Mrs Trump had an abortion. Abandoning a child would clearly make the news and probably harm their political reputation and be a reason for blackmail. As such, other women are pushed by society to choose abortion over abandoning.

-- the belief that the unborn baby is not human. Thus, killing it before birth is not a bad thing. Sure, unborn babies lack many of the faculties of grown up people, but they have a full life that they can live if allowed to be born. Does a baby need sentience in order to exercise ownership over his right to live a full life expectancy?

Many adults who are as sentient as an unborn baby are considered humans and given the right to live. People who suffer strokes, dementia, brain damage are often less able to interact with the world than an unborn baby. Also, unlike the baby, they lack potential for future development and for leading a full live. If we consider the lack of faculties of an unborn baby as an illness, it is an illness that, in most cases, gets cured by the passage of time, without medicine and effort. Thus, why not allow these unborn babies to cure their lack of maturity when we support the lives of so many old people of similar ability, but with little or no hope for recovery?

I end this post with my wish that lawmakers take decisions based on data -- in general -- but especially when they alter laws that affect fundamental human rights. We should know what data led to their decision. The data should be public, and its analysis should be done by scientists and data analysts. And if data changes, the decision should be re-evaluated.
In the case of abortion we should be able to answer questions like in the case of a drug or vaccine like the ones I am posing below:
-- How many people do we need to subject to a law forbidding abortion in order to avoid a case of forced abortion?
-- How many people do we need to subject to a law forbidding abortion in order to avoid a case an abortion?
-- How many unwanted pregnancies will continue for every wanted pregnancy that is saved from unwanted termination due to social and peer pressure?

_---------- (1) Pregnancy lasts 9 months, beginning with the first day of the last period. During the first two weeks, the baby doesn't yet exist, as conception hasn't occurred yet. The eggs and sperm still live inside different people. Then sperm gets inside the woman. At this point, her partner choice is made and it will impact the child's genetic makeup. A few days later, conception occurs. An embryo forms and starts to swim inside the woman's uterus. A few more days and the woman and the baby are inseparably joined for the remaining 8.5 months. (2) Indeed, 6 weeks of a good American salary (or perhaps a few months depending on the salary) is sufficient to purchase the services of a surrogate mother in Georgia or Ukraine. This includes all medical and IVF fees. The reason women choose to go through pregnancy themselves instead of using commercial surrogacy is, in part, to save these fees. Some celebrities choose to not bother with pregnancy and hire surrogates.

The Abortion Ruling

In a landmark ruling that shocked the world, the US Supreme Court has overthrown Roe and decided a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy shall no longer be protected at federal level.

Donald Trump has rightly hailed this as his victory, as it was the three Supreme Court judges he has appointed to serve for life that have played a decisive role. It is also a reminder that Trump and his movement have a good grip on America that will continue throughout and beyond the Biden presidency.

Internationally, this is very bad news for the world. It means America will concern itself increasingly with its internal problems and pay less attention to the international scene. Thus, The US is more likely to hand Ukraine to Russia and Taiwan to China just like it has recently given Afghanistan to the Taliban, Hong Kong to China and championed the rise of dictators worldwide in the name of the Coronavirus, while people sporting Buffalo horns entered the US capitol chanting "Hang Mike Pence". Mike Pence got out through the back door, but the people whoes rights are disappearing around the world don't have a safe exit. Should Russia decide to send some nuclear bombs to Europe, The US is more likely to watch from afar and concern itself with internal problems instead of protecting its NATO partners.

The US is, as it currently stands, is by no means in a position to enforce a ban on abortion that has statistically relevant effects on the American population. It will however be interesting to see what happens when Putin or someone with similar dictatorial power enacts a similar ban. As a Romanian, I have seen this experiment carried out in my country. The results are interesting, and very much worthy of academic attention.

Thus, what will be the effect of the new Supreme Court ruling? The Supreme Court ruled that it will no longer impose upon state governments the obligation to allow women to have terminations. States are democratic entities that vote on their own and decide on the matter. Most states will not change much. Some states -- not most, but not few -- have already banned abortions altogether. Women in these states are still free to have abortions elsewhere. The Supreme Court ruling thus increases the average cost of a termination by a trip to a state where it is allowed. This is something of order $100 and amounts to a form of government advice.

In the sates where abortion is banned, the cost of the procedure will no longer be covered by health insurance. This will make the situation in the US smilar to Germany, where abortion is strangely illegal, and not covered by health insurance as governmengt health care does not wish to take part in criminal activity. Still, abortion is effectively available to all German women and widely practiced.

Removing terminations from the list of procedures covered by insurance means the cost of the insurance premium will decrease, probably by a few cents, as insurance companies no longer have to pay for the procedure. As such people from these states, the majority of which do not have terminations and half of which are men, will no longer be forced to pay for the abortions of those who require them.

The women having abortions will have to pay themselves, again an added financial burden which is small for middle class Americans.

But, as we all know, not all Americans are middle class. The poor American women who are more likely to be Black, Hispanic and vote democrat are more likely to be swayed into continuing an unwanted pregnancy by this few hundred dollars worth of financial pressure. As such, the homeless, the destitute and drug addicts will often choose to have another fix of heroin or whatever makes them happy, instead of terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

But, not all women are free. Women who are pregnant and jailed in a state that no longer allows terminations will be forced to carry the pregnancy to term. This is the only group where the new law causes a drastic and irreversible change of situation.

Overall, abortion remains available, with no significant changes to most women that matter -- the educated, the rich, the middle class, the feminists, etc. The poor, the destitute, the mentally ill, the criminals and those imprisoned without having committed a crime, will be forced to bear unwanted children and build the America of tomorrow.

Some 20 years following the wide spread introduction of abortions, we have seen a clear drop in criminality in the US. This was not due to better policy, but to the fact that children more likely to be come criminals were less likely to be born ( https://freakonomics.com/podcast/abortion-and-crime-revisited-update/ ). The current ruling will revert this trend. We will thus see an increase in criminality in 20 years time. This is, however, not a problem. The Second Amendment guarantees every American the right to carry a gun and protect himself from criminals. We can enprison the criminals and force them to have more children, at gunpoint, if need be.

Obviously, not all people convicted and jailed are criminals. With current imigration laws, perhaps most are not. Prominent examples are Julien Assange, Alexey Navalny, Nelson Mandela, immigrants held in various centers awaiting deportation or asylum, victims of the Holochaust, etc, etc. How does the Supreme Court justify denying these people the right to a termination, when it is the state that imprisoned them illegally and their free counterparts can access the procedure by traveling to another state? What will be the appropriate reparation the US should pay to a mother and her born child, if the birth of the child is the result of the mother being unfairly imprisoned during her pregnancy? Is this question so politically inconvenient that it makes people uncomfortable reading it?

The cause of war: shifting power?

In the nineteen's century, France, Spain and England were the colonial powers that dominated the world. Austria took over Europe from Turkey and created its own empire. Russia grew too and became an empire. Then Germany caught up. The change in power caused WWI, and Germany became the powerhouse of Europe. Since communication improved war became a global phenomena that included multiple coutries instead of just two players.

Then America took over the world. Since WWII the leadership of the world became bimodal. America took the role of the good power, and Russia of the bad one. Not long before that Europeans considered America a place for criminals and whores, who took everything from the native population and sent some of the riches back to Europe. After the war, suddenly America was "the only party in town". It was the country that funded progress, where science happened, and where everyone dreamed of going. On the other hand, Russia (the bad power) succeeded through brute force. They displaced people, placed them in jail, and physically suppressed those who opposed the communism regime. The post-WWII Jerkyl and Hyde game replaced colonies with proxy wars where American played the role of the saviours as reported by the media, and Russia funded the bad guys. Of course, both caused destruction and heartbreak around the world.

Today, India could become the good power and China the bad one. Together they could lead whatever world is left of the world after WWIII. India controls IT and China controls manufacturing. In terms of dynamics, there is the internet (India), the manufacturing (China), the resources (e.g., oil - the Arab world), and food (some everywhere). We are trying to get rid of oil/gas in part to stop climate change, and in part because of our fear of the arabs, who still have many children. Somehow, having old, silly leaders in palaces that do nothing (beyond getting fat and abusing themselves and others) and have none of the things that matter cannot hold forever.

Happy Easter! Hristos a inviat!

After coming back to Lugoj on March 19, James and Edward refused to leave. So, we've had a split Easter this year. Andy and I and the little one have been in Spain (I work at UB now), and my mom with James and Edward have stayed "home".

I am attaching some pictures from March. Our ladies are Edith, Eva, Caprioara, Edwina, and Mugurel is the father-figure. Caprioara and Edwina have two kids each, and Edith has one. Of the five kids only there are pictured because Edwina gave birth later. Eva van Goat is two. She gives about 1 litre of milk a day, which tastes a bit like the flowers and grass she's eating. It does not smell or taste like goat unlike most store-bought goat milk. Edward and I milk her (now Edward is doing the milking) in the morning and in the evening. I am looking for safe places for some of them to go that do not include a cooking pot. They are all very friendly and considerate. They are better than many people and most dogs I know -- although, of course, the comparison is hard to make.

Those of you who want to walk towards the sunset with a goat on a leash please let me know! Will rent the house if you want to move to Romania to live with the goats. The house members include five cats, two rabits (Morcovica and Telina), 4 ducks (Narcis, Narcisa, Narcisela and Narcisica), two very loud guineea fawl, and about thirty chicken (Petunia died of cancer a week ago at the age of six; we had an autopsy performed, although no lab tests were done; the rest produce plenty of eggs), and Tita (a dog who will walk you to the store and guard the door until you come out) and Puppy (he is about 8 now). So if you know of somebody (in Romania, borders are hard to cross for animals) looking for a kid, cat or goat friend please write. All goats produce milk (not Mugurel), are great lawn mowers, and walk on a leash to look for tasty grass.

For those of you thinking that life is different in Romania from the "civilized world": the answer is, it's not. Most people in Lugoj (Timisoara or nearby villages) do not own goats or other farm animals. They spend most of their free time on their phone just like people in Western Europe and the US. We are the exception, not the norm. Also, note that my children are not included in any goat or chicken deal I make.

Happy Easter! Paste fericit! Hristos a inviat!

Is intelectual genocide the (indirect) cause of war?

Like most educated people, I think that war is a tragedy that should be avoided. The existence of yet another proxy war in Europe that is expected to last years (perhaps two?, but could extend to engulf the whole world) and the WWII style rhetoric around the Ukraine war shows that humanity has failed yet again. There is no justification for war. It's a human tragedy and an environmental tragedy. Murder, torture and rape suddenly become tactics or weapons of war instead of something to condemn and avoid at all cost. Weapons are sent to kill people, bomb buildings and destroy roads. Each of these took many years and many resources to build. War has a large carbon footprint -- comparable to having an extra country on the map. Weapons kill and maim, produce carbon dioxide (they burn stuff, and any burn process produces more carbon dioxide), flatten cities and destroy infrastructure, which has to be rebuilt. The displacement of people, the moving of weapons, the planes that fly, the cars, the tanks, all polute. If society really cared about people or about the environment and about limiting climate change, they'd stop all wars.

So, why do we -- 8 billion of us -- still allow wars to happen? why do we use weapons that are just about to expire on people, bridges and houses instead of simply melting them and making useful stuff? why do we promote leaders who cannot lead and have people who don't understand the world take decisions that matter? who is hiding behind the puppets?

Well... we consistently tie our best people in paperwork in such a way that they cannot progress. Obama had to try to pass the Obamacare act over one hundred times. That he and his team had the energy to do it is amazing, but think of the wonderful changes he could have made instead. They were at the top and were simply wasting their time while being told there is no way around it. In spite of paperwork, Angela Merkel was behind the "the long peace" in Europe. She is an academic and she has had the common sense to retire when peace became an impossibility. Unfortunately, there is nobody to replace her that compares to her in aptitude. Just like there is nobody to replace Obama. Why? Well, it's because we gleefully practice intelectual genocide in all fields: Industry, politics, healthcare and law faithfully and in science. So we destroy our own future or send it elsewhere. We train people and send them to China, Russia, India, which should make the world a better place if they were allowed to thrive. But they are not. Instead of letting capable individuals in front, we have past-retirement age presidents who fail to even be good actors. They are a symptom of this general failure to promote the best that permeates all levels. Instead, we pat ourselves on the back and claim that it's the best that could be done given the rules. But who makes the rules?

So how does intelectual genocide work? One way to destroy talent is to simply bury it in paperwork. It works more efficiently than chains. Then most of those who are talented join "the not good enough pool" because they can't get right stuff that does not matter. The feeling that they are not good enough which is repeately enforced through panels who evaluate laws (or in science, grants) and other such nonesense creates virtual prisons. It also stops change and ultimately progress, and keeps our incompetent leaders, who are behind the monkeys we see on TV or the internet, temporarily safe. Instead of focusing on problems that need to be solved, we send weapons and applaud WWII style rhetoric. It's the best we can do given the rules. Wars are popular. Why? They create so much destruction and force young men and women to murder, use drugs, rape men and women, and lead battles with tanks. They also lead to pockets of change, but couldn't those pockets cost less? They cause displacement and migration of people in awful conditions like those who walked from Syria to Europe. Today more migrants climb in plastic boats and risk their life and that of their children and yet nothing is done to change the rules, which clearly don't work. But when almost all talent is destroyed there is nobody to change rules. I worry that slowly "the free" world disappears descending into a chaos in which nobody is safe. The zero-case policy for COVID-19 from 2020 is an example of how easy it is to turn our own homes into prisons.

I thank Linqing Wen (University of Western Australia) and Szabolcs Marka (Columbia University) for starting the discussion that led to this post. Note that the opinions I state on this blog are my own and do not reflect any institution.

Goodbye Grandma Nancy!

Andy's grandmother Nancy Lundgren passed away last week. She was 92 years old. We'll all miss her!

In her last message to me she wrote that she had read all my blog. A few years have passed since, and still when I write I sometimes wonder if she'd enjoy reading my post. So, it's only fiting that I post a last reminder of her here.

That she was a strong, wonderful woman it sounds a bit like a flat understatement of all her personality and yet I cannot find more words to write at the moment. Perhaps I will add more later on. For now I am including a last picture with her, Andy and some of the children when we last visited the US. It was in 2019. Goodbye Grandma! I hope you had a fun week up there!

(Economic) War with Russia. Western Strategy: Bleed it Dry!

Russia is the largest country in the world. It also has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons with the largest combined destructive power in the world. But, in other ways, Russia is tiny.

Russia's population is tiny. At 140 000 000 people, Russia is 9th in the world in terms of number of people, just above Mexico and below Bangladesh. Russia's totals over half of the population of Brazil, Nigeria, Pakistan and Indonesia, but Russia's people are much older.

For example, compared to Russia, Nigeria has just under 4 times more people under 14 than Russia, just over 3 times more people in the 15-24 years range, and slightly more working adults (24-54). In other words, Nigeria might have more of a future than Russia. Russia has just over twice as many older adults (55-64) than Nigeria and slightly over three times more retired people (over 64).

Afghanistan has more than half as many children than all of the Russian Federation. Yet it is these precious few children that are now turned into cannon fodder, killed and left to rot in the marshes of Ukraine. Russia has precious few of them.

Not only has Russia relatively few people, but Russia's people are also poor. Before the sanctions, in terms of GDP per capita, Russians were about as poor as people in Romania, Turkey, Oman, Croatia, Malaysia, Panama or Kazakhstan, Chile or Taiwan.

Before the invasion, Russians earned about twice as much as Ukrainians, making the conquest of Ukraine not a very attractive option. Ukrainians earn about the same as people living in Cuba, Iran, Moldova, Paraguay, Egypt, Albaina, Columbia or Brasil.

The western strategy in the war with Russia is now clear: Bleed them dry. Aim for the weakest points: money and people. Be gentle. Take the people away if you can. Ukraine now offers each deserting Russian soldier 5 million rubles, considerably more than I proposed in my earlier letter to the president and blog post.

The EU is considering giving soldiers who choose to desert asylum with unemployment benefits and the right to stay. It might follow up by giving all Russians refugee status, the right to immigrate and settle in the EU alongside the Ukrainians and be friends again. Among the Russian and Ukrainian people I know, the situation never changed. They stayed friends, and were brought closer together by the common desire to have no war in Europe.

The Nuclear Threat: A chance for Victory?

These measures make Russia more Russian. More empty. More Poor. All that will be left is Putin and his nuclear bombs. Hopefully, without the technology to deploy them into populated cities in Western Europe and the US.

The Russian strategy should be to steer the conflict towards a battlefield where Russia has a strategic advantage. To my mind, that means nuclear war. Russia's leadership isn't concerned about its people dying. They are far less sensitive to the danger of atomic bombs being used against them because it's a huge country with relatively low population density and so it will survive a nuclear attack better that Western Europe. This war can be viewed, after all, very much like a suicide mission for Putin. Die together with his Russia, not alone.

Thus, it may be in Russia's interest for the war to escalate quickly and bend the truth in some way to justify using atomic bombs pergolas, I think, against the West. Then it will end in a few days or weeks at most.

We can only hope that Russia's methods for delivering the bombs to their targets aren't working. We can only hope that their planes and rockets are old and can be shot down from the sky. Or that their nuclear submarines can't come close to a large city like Los Angeles and destroy it.

Russia has a reasonable chance to emerge victorious from a Third World War. It has no chance in a conventional one. Its economic losses and loss of status cannot be easily reversed. Thus, Putin's Russia, as long as Putin exists, may well be on a one way road to a world war.

Diplomatic Agreement, followed by retirement?

The alternative is for Putin to end the war through an agreement with Zelensky and then retire to let the opposition have a chance at leading Russia. The next president could be Vladimir Kara Murza, who recently visited Washington to discuss the future of Russia and Ukraine. Russians have been known for being kind to their politicians: e.g., Boris Yelten and Mikhail Gorbachev have had a good life after renouncing leadership (ok, there was Anastasia and her family, but this was before presidents and she was a woman after all). George W. Bush is happily painting in a well-earned retirement after his invasion of Iraq. Even Joseph Stalin, who is believed to be the most murderous dictator in world history, died at 74 in his own bed after a stroke.

It may be a question of what Putin wants: a place in history next to Stalin or a quiet old age with his mistresses and children and of what he can get. If the politicians and oligarchs who support him lose their money, it might not be a problem for Putin, but it does set a precedent for a form of neo-fascism that makes investors feel unsafe since very few of the very rich can justify their gain. I don't think staying in power and continuing this proxy war for years is an option at this point, but I could be wrong. I think it has to end in weeks or at most months. Yes, Russia's economy is tiny, but all of Europe's satellites have been launched by them, and, of course, there is the gas and the oil that can't be shed off in weeks. So, Russia does have what to negociate with, and Putin is no stranger to sales that result in loss for his own country -- after all he began his political career by selling $93 millions worth of metals for some trucks of food that never arrived -- and so he might not be the patriot that everyone considers him to be. If the war turns nuclear, it still ends quickly, it just destroys so much more.

An (unlikely) end: Zelensky becomes president of Russia and remains the president of Ukraine

I've been thinking of a way to end the war that would not be a disaster for the world, for Ukraine and for Russia. So many people have died already. So much has been destroyed and this path continues without an end in sight. People believe that a regime change in Russia is the solution. But what kind of regime change? If Putin dies tomorrow (i.e., before a resolution is reached), Russia will be left in turmoil. Its economy is crippled, and will be crippled further by the thirst for punishment which is so popular today. There is no shortage of people who cause harm when they have power. So, I worry that Putin will be replaced by somebody else who does even more harm in a Russia that is like a post-WWI Germany. I'm not Russian or of Russian origin, yet I see that this permanent threat it represents could only be defeated if Russia becomes a stable, democratic power. Of course, there is no magical wand, but giving Zelensky the presidency for both countries would be a start, and it could stop both the war and the collapse of Russia.

I see no problem with unifying Russia and Ukraine -- it just has to be under the right kind of leadership. Of course, the down side of that is that Russia could become strong again, and this whole war is aimed at bringing it and Ukraine down or bringing down Europe or both.

The war to end all wars?

We've heard this before. The idea was floated during World War I and after it. People thought that we'd fight this war, the "right" side will win, and then we'd build a world where war would not happen. Germany and Austria started the war with a flimsy veil, the assasination of an archduke. Like always, it was easier to paint the world in black and white or good and evil. Throughout the war and after that the Kaiser of Germany was deemed to be "evil" or mad just like Putin is today. The Germans were the agressors after all. So, when the allied forces won, Germany was severly punished, and had a huge debt that it had to repay. The punishment, and the economic turmoil that followed led to World War Two. By then only about 1% of the debt was paid. Then the role of the evil, mad person was played by Hitler. Later the role was temporarily filled by Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and Bashar al-Assad. Today, it's Putin. We sanction Russia. We block its bugdet, we block its oil, and blame Putin for everything - he is evil, he is mad, he is the cause of war, it's Putin's war. Everybody cheers and seems to think the powers to be are doing everything they can. We cheer sanctions. We cheer when weapons are sent and we ask for more weapons for Ukrainans who have to defend themselves to survive the invasion. What we don't see is a way out of this war.

We've seen this sort of cheering during the pandemic, but the pandemic seems to have suddenly ended. The media is only able to focus on one story-line at a time. Restrictions are quietly being lifted. COVID-19 is no longer news worthy, but back in 2019-2020 every power to be thought the zero-COVID policy was a great idea. They practiced selective track and trace of some of the cases they knew about when it was known COVID had already spread beyond any tracking possibility and people cheered while COVID positive patients were placed in hospitals and old people homes to make the world a safer place. They'd say it's the first time you can stay home, do nothing and help. Well, staying home, and avoiding crowds does reduce virus spread, but the zero-COVID policy took that to an extreme that crippled institutions and people while we cheered.

I take the train to work and I walk to go shopping with a bag with wheels, which helps me do the carrying, pulled behind me. So, the increase in the oil price might not matter to me directly. I do fly two or three times a year and I am known to take my children along. I own a car, which I occasionaly drive when I take the children out. I have also been wearing the same coat for the more than ten years and I know that very little of what I do matters in the grand scheme of things. However, I don't see the sanctions as a solution. I don't see the way out of this war yet, and I don't see a way out of future wars.

The US is a superpower. So, it was not punished for invading Syria, Afganistan, Iraq, etc. The US cannot be punished since there is nobody stronger than them yet. OK, perhaps China is getting to be stronger in many ways, but they seem to want to do their own invading and Xi plays a similar role to Putin only next door to Russia. But punishing is not the point. Stopping the war, picking up the pieces and avoiding a similar tragedy from following the same script is what is needed. So far we have replaced world wars with these proxy wars that follow a script, and happen over, over again until when? until nuclear war? They often had the US on one side and Russia on the other. Each arming people and causing fraticide. This war is different in that Russia is the aggressor, and not the US. It's still fraticide since Ukraine was once part of Russia and many people there speak Russian, but want to be free. Russia has been punished for the Ukraine invasion. The punishment has not stopped the war. It's like expecting austerity measures to fix an enconomy. They might be popular, but they do not work. So, what else can be done? The popular answer is to destroy the evil side. But are the people who fight in this war on either side evil? World War I and II had no winners. But how do proxy wars differ? They are not on the soil of anyone who matters, which makes it easier to gain from such wars. Of course, proxy wars should not happen. War should not happen. There must be a way to stop it and to stop future wars. But how? Where is the golden bridge that Russia and Ukraine can follow to end this war?

Oh, moving weapons and personnel is expensive, and they just got started. So, the show must go on. There is a Serbian proverb that has been quoted all over twitter and facebook. It says that during wartime politicians send weapons, rich people give food, and the poor give their children. Then when the war is over, the politicians get back leftover amunition (and make more), the rich grow more food, and the poor search for the graves of their children. All past proxy wars have taken many years. The people in the country that was to be destroyed always fought for freedom, and ended up less free than before the war. However, none of the aggressors were sanctioned before. Today we sanction Russia without stating when the sanctions will end and without providing a golden bridge for the war to end. Is Putin really mad? Will he make a suicidal move and use atomic bombs or is it just another proxy war with the script slightly altered where Putin is playing the lead role and the sanctions add the spice that scares and makes the play exciting? The world bets on this latter scenario. And howevermuch it all seems like a play we've seen before, the war is real. It should stop without further escalation in days not years since the people who die are real, too.

How much is a soldier's life worth?

The life of a Russian soldier is worth 20 000 USD. Here's how I got this number:

Putin is paying the families of dead soldiers 7 million rubles. Right now, 1 Ruble is about 1 cent. Thus, the families of dead soldiers get 70 000 dollars. Other news sites report the lump sum to be around 40,000 USD , but Putin says are additional compesations offered to each family member. So, I am going to take his statement at face value and assume the compensation is 70 000 dollars.

Ukraine, at the same time, offers soldiers 5 million Rubles if they surrender.

Thus, a soldier may choose to surrender and stay alive with the 5 millions from Ukraine or fight and die for Putin and get 7 million for his family. I suggested something similar on this blog, two days before such an action was actually taken. The offer to surrender and be paid is still valid. The soldiers will also be reimbursed for the millitary equipement they bring along.

The difference is the price of the soldier'a life, and it's less than 20,000 USD. Unfortunately, this offer from Ukraine's minister of defence has not made the war turn around, yet. If I had a son or daugther who chose to fight to feed his family, I'd want him/her to surrender and live! Russia has a fertility rate well under 2 children per woman, which means most Russians are losing their only child or perhaps one of two children or both children in this war. Of course, the compensation money may or may not be obtained, e.g., not all the deaths are reported. Many will be missing in action. Russia is known to have not compensated the families of ordinary soldiers from prior conflicts.

A foray into Putin's mind

In his war declaration, Putin told the world that he is going on a mission to denazify Ukrain, a country with a Jewish president, who speaks Russian.

How is Ukraine Nazi? What does he mean? What does he think?

In the following, I will put myself in Putin's shoes. I do not agree with the opinions and ideas below, but, I believe, Putin does.

Putin's world is skit between Putin's Russian East and the Nazi West. Nazi, in his mind, is a way of saying "not Putin's", i.e., the other side, the opposition. The Nazi West is dominated by Nazi Germany, which never stopped being Nazi, in the same way Russia never stopped being Soviet and Putin's office still smells of Stalin.

Germany has started two world wars and lost both. Upon losing the first, the country was allowed to recover and be, again, the strongest on the European continent. Soon after, it started the second World War.

Upon losing the Second World War, plans were put in place to destroy Germany. The purpose, as the Soviets saw it, was the prevent Germany from dominating Europe again and starting another war. The Morgenthau Plan, which was never fully implemented, has the purpose to destroy the German war machine and make sure these people disperse across the world, engage in subsidence agriculture and never raise again.

In order to prevent it from building weapons, Germany was not supposed to develop industry of any kind. This would make sure it cannot produce weapons in case of war.

The world, however, is very different today.

German industry is the engine of Europe.

Germany is one of the largest exporters of arms worldwide.

The same work ethic that led to the success of the Nazis is now powering a modern western state. It's used wise political decisions and Frauen Power to position itself at the center of the European Union, and, after Brexit, remained the unmatched in economic and financial power in the EU. It's Deutschland Über Alles, Putin may say.

After all, if Hitler would have stayed in power, the German economic machine would probably make Europe something like what it is now. United under one flag, Putin may say. And, unlike under the Soviet flag, in "the Nazi" camp, the economy works.

Russia tried hard. It deported Volga Germans to Kazakhstan and Putin's KGB friends recruited many in Putin's Dresden for sunny Siberian holidays. Those Gulags brought Nazi labour and technique to Putin's Russia, but, it didn't stick.

Now, "the Nazi" the West keeps expanding further East. One by one, former Soviet republics came under the flags of EU and NATO: Romanians, Hungarians, East Germans, the Baltic states, and the Slavs -- Poles, Yugoslavs, Bulgarians, Czechs -- all have left Putin's Russia for Nazi Europe.

Ukraine has been the beating heart of the Soviet Union. Ukraine is the better half of Russia. Ukrainian and Russian share the same alphabet and are similar languages. Furthermore, virtually all Ukrainians, and, for sure, all those who matter speak Russian. Ukraine inherited Soviet nuclear power plants and bombs, one being the infamous Cernobil.

It wisely choose to destroy the bombs, in exchange for a guarantee from NATO and the International community for territorial integrity. As it is after the case, some politicians lied. I wonder what the future holds, if that group includes the Ukrainians.

Now, Ukraine has a democratically elected president. The Servant of the People is not a servant of Putin anymore. Ukraine is trying to joint the capitalist Nazi West and, while culturally, the people are virtually the same as father East, politically, even the Russians in Ukraine are free.

Demilitarize and Denazify very likely means bringing Ukraine back into Soviet Times, back under Putin's command.

But ... Putin is losing the war. He expected his planes to be met by peasants fighting with sticks or scared enough to give him flowers. Instead, he encounters the Nazi weapons, made by the German Nazi industrial machine -- one that works with the same people and the same work ethic as in the times of the Nazis.

The conflict runs on old conflict lines. On one side the Russians -- many, poor, unskilled and not terribly well armed and on the other, the Ukrainians holding "Nazi" made guns (Nazi = German, American etc.)

The Nazis used an equivalent of the nuclear option when it comes to the sanctions against Russia. They took all Russian money. They blocked the SWIFT, making it impossible or terribly hard for Russia to use even the little money it has. A nuclear bomb -- make it a large hydrogen bomb, could have been dropped anywhere on 90% of Russian territory and caused less damage. A smaller bomb, like Hiroshima, could have been anywhere on 99% of the land.

At this point, faced dissent at home, soldiers that lay down arms and lose the war in front of an army are perceived to be much weaker, Putin may find himself entitled to use nuclear bombs.

Against Who? A Russian bomb falling on Kyiv could be too much, even for Putin. After all, Ukraine only resisted, but didn't hit Russia on its home turf. Europe and the US, however did. He wouldn't be likely to hit Eastern Europe either. That was part of Russia, and might be his again.

War is not made only with guns. Europe did expand on Putin's Soviet land. And the Swift move cause very much harm. Private Russian property was also targeted.

In Putin's world, in Europe, Germany is the leading power. Thus, should the nukes fly, it may the the leading target.

A nuclear attack would probably be suicidal for Putin, and, perhaps, Russia. Thus, he'd try to strike simultaneously, as many targets as possible. He'd hit most likely, large cities. He'd hit Western Europe, most likely, Germany, but not only.

Russia has strong recollection of their fight against Nazi Germany, so he may even get a little bit of popular support for such a wild, suicidal move.

We did cripple their economy. Now all they have is bombs. And no way out of the pointless war they started. Or, maybe, there was a point -- to incite a war with Germany and justify the bombing?

Let's hope none of these happen.

Slava Ukraine!

Will the nightmare end?

All news sites are full of the destruction and loss of life in Ukraine. We see young men, women and children die for no reason. Some are Russian. Some are Ukrainean. Some are Russian of Ukrainean origin. Some are Ukrainean of Russian origin. Outside Ukraine everyone is very agressive verbally. They want to manufacture weapons in Europe again. Countries bordering Ukraine (e.g., Romania, Poland, Lithuania) have NATO boots on the ground. Why would they waste money on weapons and troops if they wanted to stop? Politicians sanction Russia (and Belarus), and they target some of the assets of some of the oligarchs -- a very selective number-- in hopes that they could help end the war or so they say. Will the war end when it has just begun? They keep saying everything is unprecedented, but is it? Haven't both the rich and the poor lost everything in past wars? And everyone blames Putin. He is the one man who is responsible for all the aggression, but is he? is Biden responsible for everything in the US? Was Trump just as responsible even though his sentences did not make sense and did not add up?

Then there is the dream. Most people, me included, would like the war to end, and would like Putin to vanish and to see "his" Russia be replaced by a democratic Russia that ultimately joins NATO and the EU. Ukraine would join first, but the rest of the countries from former USSR would follow. And if China continues to expand, the same measures that worked with Russia will apply. Then Xi would disappear and there'd be a democratic China, and all countries would work together to defeat evils like cancer and climate change. Eventually peace and oder would stretch to Africa and the Middle East. But is this dream possible? or will it turn into a nightmare yet again? Will the nightmare from Ukraine extend?

Will targeting people with loads of money work? maybe. On average, people with money are more influencial than those without. When one does not pay their obligations and is in debt, but has money to cover what they are not paying, their assets, e.g., their cars, their bank accounts, their yachts and private jets, are blocked or frozen. Then they get scared and pay up. They say everything has a price: the life of a person, the outcome of an election or the change of a regime cost different amounts but can be bought if one goes about them in the right way. While none of these people might be able to end a war on their own (or so they say) even though they are very rich, colectively they might find a solution if they are pushed to care or at least not oppose a solution when it appears. Of course, looking at them -- a bunch old, overweight and visibly ill men -- they look more like toys being taken out of business by others like them and eventually by a younger, more modern generation than as tools that bring an end to the war. I was hopeful at first, but now I am less sure we are safe or will be safe.

Instinctively, I oppose aggression and I agree with the pope. I don't believe our politicians are correct in patting themselves on the back. They are not stronger than ever, and neither are their alliances. They have failed! and they keep failing as long as war rages on! In a country in Europe people are suddenly killing each other. Bombs fall and kill and maim and destroy. And it's convenient to have Putin. He can be blamed for everything. Suddenly Boris Johnson looks good and Emmanuel Macron even better. Biden looked weak after Afganistan, but now he is the leader of the free world. I've always thought that sanctions are like applying austerity measures when the economy fails. They answer aggresion with more aggression, and cause an exacerbation in ostilities. Ideally, one proposes solutions from which both parties would gain, and then they never go to war.

Economic incentives to end the war? A proposal

Offer each soldier that surrenders to Ukrainian forces a reward sufficient to start a new life in Ukraine, settle down, find a wife or become an immigrant in EU.

-- Ukrainian citizenship, with the right to free travel to the European Union, and the possibility of asylum in the EU.
-- The right to bring relatives, and, perhaps, friends.
-- one plot of land to build a house in Ukraine. Good location.

1000 m2 should be enough for 500 m2 plot and associated infrastructure - roads, parks, etc. Thus, 1 square km is enough for 1000 soldiers. If 100 000 soldiers surrender, a piece of land 10 km by 10 km is sufficient. There are virtually no costs to Ukraine, as this would be state owned agricultural land that turns residential. The tax income from so much residential property would cover the cost of the agricultural land in a few years.

-- one $ 10 000 cash paymemnt to buy materials and start building a house
-- a monthly stipend of $ 1000 for one year, sufficient for a decent living, finding a nice Ukrainian wife, and a good job.
-- senior officers should receive more. A larger cash bonus, perhaps a nice house, and a significant fraction of the value of the military equipment they surrender. There are so many empty house with the decreasing population all throughout Eastern Europe that the governments can afford such decisions easily.

Russians and Ukrainians are similar people, with common tradition and similar language. There are many Russians living in Ukraine and nearly all Ukrainians speak Russian. Thus, assimilating Russians into Ukrainian society is very easy. Soldiers are young, capable people and very much needed in a society like Ukraine that has a low birth rate and has lost many people to the European Union. We cannot afford to kill the best and the brightest yet again.

The cost of the above package is very low to the Ukrainian society, and, overall, a profitable deal.
Each soldier that surrenders will bring with him military equipment that is very much needed and costly. The cost of this military equipment is likely to vastly exceed the rewards.
The damage this military equipment would inflict upon Ukraine is orders of magnitude greater.

Sure, there is a risk of such soldiers becoming spies, but, this risk exists for many Ukrainians, like the millions of separatists. Thus, the overall composition and global sabotage risk in Ukrainian society would not change dramatically.

There is a good chance that, in this way, Ukraine will use the German money as a weapon and, perhaps, destabilize the Russian army and hasten the collapse of the Putin regime.

All weapons surrendered are weapons that won't be used in war. It is buying lives.

Obviously, in the advertising, perhaps the President of Ukraine should tell the truth. The Russian soldiers are children of the USSR, just like Ukrainian soldiers. They are the most valuable and loved age group in society. They are children. They are young men and women. They should grow up into old men and not kill each other or maim each other in the battle field for the sake of criminal leaders. People should find a way to stop the war now! It should be stopped before more blood is lost to the contagious madness incited by leaders who should know better than to cause and applaud such destruction!

Note: a few days later they implemented such a suggestion backed by Ukraine's defense ministry with money donated by the international IT community.

And the sanity contest is won by Pope Francis

I generally don't quote religious leaders, but today I agree with the pope -- yet again he is a voice of reason. War a 'shameful capitulation', Pope Francis says “Every war leaves our world worse than it was before. War is a failure of politics and of humanity, a shameful capitulation, a stinging defeat before the forces of evil,” the leader of the Catholic Church said in tweets published in English and Russian.

It's sad that of all our leaders he is the only one who seems sane. How have Putin, Xi, Boris, Trump (Biden is slightly better; he is way too old to lead America, but he does not appear to be mad) and others like them ended up in charge? What about the non-descript creatures that don't seem fit to lead to anything other than disaster? How can we build institutions that fail us so? I don't believe war is ever necessary. There must be a way that makes sense and does not result in such destruction. Hiram W Johnson said in 1917 that "The first casualty when war comes is truth" and this still holds true today.

Another of my favourite quotes by Pope Francis is "who am I to judge?". He said it when referring to gay people. Perhaps I am wrong to judge world leaders. But when everything I read seems so wrong, I can't help it. The UK, the US and some of the EU give automatic weapons to civilians in Ukraine and brag it's the next best thing to being there. They don't let men of fighting age leave Ukraine. All have to be part of the blood bath. The conflict will blow over in time. But when? how many will die? how far will it extend? and what will be left behind? The cold war lasted until 1991 -- a very long 50 years or so.

It is said that Nero set Rome on fire so that he could watch it burn. Some even say he played the fiddle by the light of the flames. Of course, since it happened so long ago it's unclear how much of Nero's story is true. However, it's pretty certain he was a horrible person, a criminal, and ultimately mad. But are our leaders better today? Our Neros are giving weapons to civilians and applauding each other for that. It's the only thing they could have done they say. It's like saying the only choice is to be a mad criminal. Perhaps it is, if one is a criminal and is in charge. But why do we keep them in charge? Many US presidents who started a war were reelected. So, they must be supported by the kind of people who gain from wars. They gain as long as the war is not on their soil. Perhaps that is why there are so many people in charge who are either criminals (e.g., Putin) or criminally incompetent (e.g., EU leaders). It seems to make no difference either way. The leaders in Eastern Europe merge the two categories in a brilliant show of ingenuity. And they are not even that original if one thinks of Nero and of other leaders of the past.

Dia Internacional de la Dona i la Nena a la Ciència

Our outreach staff from Institute of Cosmos Sciences at the University of Barcelona put together this video for the International Day of Women and Girls in Science. Anna and Esther did a wonderful job. Thank you!

I wear a sweater that my mom knitted some 15 years ago before she had grandchildren. She had more time for art back then.

The shameless years

When the COVID pandemic started I thought it might continue with world war III. Has it? I hope not. But I am not sure. My friends from the US write me messages of condoleances as if Romania was already lost. Is there some hidden napkin that has redivided the world? or is it a digital drawing in Ms. Paint shared on Zoom?

I look at the news and my children play with cars. They see the Russians as the bad guys. So they have a toy car that's Russian and hits the other cars. James is 5. So he sometimes takes the bad car and throws it out of the room. Ira is 1 and 1/2. He can say a few words. One of them is shoe, another is war. Edward is 11. But the young men and women from the military are never all bad or even bad on average. They are young people doing their job. I am in Spain now, but I have a ticket to return to Romania for a few weeks in March. Will the conflict escalade by then? Will it stay in Ukraine? Will I be able to go? will I be able to return?

What do I think of world politics? I think political decisions range from shameless to criminally shameless. I can say that about

-- the Monica Lewinski scandal.
-- the election of George W. Bush twice . Luckily he quit politics and switched to painting.
-- the invasion of Iraq, Syria, and Afganistan...and of other countries who had their sovereignty breached.
-- the trial against Julian Assange followed by his continued mistreatment and arrest with no regrets and no thought to appologize or simply to let him go
-- the migrants left to cross the sea in inflatable boats to escape war
-- the camps built for migrants in such a way that people leave with any price and die crossing from France to England
--the election of Donald Trump as president. He proudly stated in his electoral champaign that he could shoot sombody on 5th Avenue and be elected. He still won.
--the invasion of the US capitol by people with Bufallo horns, and the calls for the arrest of "via Getty" and the chanting of "hang Mike Pence" who retaliated by saying he won't speak with President Trump again.
--Brexit, Boris Johnson
--American's withdraw from Afganistan without prior notice or any kind of plan for those left behind and without mentioning their plan to other NATO countries followed by America's decision to simply take the Afghan relief assests without worrying about the humanitarian crisis left behind
--the management of the COVID-19 pandemic.
--the election of a comedian as president in Ukraine
--Putin's move to recognize the separatist regions in Ukraine followed by the invasion of troops
--giving automatic weapons to civilians in Ukraine.

Why give weapons to civilians? I am not a politician or an expert in anything other than the physics of stars and that of dead stars. But it seems such an awful thing to do. It justifies the murder of civilians in any number by the ocuppying army. It will lead to murders. People could shot each other by mistake. They could shoot their neighbors (some might be of Russian origin so why not shoot them dead, some might be Nazis, or Jewish, etc), their wives (there has been an increase in domestic violence during the pandemic), their children, their pets. It's like saying there are not enough deaths. We want more theater, more people to die, and yes, Ukraine will fall, its fate is decided in advance, but we want the bloodshed, we need it. Why? Russia installed pro-Russian goverments in most of Europe (e.g., in Hungary) and in the US (e.g., president Trump). It's hard to imagine they could not do so in Ukraine where they speak Russian and part of the population is of Russian origin. Is it to scare Western Europe? Russia produces 40% of Europe's gas and several pipes run through Ukraine. Who could benefit from war in Europe? China?, the US? whoelse? perhaps Russia but only if it suceeds in re-expanding?

Shouldn't the world stop the various wars and focus on dealing with climate change? i.e., work together to tackle climate change? Any kind of destruction of infrastructure is yet another proof we don't give shit about the climate. Or about each other, about freedom or human rights. War is a degradation beyond words. It's a return to a period before the stone age where people are turned into something worse than beasts. They kill each other so that some weapon manufactures get richer and so that the class divide grows even more.

The situation in Ukraine

My colleague, Valeriu Predoi, has drawn some brilliant cartoons that represent his take on the Ukraine conflict. They are the best I've seen to date, and quite representative for what's going on. He's got untapped talent!

My take: The US is weak, the EU has been beheaded through Brexit and disheartened through the retirement of Angela Merkel, and so the world is being split between Russia and China with China dominating world-wide for the COVID-19 pandemic perdiod and Russia taking over parts of Europe now to make up for its pandemic losses. The increase in oil and gas prices is just not enough for them. The media said the invasion will start on Wednesday. How nice of them to announce ahead of time so that the US citizens and the Brits can get out in time. The US and the UK are making sure their boots are out of the way, while claiming they support Ukraine. Luckily, Ukraine's president is a former comedian, and seems a level-headed person who might somehow find a way to diffuse the conflict. Of course, like all wars, this one is being spear-headed by the media, which goes as far as them making up a date for when the Russian forces would enter Ukraine. China has already increased its influence in Hong Kong and Taiwan.

I am so afraid of war. It leads to such destruction at a time when we should worry about the climate and NOT blow up things. It never makes sense to kill the best and the brigthest just for the heck of it. I have three boys. I can't imagine any of them going off to war, which is a temporary return to the stoneage. I can't imagine anything worse than having young men and women out there in the cold trying to kill or maim each other and more often than not maiming and killing civilians around them. Blowing up bridges, roads, cars, and homes makes just as little sense. All those take energy to rebuild. So, how to resolve conflict? If I could, I'd put all world leaders in a room, and let them fight it out for as many years as they chose with any weapons they care to have at their disposal.

In Demark - restrictions end: will the rest follow?

At the beginning of the year, I argued that the epidemiological situation warrants lifting all restrictions by the end of January.

This is for 2 reasons
(1) Omicron is mild, and doesn't kill

(2) Omicron is unstoppable, making restrictions pointless.

Denmark is an example of a country following my advice. Restrictions have been lifted, despite infections being at all times high and deaths pretty high as well.

For a country of 5 million people, Denmark is counting about 40 000 infections a day and 1.7 million positives overall, most of them during the latest Omicron days. As not all infections are documented and not all people test or choose to declare a home test, this means that the number of infected people is likely not far from the total Danish population. The virus obviously does the same thing everywhere. The Danes are just better at testing.

What do these numbers mean? Well, let's assume people live about 30 000 days (think of a round number a bit under 100 years x 365 days/year). A death occurring within a month of a positive test is generally counted as a COVID-19 death, regardless of other conditions. If 30 000 randomly chosen people are diagnosed today, one of them is expected dead by the end of the day and one more every day forever. Thus, a virus running at 30 000 positives a day should be running at 30 daily deaths without even doing anything as an infection.

If we look at the Danish data, Omicron has 40 000 cases and only about 20 deaths. Thus, it seems to be doing about nothing if not less than nothing.

This is strange, as any illness, no matter how mild, is expected to kill some people. The people who are supposed to die next month, should die now if they catch a cold or Omicron. Strangely, this is not what we see in the Danish data. Omicron seems to cause no deaths at all.

This is even stranger, as you expect dead people to be more frequently tested than live ones and, thus, undetected Omicron infections to be more frequent among the living than among the dead.

Sure, Denmark has a population which is well educated, well vaccinated (80% vaccinated, 60% boosted) and a good health care system.

In countries without a good medical system, you expect
-- fewer tests
-- more deaths, vaccinations are low and unvaccinated are more likely to die
-- a higher death ratio, as having fewer tests makes it more likely to miss infections in healthy people than in the dead or dying,

This we see, for example, in India where Omicron appears to infect a relatively small fraction of the population, like Delta appears to have done. This seems impossible, as the wave is going down. The only plausible mechanism is that most people are infected and therefore immune. Next wave will come when the virus mutates enough to evade immunity (antigenic drift).

Running at 100 000 cases, if the virus does nothing, we should see roughly 100 deaths a day. In India, we see about 1000, as, unlike Denmark, a lot of cases go undetected. This is not because the virus is more deadly in India: It isn't. It is most likely, less deadly, due to India's young population and poor medical system (e.g., weak people are long dead, and don't wait for COVID-19 as they do in western countries).

Conclusion: Like I said at the beginning of the year, Omicron's high transmission rate signals the end of the pandemic. We should have a restrictionless spring and summer! I am so looking forward to it.

I note that like most boring educated people, who want to travel from time to time, I am vaccinated and boosted, as are my mother and sister.

References:
https://www.dw.com/en/covid-digest-denmark-lifts-almost-all-restrictions/a-60618361
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60215200
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/01/europe/denmark-lifts-covid-restrictions-intl/index.html