Панове, офіцери! А чи замислювались ви хоч раз хто взагалі ті люди, які вирішують долі наших дітей при проходженні псих відбору та долі діючих офіцерів при переміщенні на посади???! А я от замислився, і що я вам скажу — ті люди, які очолюють цей славнозвісний підрозділ представляють з себе вищий рівень некомпетентності та низького професіоналізму, тупість в сфері психології.. От приміром, колишня очільниця псих служби пашковська, вона же тома сауна, вона же стара клімактерична сука мразь🤭 має «3-й» диплом з Шевченка, а нещодавно відправлена на тимчасовий відпочинок тобто розпоряд Білоус О.Д. взагалі до психологіі має відношення по стільки по скільки, за освітою математик, закінчила хіба що курси з психодіагностики, перелік можна доповнити ще однією «зіркою» садика Мостовою І.М., яка щоправда була викинута самою ж пашковською як непотреб у сміття — там ій саме місце🤓, яка вирішувала долі інших, будучи кандидатом педагогічних (математичних) наук… щось пашковська оточила себе суцільними математиками, певне ніяк не для здійснення психологічної діяльності, можливо вести підрахунки хабарів…)
Важное
28 августа, 2024
18 августа, 2024
14 марта, 2024
11 марта, 2024
44 ответа
Quite a number of Brits consider having to play the role of the queen to be a very difficult job which prevents you from having a normal lifestyle. By the way, the majority of people in Britain think the Queen is doing her job of representing Britain around the world excellently and very professionally. In her country she does charity work and participates in various events of symbolic importance.
As a princess, Elizabeth II tried to lead as «normal» life as possible in her situation. She was allowed to play with other girls and she never showed she was superior to them. She even bought shoes for one of her girlfriends who was very poor. Princess Elizabeth enjoyed acting, too. With her younger sister Margaret and the children of members of the staff of the Royal Household she staged pantomime at Windsor at Christmas.
During the Second World War she joined the Armed Forces, the first female monarch to do so, and helped drive and repair military trucks. Just imagine: the Queen driving or repairing a military truck!
Elizabeth II was lucky to have found a man whom she truly loved and worshiped, for her he was the one. His name was Philip Mountbatten, now Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. They say in his youth he was rather a reckless man – he used to drive his car too fast and Elizabeth even got in a car accident with him once. His clothes weren’t very tidy and Liz’s family complained that he didn’t have polished shoes and an elegant suit and behaved himself in an unduly familiar manner, sometimes he was just rude. But he also was a handsome young man and Elizabeth loved him anyway, she loved him as he was. Her parents were not too happy to have Philip as a son-in-law, but they didn’t want their daughter to be unhappy, so the marriage took place in 1947, when the would-be queen was twenty-one.
Always keeping a brave face throughout the trials and tribulations of her reign, Elizabeth II is a role model for British public figures and commoners alike.
“Strange Bedfellows!” lamented the title of a recent letter to Museum News, in which a certain Harriet Sherman excoriated the National Gallery of Art in Washington for its handling of tickets to the much-ballyhooed “Van Gogh’s van Goghs” exhibit. A huge proportion of the 200,000 free tickets were snatched up by the opportunists in the dead of winter, who then scalped those tickets at $85 apiece to less hardy connoiseurs.
Yet, Sherman’s bedfellows are far from strange. Art, despite its religious and magical origins, very soon became a commercial venture. From bourgeois patrons funding art they barely understood in order to share their protegee’s prestige, to museum curators stage-managing the cult of artists in order to enhance the market value of museum holdings, entrepreneurs have found validation and profit in big-name art. Speculators, thieves, and promoters long ago created and fed a market where cultural icons could be traded like commodities.
This trend toward commodification of high-brow art took an ominous, if predictable, turn in the 1980s during the Japanese “bubble economy.” At a time when Japanese share prices more than doubled, individual tycoons and industrial giants alike invested record amounts in some of the West’s greatest masterpieces. Ryoei Saito, for example, purchased van Gogh’s Portrait of Dr. Gachet for a record-breaking $82.5 million. The work, then on loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art, suddenly vanished from the public domain. Later learning that he owed the Japanese government $24 million in taxes, Saito remarked that he would have the paining cremated with him to spare his heirs the inheritance tax. This statement, which he later dismissed as a joke, alarmed and enraged many. A representative of the Van Gogh museum, conceding that he had no legal redress, made an ethical appeal to Mr. Saito, asserting, “a work of art remains the possession of the world at large.”
Ethical appeals notwithstanding, great art will increasingly devolve into big business. Firstly, great art can only be certified by its market value. Moreover, the “world at large” hasn’t the means of acquisition. Only one museum currently has the funding to contend for the best pieces–the J. Paul Getty Museum, founded by the billionaire oilman. The art may disappear into private hands, but its transfer will disseminate once static fortunes into the hands of various investors, collectors, and occasionally the artist.
“Strange Bedfellows!” lamented the title of a recent letter to Museum News, in which a certain Harriet Sherman excoriated the National Gallery of Art in Washington for its handling of tickets to the much-ballyhooed “Van Gogh’s van Goghs” exhibit. A huge proportion of the 200,000 free tickets were snatched up by the opportunists in the dead of winter, who then scalped those tickets at $85 apiece to less hardy connoiseurs.
Yet, Sherman’s bedfellows are far from strange. Art, despite its religious and magical origins, very soon became a commercial venture. From bourgeois patrons funding art they barely understood in order to share their protegee’s prestige, to museum curators stage-managing the cult of artists in order to enhance the market value of museum holdings, entrepreneurs have found validation and profit in big-name art. Speculators, thieves, and promoters long ago created and fed a market where cultural icons could be traded like commodities.
This trend toward commodification of high-brow art took an ominous, if predictable, turn in the 1980s during the Japanese “bubble economy.” At a time when Japanese share prices more than doubled, individual tycoons and industrial giants alike invested record amounts in some of the West’s greatest masterpieces. Ryoei Saito, for example, purchased van Gogh’s Portrait of Dr. Gachet for a record-breaking $82.5 million. The work, then on loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art, suddenly vanished from the public domain. Later learning that he owed the Japanese government $24 million in taxes, Saito remarked that he would have the paining cremated with him to spare his heirs the inheritance tax. This statement, which he later dismissed as a joke, alarmed and enraged many. A representative of the Van Gogh museum, conceding that he had no legal redress, made an ethical appeal to Mr. Saito, asserting, “a work of art remains the possession of the world at large.”
Ethical appeals notwithstanding, great art will increasingly devolve into big business. Firstly, great art can only be certified by its market value. Moreover, the “world at large” hasn’t the means of acquisition. Only one museum currently has the funding to contend for the best pieces–the J. Paul Getty Museum, founded by the billionaire oilman. The art may disappear into private hands, but its transfer will disseminate once static fortunes into the hands of various investors, collectors, and occasionally the artist.
Вадюня, почему с маленькой буквы?