A few years ago I was baptised in the Catholic Church. Human Destruction Inc. punished me with five month of deafness on my left ear.
I have since left the Catholic Church mostly for the reason of not being impressed by the relationship the Catholic Church have with Natural Science.
As I said in my last post, Human Destruction Inc. confuses God and with the leadership of their rule. They interfered in the training sessions I had with the Catholic Church prior to my initiation. Among other things they make me dull by preventing my association paths.
I also have had more problems learning things religious compared to other things, which means there is more suppression of learning on religious matters. They make it difficult for me to learn prayers and the Creed.
There is never silence in my head for prayer and meditation. Always noise and irritating talk.
20090529
Je sais pas?
I came across a very nice song by Celine Dion called Je sais pas (I don't know). The lyrics in French takes up the dilemma of mixing religion with terror:
Défier des machines, narguer les lois
Les foudres divines, m'éffraie pas
My translation of this piece of lyrics would read:
Challenge the machines, flout the rules
God's flashes, will not scare me
So, how many "foudres divines" have you succumbed to, as of yet? The torture I have been subjected to includes six "foudres divines". They call them "bangs" ("smällar") in underground Swedish.
Human Destruction Inc. (Människoförstörelsebolaget) have their ways. In my humble opinion one would have been sufficient for educational purposes?
Défier des machines, narguer les lois
Les foudres divines, m'éffraie pas
My translation of this piece of lyrics would read:
Challenge the machines, flout the rules
God's flashes, will not scare me
So, how many "foudres divines" have you succumbed to, as of yet? The torture I have been subjected to includes six "foudres divines". They call them "bangs" ("smällar") in underground Swedish.
Human Destruction Inc. (Människoförstörelsebolaget) have their ways. In my humble opinion one would have been sufficient for educational purposes?
20090527
AfPak and Iran?
I'm trying to figure out what the recent meeting between the leaders of Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan might mean for the stability of the region. It could be bad as indicated by the following citation:
World Agenda: Tehran summit could be a turning point - Times Online: "Iran tried to use the summit to bolster anti-American feeling by insisting that the presence of foreign forces had not stabilised Afghanistan. Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, Iran’s supreme leader, told the two visiting presidents that “the United States is hated by the peoples of the region because it is considered responsible for these problems”. That appears to have cut little ice with either man, however: neither has any reason to alienate the United States at the moment."
But it could also be good and in time mean a possible exit for the US and NATO from the region. Iran might be trying to figure out if there is a possibility for them to aid in the stabilization of the area based on the much higher credibility and trust for Muslim agents and the principle of subsidarity.
World Agenda: Tehran summit could be a turning point - Times Online: "Iran tried to use the summit to bolster anti-American feeling by insisting that the presence of foreign forces had not stabilised Afghanistan. Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, Iran’s supreme leader, told the two visiting presidents that “the United States is hated by the peoples of the region because it is considered responsible for these problems”. That appears to have cut little ice with either man, however: neither has any reason to alienate the United States at the moment."
But it could also be good and in time mean a possible exit for the US and NATO from the region. Iran might be trying to figure out if there is a possibility for them to aid in the stabilization of the area based on the much higher credibility and trust for Muslim agents and the principle of subsidarity.
Rule of Law or Rule of Lawyers?
Allow me to speculate an inkling...
The debate of whether or not it is good that President Obama likes a Supreme Court Justice that is "empathic" in her rulings rather than one that follows the written law meticulously is on at the moment when Supreme Court Justice Candidate Sonia Sotomayor is going to be analyzed by the Senate.
It can sound nice enough with an empathic judge but in the extreme it is a question about whether or not it's the Rule of Law or the Rule of Lawyers. "We are a nation of laws, not of men"? The value of our legal codex is immense and if it is exchanged with ad hoc rulings this would be a significant step backwards.
Using my own experience it is possible to guess that what I have called Human Destruction Inc. (Människoförstörelsebolaget) could be an information source available to the judge that is not accessible to either the defendant or the plaintiff and their counsel. Its use is illegal according to the law, even of some people are trying to make it legal without most people knowing why, read FRA?
This might have happened here in Sweden as well. In the US President Obama might be of a new stock, read change, that wants to permanate this clandstine system of justice, read injustice.
It would be change of total historic proportions ushered in totally without the consent of the people. Human Destruction Inc. has short circuited our legal system.
A question that would interest me to know the answer to is whether or not the uproar around the FRA debate in reality is an uproar against Human Destruction Inc.?
The debate of whether or not it is good that President Obama likes a Supreme Court Justice that is "empathic" in her rulings rather than one that follows the written law meticulously is on at the moment when Supreme Court Justice Candidate Sonia Sotomayor is going to be analyzed by the Senate.
It can sound nice enough with an empathic judge but in the extreme it is a question about whether or not it's the Rule of Law or the Rule of Lawyers. "We are a nation of laws, not of men"? The value of our legal codex is immense and if it is exchanged with ad hoc rulings this would be a significant step backwards.
Using my own experience it is possible to guess that what I have called Human Destruction Inc. (Människoförstörelsebolaget) could be an information source available to the judge that is not accessible to either the defendant or the plaintiff and their counsel. Its use is illegal according to the law, even of some people are trying to make it legal without most people knowing why, read FRA?
This might have happened here in Sweden as well. In the US President Obama might be of a new stock, read change, that wants to permanate this clandstine system of justice, read injustice.
It would be change of total historic proportions ushered in totally without the consent of the people. Human Destruction Inc. has short circuited our legal system.
A question that would interest me to know the answer to is whether or not the uproar around the FRA debate in reality is an uproar against Human Destruction Inc.?
20090526
Kim Jong Il speaks Chinese?
Gordon G. Chang at Forbes gives some interesting facts on the highly probable link between China and North Korea.
North Korea gets for free 90% of its oil, 80% of its consumer goods and 45% of its food from China.
This is the kind of things I don't like with China...sham-condemning the Nuclear Weapons Test.
The broad contempt globally for the test, however, is salutary for the effect it may have on Iran.
North Korea gets for free 90% of its oil, 80% of its consumer goods and 45% of its food from China.
This is the kind of things I don't like with China...sham-condemning the Nuclear Weapons Test.
The broad contempt globally for the test, however, is salutary for the effect it may have on Iran.
The New Supreme Court Justice of the US?
I can't help noticing that all news sites, except Los Angeles Times, mention the fact that Sonia Sotomayer is of Hispanic decent and that this is a first for the Supreme Court.
As if this was important. At least that is what I believe.
However, Sonia Sotomayor herself does not think so, at least as it can be interpreted from a speech she gave at Berkely 2002. She says:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male that hasn't lived that life"
Justice O'Connor, a woman supreme court justice, is often cited to have said that a wise old man and a wise old woman would come to the same conclusion in deciding cases, something Sotomayor apparently does not agree with.
Sotomayor, a liberal, believes that both gender and race have an effect on court decisions and on top of this thinks a judge makes policy in court rather than simply apply the Constitution, a difference between conservatives and liberals.
However, since race is important in elections, and that the Republicans lost 9% of their hispanic vote, it's probable that they will accept Obama's nomination.
As if this was important. At least that is what I believe.
However, Sonia Sotomayor herself does not think so, at least as it can be interpreted from a speech she gave at Berkely 2002. She says:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male that hasn't lived that life"
Justice O'Connor, a woman supreme court justice, is often cited to have said that a wise old man and a wise old woman would come to the same conclusion in deciding cases, something Sotomayor apparently does not agree with.
Sotomayor, a liberal, believes that both gender and race have an effect on court decisions and on top of this thinks a judge makes policy in court rather than simply apply the Constitution, a difference between conservatives and liberals.
However, since race is important in elections, and that the Republicans lost 9% of their hispanic vote, it's probable that they will accept Obama's nomination.
Israel and Iran
The Chief of Staff Lt-Gen Gabi Ashkenazi in the Israel IDF says realistically:
"A dialogue with Iran is the best way".
He adds that it is unlikely that the negotiations with Iran will lead to anything useful. Hopefully he is wrong on this one.
At the same time Israel has been performing a large military exercize where simultaneous attacks by rockets to the north and to the south is rehearsed.
"A dialogue with Iran is the best way".
He adds that it is unlikely that the negotiations with Iran will lead to anything useful. Hopefully he is wrong on this one.
At the same time Israel has been performing a large military exercize where simultaneous attacks by rockets to the north and to the south is rehearsed.
20090524
Fareed Zakaria has joined Roger Cohen as moderate on Iran
Zakaria suggests that Iran might not covet the bomb. Its un-Islamic.
The Phantom of the Opera?
Well, the criminal responsible for torture and harassments over all these years tried to make me play a game with the film by Joel Schumacher called The Phantom of the Opera. The film was on SVT2 yesterday.
There are many films that discuss problems with a certain new technology that make it possible for a person to inform another and to affect bodily functions of another. The Phantom is one of these that portait an ugly person, physically or mentally or both, that has tought another person skills in an Opera of sorts.
Such a teacher is powerful and very clandestine and hard to get. In the end of the film the husband of Ms Daae, the apprentice, finds a rose with a black band tied on its stem, the sign of the Phantom, by the grave of his then diseased wife.
Its a romantization of a story where the apprentice is released into freedom to marry someone else but who remains a subscriber on the life of the apprentice.
People have been telling me that there is a Phantom in my life as well. However, according to my experiences this is not a pleasant soul. This is a person that has only given me a lot of hardship and that should go to jail. I have only been able to understand the nature of this problem since 1998.
There are many films that discuss problems with a certain new technology that make it possible for a person to inform another and to affect bodily functions of another. The Phantom is one of these that portait an ugly person, physically or mentally or both, that has tought another person skills in an Opera of sorts.
Such a teacher is powerful and very clandestine and hard to get. In the end of the film the husband of Ms Daae, the apprentice, finds a rose with a black band tied on its stem, the sign of the Phantom, by the grave of his then diseased wife.
Its a romantization of a story where the apprentice is released into freedom to marry someone else but who remains a subscriber on the life of the apprentice.
People have been telling me that there is a Phantom in my life as well. However, according to my experiences this is not a pleasant soul. This is a person that has only given me a lot of hardship and that should go to jail. I have only been able to understand the nature of this problem since 1998.
20090522
Israel and the US
Well, several lines of acquaintanship are now evolving. The media in Israel has truly been preparing for war against Iran since the Gaza debacle. Part of media is now easing in the possibility that Iran could be tolerated with nuclear weapons. Part is still in atack mode even if there was talk about preparing to war that would lead to peace.
Binyamin Netanyahu, Israels prime minister, still has Iran as priority number one. The two-state solution of everybody else is not feasible and he still does not commit to it. It seems he has most of Israelis for him against Iran. Tzipi Livni in the opposition as well. If I have understood the situation correctly this is a defining moment for Israel.
President Obama speak of a two-state solution and has given Iran half a year to respond to the stretched out hand. A new peace plan is in the offing and will be presented. Which Jews will conform to it? The 5.3m in the US or the 5.3m in Israel proper? Will Netanyahu's government hold up considering it? Netanyahu planted a tree in the Golan Heights and is talking of a non-divided Jerusalem. City of David.
What happens if Netanyahu and the Israelis decide to do it their way? The 1967 conquest when attacked is their's. I think is should be and they have proven that if they give land back it is land-for-war as in Gaza with Hamas. One problem with a two-state solution is that there is no land for a state really. Israel needs the Judea and Samaria for security.
The Palestinians will be helped to an increased economic viability and security. They will govern themselves without an army. The world doesn't accept this type of appartheid situation but what can they do. They will start boycotting Israel. Iran and it proxies will attack.
If instead the Palestinians will form a state with an army close by like the world wants. A free Palestine. Will this satisfy Iran and proxies? Probably not. Iran and its proxies will attack.
In the light of these two scenarios it is easy to understand why Netanyahu has Iran as priority number one. Some people think nuclear weapons will stabilize the region with a balance between Israel and Iran, just like the one between Pakistan and India, others think it will cause a race for nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Netanyahu thinks according to the latter scenario, if I have understood the matter properly.
They want to strike Irans nuclear capabilities. A difficult task for an uninitiated to understand since it apparently will require some 1000 sorties and has to take place over enemy territory and and an American Iraq. Robert Gates, the American Secretary of Defense, says a raid will just delay Iran and move the show further underground.
The solution therefore is more sanctions against Iran according to the latest bulletins. However, Russia and China and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization will make these sanctions futile even if Europe will agree on tougher sanctions as well.
So, everybody is buying time or will they actually try to make peace with Iran which would potentially eliminate the problem all together.
I'm on Americas side here. I want peace in the region, and like President Obama, I want the US energy independent of the Middle East in ten years like Obama said during his campaign. This makes Israel into a religious/tourist oriented domain rather than a deputy for controlling investments. If Iraq turns hostile that would become troublesome. Will the EU's, India's and China's dependence on the area for petroleum make it more peaceful?
I does not seem that way. It will make it more hostile to Israel. To prepare for this it would be of essence to make friends with Iran. No one wants a hot Iran in this region. Therefore the world has leaked out from the US. It may be OK with nuclear weapons in Iran.
What is unclear here, however, is why would this appease Iran? Will Iran turn into a more responsible country in the region after being taken seriously as a nuclear power? Europe would probably think so. It is more than enough with the NATO engagement in AfPak. At the time of the Iraq war the EU bought more petroleum from the Middle East than did the US. However, they expected the hydrocarbons to flow uninterrupted without an effort. Germany and France did not help out in the coalition of the willing when Saddam malignified. Germany is one of Iran's larges trade partners right now.
President Obama, has acted much like George W. Bush so far, but what would Bush do in the present time. I think Obama wants to leave the area while Bush would have wanted to stay on. Particulary in Iraq. If America is leaving Iran might think it is alright to expand but they have to perform according to their customers needs and as the EU, India and China takes over they might just stay put.
So, I think it looks good for the US but not so good for Israel. They have a so-so relation with the EU and its relation in the media with India and China is so far undefined. Arab countries and Iran will continue to become more prosperous as they sell their goods and will accumulate weapons. Israel would have to get along with these countries which makes even talk about agressions a potential problem and makes the situation worse.
I have not yet seen in the media an attempt at present to look into Israels future other than hearing about aggressions against Iran. I have not seen any plans for peaceful coexistence in the Middle Easst but many scenarios for destruction, if not aggression. I can't get this equation solved.
Binyamin Netanyahu, Israels prime minister, still has Iran as priority number one. The two-state solution of everybody else is not feasible and he still does not commit to it. It seems he has most of Israelis for him against Iran. Tzipi Livni in the opposition as well. If I have understood the situation correctly this is a defining moment for Israel.
President Obama speak of a two-state solution and has given Iran half a year to respond to the stretched out hand. A new peace plan is in the offing and will be presented. Which Jews will conform to it? The 5.3m in the US or the 5.3m in Israel proper? Will Netanyahu's government hold up considering it? Netanyahu planted a tree in the Golan Heights and is talking of a non-divided Jerusalem. City of David.
What happens if Netanyahu and the Israelis decide to do it their way? The 1967 conquest when attacked is their's. I think is should be and they have proven that if they give land back it is land-for-war as in Gaza with Hamas. One problem with a two-state solution is that there is no land for a state really. Israel needs the Judea and Samaria for security.
The Palestinians will be helped to an increased economic viability and security. They will govern themselves without an army. The world doesn't accept this type of appartheid situation but what can they do. They will start boycotting Israel. Iran and it proxies will attack.
If instead the Palestinians will form a state with an army close by like the world wants. A free Palestine. Will this satisfy Iran and proxies? Probably not. Iran and its proxies will attack.
In the light of these two scenarios it is easy to understand why Netanyahu has Iran as priority number one. Some people think nuclear weapons will stabilize the region with a balance between Israel and Iran, just like the one between Pakistan and India, others think it will cause a race for nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Netanyahu thinks according to the latter scenario, if I have understood the matter properly.
They want to strike Irans nuclear capabilities. A difficult task for an uninitiated to understand since it apparently will require some 1000 sorties and has to take place over enemy territory and and an American Iraq. Robert Gates, the American Secretary of Defense, says a raid will just delay Iran and move the show further underground.
The solution therefore is more sanctions against Iran according to the latest bulletins. However, Russia and China and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization will make these sanctions futile even if Europe will agree on tougher sanctions as well.
So, everybody is buying time or will they actually try to make peace with Iran which would potentially eliminate the problem all together.
I'm on Americas side here. I want peace in the region, and like President Obama, I want the US energy independent of the Middle East in ten years like Obama said during his campaign. This makes Israel into a religious/tourist oriented domain rather than a deputy for controlling investments. If Iraq turns hostile that would become troublesome. Will the EU's, India's and China's dependence on the area for petroleum make it more peaceful?
I does not seem that way. It will make it more hostile to Israel. To prepare for this it would be of essence to make friends with Iran. No one wants a hot Iran in this region. Therefore the world has leaked out from the US. It may be OK with nuclear weapons in Iran.
What is unclear here, however, is why would this appease Iran? Will Iran turn into a more responsible country in the region after being taken seriously as a nuclear power? Europe would probably think so. It is more than enough with the NATO engagement in AfPak. At the time of the Iraq war the EU bought more petroleum from the Middle East than did the US. However, they expected the hydrocarbons to flow uninterrupted without an effort. Germany and France did not help out in the coalition of the willing when Saddam malignified. Germany is one of Iran's larges trade partners right now.
President Obama, has acted much like George W. Bush so far, but what would Bush do in the present time. I think Obama wants to leave the area while Bush would have wanted to stay on. Particulary in Iraq. If America is leaving Iran might think it is alright to expand but they have to perform according to their customers needs and as the EU, India and China takes over they might just stay put.
So, I think it looks good for the US but not so good for Israel. They have a so-so relation with the EU and its relation in the media with India and China is so far undefined. Arab countries and Iran will continue to become more prosperous as they sell their goods and will accumulate weapons. Israel would have to get along with these countries which makes even talk about agressions a potential problem and makes the situation worse.
I have not yet seen in the media an attempt at present to look into Israels future other than hearing about aggressions against Iran. I have not seen any plans for peaceful coexistence in the Middle Easst but many scenarios for destruction, if not aggression. I can't get this equation solved.
20090521
Four parties or one party?
Trying to find out which of the Swedish parties in the "Allians" that I should vote on in the election to the EU parliament. Found a quiz at DN.se with 25 questions that are important now in relation to the EU and Sweden.
From quizes with American questions I found out that I was a liberal centrist or libertarian centrist. The DN-quiz told me Folkpartiet Liberalerna was most correlated to my answers. Thereafter Centerpartiet and that makes sense also because they have a more liberal agenda lately.
The least correlating party in the "Allians" was Kristdemokraterna which would then define the conservative liberal axis. Although the differences are perhaps at best trends. The questions separated me out a a person who would vote "Allians" not the "red-greens".
I could vote for Kristdemokraterna in order to be with people for whom God is important. I can vote for the ideologically more correct Folkpartiet Liberalerna. But I could also vote with a cross for the seemingly most competent parliamentarian Gunnar Hökmark in the Nya Moderaterna.
I wish I could vote for the "Allians". The quiz did not separate the parties in the "Allians" enough for motivating differences.
From quizes with American questions I found out that I was a liberal centrist or libertarian centrist. The DN-quiz told me Folkpartiet Liberalerna was most correlated to my answers. Thereafter Centerpartiet and that makes sense also because they have a more liberal agenda lately.
The least correlating party in the "Allians" was Kristdemokraterna which would then define the conservative liberal axis. Although the differences are perhaps at best trends. The questions separated me out a a person who would vote "Allians" not the "red-greens".
I could vote for Kristdemokraterna in order to be with people for whom God is important. I can vote for the ideologically more correct Folkpartiet Liberalerna. But I could also vote with a cross for the seemingly most competent parliamentarian Gunnar Hökmark in the Nya Moderaterna.
I wish I could vote for the "Allians". The quiz did not separate the parties in the "Allians" enough for motivating differences.
No contradiction between Obama and Cheney?
President Obama argues that the US has "lost way" in the fight against terrorism according to an article by Mike Allen in Politico. Cheney argues that the way of the Bush administration has kept the US safe.
I think it is clear beyond doubt that the regime change in Iraq gave the people in the Middle East an indication about what it meant to cause war and trouble in the region. A coalition of the willing drew a red line in the sand. However, the time that has lapsed since 9/11 now have ushered in a new era where President Obamas change paradigm in the world right now requires a new approach.
Obama talked about change partly because the world had changed. The finance crisis drove this message home. A certain amount of terror attacks are probably going to remain but they ought to be faught where they occur rather than preemptively.
For utlimate stability in the Middle East opening up Iran is of uttermost importance as Nader Mousavizadeh argues in an article in The Washington Post today. President Obama has, according to The Jerusalem Post accomodated to an Iran with nuclear weapons.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons too and there are worries that economic aid to this country is directed to their nuclear arsenal. Any sane individual knows that it is not possible to fight militarily both Pakistan and Iran to remove their nuclear weapons preemtively. It would mean engaging 250m people. Ten times the number in Iraq.
Today President Obama is on the right track. It would mean to demonstrate strenght opening up Iran using the legacy of Bush on Iraq in terms of probable reactions if they would chose to malignify. Remove sanctions as a first token of good will.
I think it is clear beyond doubt that the regime change in Iraq gave the people in the Middle East an indication about what it meant to cause war and trouble in the region. A coalition of the willing drew a red line in the sand. However, the time that has lapsed since 9/11 now have ushered in a new era where President Obamas change paradigm in the world right now requires a new approach.
Obama talked about change partly because the world had changed. The finance crisis drove this message home. A certain amount of terror attacks are probably going to remain but they ought to be faught where they occur rather than preemptively.
For utlimate stability in the Middle East opening up Iran is of uttermost importance as Nader Mousavizadeh argues in an article in The Washington Post today. President Obama has, according to The Jerusalem Post accomodated to an Iran with nuclear weapons.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons too and there are worries that economic aid to this country is directed to their nuclear arsenal. Any sane individual knows that it is not possible to fight militarily both Pakistan and Iran to remove their nuclear weapons preemtively. It would mean engaging 250m people. Ten times the number in Iraq.
Today President Obama is on the right track. It would mean to demonstrate strenght opening up Iran using the legacy of Bush on Iraq in terms of probable reactions if they would chose to malignify. Remove sanctions as a first token of good will.
20090519
What abilities are good for a President?
I have earlier asked questions about the necessary skills of a president here and here. David Brooks delivers some answers in his last column.
First of all he lays down the difference between a politician and a business person:
"The C.E.O.’s that are most likely to succeed are humble, diffident, relentless and a bit unidimensional. They are often not the most exciting people to be around."
Whereas a politician should be: "charisma, charm and personal skills".
Brooks concludes that a person like Dimitry Medvedev who comes directly from a CEO position to run Russia it not optimal and that it is not good when President Obama tries to run banks and US Car Inc.
What was also bad was that media judges presidential candidates as if they were CEOs.
I also want to note that when Human Destruction Inc. wants to run Sweden from their anonymous position this must be a disaster. People just obey. They don't know who. They just know that it might hurt if they don't agree. They might even hear that they might get a disease or bodily lesion if they fail to perform their service.
First of all he lays down the difference between a politician and a business person:
"The C.E.O.’s that are most likely to succeed are humble, diffident, relentless and a bit unidimensional. They are often not the most exciting people to be around."
Whereas a politician should be: "charisma, charm and personal skills".
Brooks concludes that a person like Dimitry Medvedev who comes directly from a CEO position to run Russia it not optimal and that it is not good when President Obama tries to run banks and US Car Inc.
What was also bad was that media judges presidential candidates as if they were CEOs.
I also want to note that when Human Destruction Inc. wants to run Sweden from their anonymous position this must be a disaster. People just obey. They don't know who. They just know that it might hurt if they don't agree. They might even hear that they might get a disease or bodily lesion if they fail to perform their service.
The US and Israel
I have been wanting to write a comment on the situation between Israel and the US after the meeting betwween Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama. It's complicated but I found this that in all its simplicity tells a long story.
88% of Israelis thought George W. Bush was pro-Israel versus 31% for President Obama.
That is change.
What is security for the US has become insecurity for Israel.
88% of Israelis thought George W. Bush was pro-Israel versus 31% for President Obama.
That is change.
What is security for the US has become insecurity for Israel.
"If first amendment fails, see second amendment"
A while ago I discussed the possible reinterpretation of the American Constitution if the first amendment of the Bill of Rights failed. As the title of this post indicates, being a citation from an article by Patrik Jonsson at the Christian Science Monitor, there is an other way. At least in the United States. I have some experience that it might not be possible in the EU.
Here is the text of the first and the second amendments, respectively:
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
2. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Apparently people buy guns as never before in the US after President Obama got elected. A president that swore the oath on Lincolns Bible. Perhaps a symbolic gesture to indicate the possibility of a civil war situation. Please excuse the drama but it is interesting if you consider my latest post: Pillar of a New Foundation, where I suggest, from experience, that Sweden is ruled by Human Destruction Inc.
I can't go to the government with my grievances, I tried both the police and the procecutors office, and therefore Amendment I, which exists in the Swedish constitution as well, has failed.
The cited article points out that there is a polarization of the American society right now and that the NRA, National Rifle Association, serves as a base for discontent against the liberal administration and democratic Congress. Has tyranny reappeared? People are reacting to possible legislation that would weaken or remove the second amendment. They are ready to fight. The NRA meeting with 47,000 visitors featured speakers John McCain the former presidential candidate, Mitt Romney a presidential hopeful and GOP Chairman Michael Steele.
For the Swedes it must be interesting to find out what it is that scares people in the US and what the differences might be between the organization of people in the US and the EU. Are both the Republicans and the Democrats fighting Human Destruction Inc. or has it sided with one of the parties?
What is the future of Europe if there isn't a second amendment that can be invoked? A New Dark Age?
Here is the text of the first and the second amendments, respectively:
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
2. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Apparently people buy guns as never before in the US after President Obama got elected. A president that swore the oath on Lincolns Bible. Perhaps a symbolic gesture to indicate the possibility of a civil war situation. Please excuse the drama but it is interesting if you consider my latest post: Pillar of a New Foundation, where I suggest, from experience, that Sweden is ruled by Human Destruction Inc.
I can't go to the government with my grievances, I tried both the police and the procecutors office, and therefore Amendment I, which exists in the Swedish constitution as well, has failed.
The cited article points out that there is a polarization of the American society right now and that the NRA, National Rifle Association, serves as a base for discontent against the liberal administration and democratic Congress. Has tyranny reappeared? People are reacting to possible legislation that would weaken or remove the second amendment. They are ready to fight. The NRA meeting with 47,000 visitors featured speakers John McCain the former presidential candidate, Mitt Romney a presidential hopeful and GOP Chairman Michael Steele.
For the Swedes it must be interesting to find out what it is that scares people in the US and what the differences might be between the organization of people in the US and the EU. Are both the Republicans and the Democrats fighting Human Destruction Inc. or has it sided with one of the parties?
What is the future of Europe if there isn't a second amendment that can be invoked? A New Dark Age?
20090517
Pillar of a New Foundation
The Weekly Address of President Obama points to Clean Energy and Healthcare as the two pillars of a new foundation for the US. I guess the EU has a decent healthcare and therefore only has one pillar of a new foundation, i.e., clean energy.
Sweden, on the contrary, has pretty clean energy. At least comparatively speaking. We are 50/50 hydroelectric and nuclear with some wind. Should Sweden, despite its advanced position, still work for cleaner energy? In other words, are there any other challenges for the Western Civilization today?
Could Sweden use its forward position on energy to get ahead somewhere else? To lead the Western Civilization.
Experience from the last 18 years tells me that there is a crisis on which there is very little discussion in the press. How people organize themselves. The US have a president, judiciary and congress and one language. The EU needs a president, but doesn't have one language to elect it with, so instead a more convoluted system is in place. Some say mysterious others call it a miracle.
Based on my own experience of 18 years Sweden is ruled by Human Destruction Inc. Ordinary people can't talk about what is essential in life because of fear. How about improving how we are governed as a challenge for our civilization? If my experience is what it seems, this is more urgent than the climate worries.
Yesterday SVT aired a one hour program about Obamas career. His career is a statement of sorts. Of course, it's the American Dream. However, it is also a statement against a new form of nobility or royalism. The civil rights movement has gotten a new meaning. What, for example, is the meaning of the title of his book The Audacity of Hope. Is it, there is hope if you are brave? Will Sweden become the first new land of the free and the home of the brave?
Obama says in his Weekly Address that he believes more in reaching out over a divide than shaking one's fists across it. The SVT program contained comments as to this principle. They claimed that one of Obamas fallacies is that he believes he can get more people together than is possible. My question in my last post is however if he is going for a constitutional change in the US. If he, like Fareed Zakaria, believes the political system in the US is too old. Obama is for an empathic supreme court judge, i.e., he wants to give interpretative freedom to the judges.
Swedes have recently really engaged themselves in the integrity of man. Almost in an idealistic fashion. They have so far lost against the pragmatists, as Dick Erixon pointed out Swedes generally does when he discussed the "revolutionary" events in 1809. However, a clear and present danger to our civilization are the restrictions on the integrity of the mind that I have experience with.
To free the minds from unnecessary interference is a clear important goal for mankind. A hurdle we must pass. Sweden might be a good place to make progress. People might be too busy elsewhere.
A fitting remark is the following citation that illuminates the threat we face:
"Their's is a world without light, their all-encompassing hatred a repudiation of any saving grace. Their victory would impose a new Dark Age, but this time perhaps an endless one. They are enemies of the future itself"
Sweden, on the contrary, has pretty clean energy. At least comparatively speaking. We are 50/50 hydroelectric and nuclear with some wind. Should Sweden, despite its advanced position, still work for cleaner energy? In other words, are there any other challenges for the Western Civilization today?
Could Sweden use its forward position on energy to get ahead somewhere else? To lead the Western Civilization.
Experience from the last 18 years tells me that there is a crisis on which there is very little discussion in the press. How people organize themselves. The US have a president, judiciary and congress and one language. The EU needs a president, but doesn't have one language to elect it with, so instead a more convoluted system is in place. Some say mysterious others call it a miracle.
Based on my own experience of 18 years Sweden is ruled by Human Destruction Inc. Ordinary people can't talk about what is essential in life because of fear. How about improving how we are governed as a challenge for our civilization? If my experience is what it seems, this is more urgent than the climate worries.
Yesterday SVT aired a one hour program about Obamas career. His career is a statement of sorts. Of course, it's the American Dream. However, it is also a statement against a new form of nobility or royalism. The civil rights movement has gotten a new meaning. What, for example, is the meaning of the title of his book The Audacity of Hope. Is it, there is hope if you are brave? Will Sweden become the first new land of the free and the home of the brave?
Obama says in his Weekly Address that he believes more in reaching out over a divide than shaking one's fists across it. The SVT program contained comments as to this principle. They claimed that one of Obamas fallacies is that he believes he can get more people together than is possible. My question in my last post is however if he is going for a constitutional change in the US. If he, like Fareed Zakaria, believes the political system in the US is too old. Obama is for an empathic supreme court judge, i.e., he wants to give interpretative freedom to the judges.
Swedes have recently really engaged themselves in the integrity of man. Almost in an idealistic fashion. They have so far lost against the pragmatists, as Dick Erixon pointed out Swedes generally does when he discussed the "revolutionary" events in 1809. However, a clear and present danger to our civilization are the restrictions on the integrity of the mind that I have experience with.
To free the minds from unnecessary interference is a clear important goal for mankind. A hurdle we must pass. Sweden might be a good place to make progress. People might be too busy elsewhere.
A fitting remark is the following citation that illuminates the threat we face:
"Their's is a world without light, their all-encompassing hatred a repudiation of any saving grace. Their victory would impose a new Dark Age, but this time perhaps an endless one. They are enemies of the future itself"
20090516
Obama sends a Mormon and Republican to China
Jon M. Huntsman who is governor to Utah was selected by President Obama yesterday to become what they call an envoy to China, i.e. the ambassador.
Washington Post writes that Huntsman late last year said "Most Americans are fed up with the idea that partisanship has stood in the way of progress".
Allow me to probe Obamas mind on this information. Is his goal to form a one party system like that of China? A devout non-ideologue and all pragmatics?
Well, Huntsman seems perfectly cut for the job as an expert on China and speaking Mandarin chinese fluently. He was elected governor with 77% of the vote and is considered a rising star in the GOP.
Washington Post writes that Huntsman late last year said "Most Americans are fed up with the idea that partisanship has stood in the way of progress".
Allow me to probe Obamas mind on this information. Is his goal to form a one party system like that of China? A devout non-ideologue and all pragmatics?
Well, Huntsman seems perfectly cut for the job as an expert on China and speaking Mandarin chinese fluently. He was elected governor with 77% of the vote and is considered a rising star in the GOP.
20090515
Empires of Uranium?
Paul Krugman writes today about Empires of Carbon and concludes that also China has to contribute to improving the environment.
As Krugman points out China is now the country with the highest exhaust of carbondioxide. USA is highest on per capita data. Fareed Zakaria pointed out that between 2002 and 2012 China is building 800 coal-fired power plants.
China is a biological force that like an asphalt flower is piercing the ground to reach for the sun. Sure, unless you send in the cavalry, China is going to sustain its growth to any price, no matter how much morals you push them with. At least according to the report from ECFR from my recent posts. And then there is India and Brazil...
Krugman says that he has seen the future and he claims it will not work. There are people who say we are too late and that there is going to be an environmental catastrophy. Then there are those that claims we will scrape by if we step on the brakes. I myself have the opinion that the planet will hold the globalization and that what we do without hysteria will do to protect it. What I would like to see is a poll that ask these questions.
However, I found a poll where 41% of Americans think media exaggerates data on global warming. 57% think media is correct/underestimating. According to another poll 44% thinks global warming is due to planetary trends, not people. Both polls are from 2009. More people are probably worried in Europe. Margot Wallström, the Swedish EU commissioner, claimed that it is sinful to pollute. I would say it is sinful to pollute unnecessarily.
However, I believe that Krugman is right when he claims that if the US is beginning to take the climate seriously a lot more people are going to follow than if only the EU is active. Some people say that it is worth money to be careful about the climate. I hope they are right.
Did comment on something similar earlier, here.
As Krugman points out China is now the country with the highest exhaust of carbondioxide. USA is highest on per capita data. Fareed Zakaria pointed out that between 2002 and 2012 China is building 800 coal-fired power plants.
China is a biological force that like an asphalt flower is piercing the ground to reach for the sun. Sure, unless you send in the cavalry, China is going to sustain its growth to any price, no matter how much morals you push them with. At least according to the report from ECFR from my recent posts. And then there is India and Brazil...
Krugman says that he has seen the future and he claims it will not work. There are people who say we are too late and that there is going to be an environmental catastrophy. Then there are those that claims we will scrape by if we step on the brakes. I myself have the opinion that the planet will hold the globalization and that what we do without hysteria will do to protect it. What I would like to see is a poll that ask these questions.
However, I found a poll where 41% of Americans think media exaggerates data on global warming. 57% think media is correct/underestimating. According to another poll 44% thinks global warming is due to planetary trends, not people. Both polls are from 2009. More people are probably worried in Europe. Margot Wallström, the Swedish EU commissioner, claimed that it is sinful to pollute. I would say it is sinful to pollute unnecessarily.
However, I believe that Krugman is right when he claims that if the US is beginning to take the climate seriously a lot more people are going to follow than if only the EU is active. Some people say that it is worth money to be careful about the climate. I hope they are right.
Did comment on something similar earlier, here.
20090514
My beloved Western Civilization
I thought about one of the conclusions of the report from ECFR yesterday where the Chinese have been more interested in our culture than we have in theirs which, according to the report, have resulted in a disadvantage in terms of the balance of trade between the EU and China.
I don't see any risk in Europe or the Western civilization being taken over by Muslim culture. However, the Asians might become a more important influence with their old and important cultures. But overall, globalization is a rather dominant mark on many cultures and it is distinctively Western. China is for example poised to become the country with the most Christian and Muslim followers.
What could hamper a positive development of the Western civilization, or rather Europes part in it, are nationalistic trends. The interesting thing with the ECFR report is that it did not clearly take a stand for that an improvement of the performance of the EU would result from closer integration. It delivered arguments both for and against. In this sense a disillusionary tale. It placed the EU as a global invalid.
European provincialism might then be the cause of not knowing the game of the Chinese or the Americans while spending too much time on the 27 cultures of Europe, when the EU in reality must act as a unit globally. A significant proportion of Europeans must interest themselves in the World. There is, for example, always going to be enough Swedes taking care of Sweden. I have also heard some snyde comments from Asians about our predilection for the Middle East problems. They don't seem to know why we are so interested in this culture. Might it be that they are not impressed themselves. After all, the Muslims of the Middle East comes to Europe because they like it and not the other way around. Personally I'm not a great believer in political Islam.
Israel and the Palestinians are an exception of course as is well understood from the pictures coming from this area during the stay of the Pope. The historic and religious importance of this little area, also the only route to Africa during the ice ages, is fundamental. The Jews, the Christians and the Muslims belong there. Especially so the Jews, the inventors of the Abrahamitic monoteism. It is their spot on Earth and it is Divine. Perhaps even for China in the future. The Sumerian and Egyptian cultures are of course also our cradle and the potential for tourism is grand in the light of peace.
Total trade with North America from Europe is $2tn whereas it with China is only $400bn. The trans-Atlantic relation is our future. Americans share our cultural heritage and civil society is developed in a similar fashion. North America and EU is the Yin and Yang of the world right now. The most important challenge is how to develop this society further while the rest of the world is catching up with globalization.
I don't see any risk in Europe or the Western civilization being taken over by Muslim culture. However, the Asians might become a more important influence with their old and important cultures. But overall, globalization is a rather dominant mark on many cultures and it is distinctively Western. China is for example poised to become the country with the most Christian and Muslim followers.
What could hamper a positive development of the Western civilization, or rather Europes part in it, are nationalistic trends. The interesting thing with the ECFR report is that it did not clearly take a stand for that an improvement of the performance of the EU would result from closer integration. It delivered arguments both for and against. In this sense a disillusionary tale. It placed the EU as a global invalid.
European provincialism might then be the cause of not knowing the game of the Chinese or the Americans while spending too much time on the 27 cultures of Europe, when the EU in reality must act as a unit globally. A significant proportion of Europeans must interest themselves in the World. There is, for example, always going to be enough Swedes taking care of Sweden. I have also heard some snyde comments from Asians about our predilection for the Middle East problems. They don't seem to know why we are so interested in this culture. Might it be that they are not impressed themselves. After all, the Muslims of the Middle East comes to Europe because they like it and not the other way around. Personally I'm not a great believer in political Islam.
Israel and the Palestinians are an exception of course as is well understood from the pictures coming from this area during the stay of the Pope. The historic and religious importance of this little area, also the only route to Africa during the ice ages, is fundamental. The Jews, the Christians and the Muslims belong there. Especially so the Jews, the inventors of the Abrahamitic monoteism. It is their spot on Earth and it is Divine. Perhaps even for China in the future. The Sumerian and Egyptian cultures are of course also our cradle and the potential for tourism is grand in the light of peace.
Total trade with North America from Europe is $2tn whereas it with China is only $400bn. The trans-Atlantic relation is our future. Americans share our cultural heritage and civil society is developed in a similar fashion. North America and EU is the Yin and Yang of the world right now. The most important challenge is how to develop this society further while the rest of the world is catching up with globalization.
More on China and Iran
I'll dwell a little longer on the issue of a comparison between Iran today and China 1969. Richard Nixon, in a much cited article in Foreign Affairs 1967 said the following:
"Taking the long view, we simply cannot afford to leave China forever outside the family of nations, there to nurture its fantasies, cherish its hates and threaten its neighbors".
President Obama said much the same in his al-Arabiya interview right after his inauguration. Although he did it in a more pleasant way. The Muslims would not have accepted Nixons words, which the Chinese apparently did.
It is an interesting argument for the Iranians to ponder that fourty years after opening up China it is now beginning to matter in the world. With its revolution the Iranians are trying to impose its way on other people instead of blending in.
From what I have read on Iran, however, its people are more Western in their minds than the Chinese were 1969. There are also rudiments of democracy in Iran and the West have no problem with shia Islam in principle. It should be possible for President Obama to interest Iran in opening up if he can forget the Embassy debacle of 1979.
Having known what we know today. Had Nixon still liked the idea of an open China? In other words are we going to like an open Iran? Anne-Marie Slaughter discusses the problem China is going to have if they encounter growth of less than 6% (Kissinger says 7.5%) with their "fragile" system that the fast growth of the last decades have created. EIU says that growth in China is going to be 6.5% for 2009 and 7.3% for 2010 so they will be borderline the upcoming two years.
The result is therefore probably not in yet on whether we wanted an open China or not. In any case an open Iran would be easier to accomodate than would a China. The role of Iran in the Middle East is probably as important as the role of China in the world.
The discussion about Iran is whether it is possible to open it at all. Israel would say that it is futile to even discuss with them. They think in terms of hitting them hard, like they hit the Iraqi Osirak reactor, and then buy some more time. They don't think they will get repercussions from the attack since they didn't in the past.
It is surprising that so few high profile people want to open Iran. I know only Roger Cohen at The New York Times. More aggression in the area will only worsen the situation and lead down to the next major confrontation. Opening up Iran would rather move things in the right direction and offer long term peace and prosperity in the region. However, scholars that write in The Jerusalem Post simply refer to realities of the Middle East. What is futile, however, is to try to solve the Palestinian question without opening Iran.
"Taking the long view, we simply cannot afford to leave China forever outside the family of nations, there to nurture its fantasies, cherish its hates and threaten its neighbors".
President Obama said much the same in his al-Arabiya interview right after his inauguration. Although he did it in a more pleasant way. The Muslims would not have accepted Nixons words, which the Chinese apparently did.
It is an interesting argument for the Iranians to ponder that fourty years after opening up China it is now beginning to matter in the world. With its revolution the Iranians are trying to impose its way on other people instead of blending in.
From what I have read on Iran, however, its people are more Western in their minds than the Chinese were 1969. There are also rudiments of democracy in Iran and the West have no problem with shia Islam in principle. It should be possible for President Obama to interest Iran in opening up if he can forget the Embassy debacle of 1979.
Having known what we know today. Had Nixon still liked the idea of an open China? In other words are we going to like an open Iran? Anne-Marie Slaughter discusses the problem China is going to have if they encounter growth of less than 6% (Kissinger says 7.5%) with their "fragile" system that the fast growth of the last decades have created. EIU says that growth in China is going to be 6.5% for 2009 and 7.3% for 2010 so they will be borderline the upcoming two years.
The result is therefore probably not in yet on whether we wanted an open China or not. In any case an open Iran would be easier to accomodate than would a China. The role of Iran in the Middle East is probably as important as the role of China in the world.
The discussion about Iran is whether it is possible to open it at all. Israel would say that it is futile to even discuss with them. They think in terms of hitting them hard, like they hit the Iraqi Osirak reactor, and then buy some more time. They don't think they will get repercussions from the attack since they didn't in the past.
It is surprising that so few high profile people want to open Iran. I know only Roger Cohen at The New York Times. More aggression in the area will only worsen the situation and lead down to the next major confrontation. Opening up Iran would rather move things in the right direction and offer long term peace and prosperity in the region. However, scholars that write in The Jerusalem Post simply refer to realities of the Middle East. What is futile, however, is to try to solve the Palestinian question without opening Iran.
20090513
The Old Man and the Sea
Some people around talk about what books they have read. I remember reading Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea.
It's about a fisherman that did not get that many fish lately and people had started talking. Maybe he is too old...
However, he goes out one day and makes the catch of his life. This big ugly fish. He fights with it for a long time and can finally tie it to his boat. It seemed like an eternity...
To his dismay the sharks came and ate most of the fish...
When he finally comes back to the fisherman's village there is only the skeleton left by the boat.
Vindication at last...
It's about a fisherman that did not get that many fish lately and people had started talking. Maybe he is too old...
However, he goes out one day and makes the catch of his life. This big ugly fish. He fights with it for a long time and can finally tie it to his boat. It seemed like an eternity...
To his dismay the sharks came and ate most of the fish...
When he finally comes back to the fisherman's village there is only the skeleton left by the boat.
Vindication at last...
Is it possible to compare China 1969 with Iran today?
Dick Erixon describes a discussion between a Chinese and a Briton concerning the relationship between China and EU in his blog today. The Briton claims that China despises EU.
Erixon gives the reference to a Policy Report by John Fox and Francois Godement called: A Power Audit of EU-China Relations from the European think tank ECFR. Charlemagne might have read the report when he wrote Dragon Nightmares. China is beating EU at present. For one thing they are more read up on EU than the other way around.
One of the conclusions of the report is that the Lisbon Treaty might be a step in the right direction when it comes to recognition by China. Dealing with 27 countires is apparently dealing with a few too much. However, according to Charlemagne the Chinese revere EU red tape and welfare systems.
Sweden was apparently the first Western country to recognize the People's Republic of China in 1950. However the realist Richard Nixon importantly "opened up" China to the world around 1969-70. He recognized that a balance of power between the US, Soviet Union and PRC was possible--the so called Triangular Diplomacy. He also thought it advantageous to expose the die hard communists to Western traditions although the latter objective proved to be quite difficult.
President Obama might, as it seems, try to open up Iran while he, like Nixon, fights his Vietnam in AfPak? A war Nixon did not begin but tried to exit honorably. The amount of anti-imperialistic vitriol coming out of PRC at the time propably compares well with that emanating from Iran today.
Realizing that the anti-shia force from Arabs would not be sufficient for a green light for an attack on Iran and soothing the Israelis wounds could lead to the game-changing removal of sanctions against Iran. The report above states that the deals between EU and China on Iran contains loopholes in the sanctions anyhow making them less effective than they would be if the EU and the US really had China on bord on the deal. In reality there might not be any way in which sanctions could be increased anyway.
The Chinese gave Pakistan the bomb and Pakistan is cozying up to China more than to the West. Maybe China can take the main responsibility for Pakistan? The Russians is about to give Iran the bomb but maybe they don't have to... if the climate changes? After all there is not even a consensus about if Iran is capable of making the bomb now or not.
Erixon gives the reference to a Policy Report by John Fox and Francois Godement called: A Power Audit of EU-China Relations from the European think tank ECFR. Charlemagne might have read the report when he wrote Dragon Nightmares. China is beating EU at present. For one thing they are more read up on EU than the other way around.
One of the conclusions of the report is that the Lisbon Treaty might be a step in the right direction when it comes to recognition by China. Dealing with 27 countires is apparently dealing with a few too much. However, according to Charlemagne the Chinese revere EU red tape and welfare systems.
Sweden was apparently the first Western country to recognize the People's Republic of China in 1950. However the realist Richard Nixon importantly "opened up" China to the world around 1969-70. He recognized that a balance of power between the US, Soviet Union and PRC was possible--the so called Triangular Diplomacy. He also thought it advantageous to expose the die hard communists to Western traditions although the latter objective proved to be quite difficult.
President Obama might, as it seems, try to open up Iran while he, like Nixon, fights his Vietnam in AfPak? A war Nixon did not begin but tried to exit honorably. The amount of anti-imperialistic vitriol coming out of PRC at the time propably compares well with that emanating from Iran today.
Realizing that the anti-shia force from Arabs would not be sufficient for a green light for an attack on Iran and soothing the Israelis wounds could lead to the game-changing removal of sanctions against Iran. The report above states that the deals between EU and China on Iran contains loopholes in the sanctions anyhow making them less effective than they would be if the EU and the US really had China on bord on the deal. In reality there might not be any way in which sanctions could be increased anyway.
The Chinese gave Pakistan the bomb and Pakistan is cozying up to China more than to the West. Maybe China can take the main responsibility for Pakistan? The Russians is about to give Iran the bomb but maybe they don't have to... if the climate changes? After all there is not even a consensus about if Iran is capable of making the bomb now or not.
20090511
Is the Concept of Friendship Changing with Obama?
"That was why Joe Biden also reminded the AIPAC gathering in Washington that the US needed more than just one friend. "The nation who asserts it leads, but has no one following, is not leading," he said.
This time, no one applauded."
An article by Gabor Steingart in Spiegel ONLINE International discusses the recent friction between the US and Israel. It ends with the words above.
It just so happens that the article is joined with my latest post discussing how the US with its new foreign policy is positioning itself and according to what principle.
Every country in the world is becoming Facebook friend with each other. I have some problems figuring out what this might lead to. For Israel it is increased anti-semitism, memories of World War II atrocities disappearing and changing power relations in the Middle East. An alarming situation.
For Sweden it is losing in the Eurovision Song Contest because a myriad of new countries appear with different musical taste. Sweden is crowded out. Like Israel in the Middle East. For Sweden this gives a flavour of how it feels not fitting in anymore.
For Israel it is catastrophic proportions due to the state the press has worked the population up on the Iran isssue since January.
As Anne-Marie Slaughter says there is no clash of cilivizations, she apparently means that there isn't with Islam but with Judaism.
Well, who knows. Maybe everyone will just smile and there will be peace.
However, isn't there a glitch in the thinking? The US is scaling up war in AfPak and they are talking of stronger sanctions against Iran. How is this going to seem friendly towards Islam?
This time, no one applauded."
An article by Gabor Steingart in Spiegel ONLINE International discusses the recent friction between the US and Israel. It ends with the words above.
It just so happens that the article is joined with my latest post discussing how the US with its new foreign policy is positioning itself and according to what principle.
Every country in the world is becoming Facebook friend with each other. I have some problems figuring out what this might lead to. For Israel it is increased anti-semitism, memories of World War II atrocities disappearing and changing power relations in the Middle East. An alarming situation.
For Sweden it is losing in the Eurovision Song Contest because a myriad of new countries appear with different musical taste. Sweden is crowded out. Like Israel in the Middle East. For Sweden this gives a flavour of how it feels not fitting in anymore.
For Israel it is catastrophic proportions due to the state the press has worked the population up on the Iran isssue since January.
As Anne-Marie Slaughter says there is no clash of cilivizations, she apparently means that there isn't with Islam but with Judaism.
Well, who knows. Maybe everyone will just smile and there will be peace.
However, isn't there a glitch in the thinking? The US is scaling up war in AfPak and they are talking of stronger sanctions against Iran. How is this going to seem friendly towards Islam?
A Female and therefore Networked World?
If you wonder why American Foreign Policy is ruled by women lately, the Director of Policy Planning at the State Department, Anne-Marie Slaughter, has the answer. Men form hierarchies and women form flat networks where the most connected has most power. That is some political science for you.
If you browse through Slaughters videos you find a strategy for US not to end up in a power hierachy under China in the future. Becoming the most popular and most contacted nation. The place where all the talent still will go. Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan apparently wants the democracy of the US but the economy of China. We will se what the world will want to have.
"Gather from far every ray of various genius to your hospitable halls" as Ralph Waldo Emerson said". He contemplated a solution for Americas backward placement compared to Europe at the time. I guess its all a matter of the hospitality?
President Obamas foreign policy is therefore the "outstreched hand". What would interest me to know is whether men also can form flat networks or if its only women that by nature has been endowed with this gift. There is the problem with the blustering.
The flat network model is what seems popular for the global world right now. No one wants America to lead anymore. Americas enemies, as well as those of Sweden, are organizations like Människoförstörelsebolaget, or Human Destruction Inc., i.e., organizations that destroy connections in the network. When the smoke clears I believe the US will be most popular.
David Brooks at The New York Times have been returning to thoughts on the problem of the community vs. the individual. He recently argued that there has been too much talk about the individual. People keep organizing themselves individually though. Not in collectives even if they are networked. Apparently the typical individual has about 5 close friends and up to 150 friends on Facebook, so to speak. Hmm...
If you browse through Slaughters videos you find a strategy for US not to end up in a power hierachy under China in the future. Becoming the most popular and most contacted nation. The place where all the talent still will go. Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan apparently wants the democracy of the US but the economy of China. We will se what the world will want to have.
"Gather from far every ray of various genius to your hospitable halls" as Ralph Waldo Emerson said". He contemplated a solution for Americas backward placement compared to Europe at the time. I guess its all a matter of the hospitality?
President Obamas foreign policy is therefore the "outstreched hand". What would interest me to know is whether men also can form flat networks or if its only women that by nature has been endowed with this gift. There is the problem with the blustering.
The flat network model is what seems popular for the global world right now. No one wants America to lead anymore. Americas enemies, as well as those of Sweden, are organizations like Människoförstörelsebolaget, or Human Destruction Inc., i.e., organizations that destroy connections in the network. When the smoke clears I believe the US will be most popular.
David Brooks at The New York Times have been returning to thoughts on the problem of the community vs. the individual. He recently argued that there has been too much talk about the individual. People keep organizing themselves individually though. Not in collectives even if they are networked. Apparently the typical individual has about 5 close friends and up to 150 friends on Facebook, so to speak. Hmm...
20090509
The Day of Europe
It is Saturday Night Live. It is also The Day of Europe. Margot Wallström, our swedish commissioner, tells us on DN.se to vote for the EU parliament no matter what. It doesn't matter which party. Just vote. Sounds a little desperate but I learn on the program Lördagsintervjun at public radio program 1 that her results on the job as commissioner hasn't been that good. She is tired and wants out of the lime light. Talks about cleaning out wardrobes and getting a hunting licence instead.
However, I defended Wallström the other day. Her enemies claimed the Irish referendum was democracy when parliament votes of all other countries were not. Charlemagne of The Ecomomist and Dick Erixon claims the EU parliament has no legitimacy. What I don't understand is what would be better democracy without one language that would allow direct voting of all countries. I still think the EU is on track and hope the Lisbon Treaty will eventually be ratified. Then the next step might give democracy eventually. Its all about steps. EU is about getting used to the idea of a unified Europe. Generation by generation. On the global arena EU would be important.
Charlemagne mentioned an interesting thing though. Someone had likened the EU parliament with an NGO. It is apparently considered so detached from governmental function by some. I agree that they are voicing their concern in questions that they shouldn't. Like foreign policy. Some MEPs tries to talk to Hamas. After the Lisbon Treaty comes perhaps a time when foreign policy of the EU can be more assertive.
Then there is the enlargement issue. Angela Merkel doesn't want to enlarge much more. I agree. There comes a point where someone must say stop and the Alexander the Great demon of EU must die. I have no idea why the Swedes insist on further enlargement. 495m is more than enough. People are saying the US might break up and they are only 300m. Perhaps some people dream of a unit approaching that of China including Turkey, Ukraine and Russia? If 495m is a miracle, 800m would be divine. I thought for a while that Russia could be the Texas of Europe but my analysis so far would place them apart. I view it the other way around. We are 800m with the US.
However, I defended Wallström the other day. Her enemies claimed the Irish referendum was democracy when parliament votes of all other countries were not. Charlemagne of The Ecomomist and Dick Erixon claims the EU parliament has no legitimacy. What I don't understand is what would be better democracy without one language that would allow direct voting of all countries. I still think the EU is on track and hope the Lisbon Treaty will eventually be ratified. Then the next step might give democracy eventually. Its all about steps. EU is about getting used to the idea of a unified Europe. Generation by generation. On the global arena EU would be important.
Charlemagne mentioned an interesting thing though. Someone had likened the EU parliament with an NGO. It is apparently considered so detached from governmental function by some. I agree that they are voicing their concern in questions that they shouldn't. Like foreign policy. Some MEPs tries to talk to Hamas. After the Lisbon Treaty comes perhaps a time when foreign policy of the EU can be more assertive.
Then there is the enlargement issue. Angela Merkel doesn't want to enlarge much more. I agree. There comes a point where someone must say stop and the Alexander the Great demon of EU must die. I have no idea why the Swedes insist on further enlargement. 495m is more than enough. People are saying the US might break up and they are only 300m. Perhaps some people dream of a unit approaching that of China including Turkey, Ukraine and Russia? If 495m is a miracle, 800m would be divine. I thought for a while that Russia could be the Texas of Europe but my analysis so far would place them apart. I view it the other way around. We are 800m with the US.
20090507
My world view
Henry Kissinger writes about Richard Nixon in his Diplomacy from 1994 that "No American president posessed a greater knowledge of international affairs. ... Nixon was not a student of history in the same way as Churchill or de Gaulle had been. He generally learned just enough about a country's past to absorb the rudiments of the facts pertaining to its circumstances--and often not even that much."
I find this interesting since I have been trying to figure out what the best background for studies in political science is. Nixon was not, like John Locke, a physician by trainíng but rather a lawyer. I have read that Ronald Reagan did not know history either. Being a president might differ from being a political scientist, though. It is more of a managerial endeavour.
Kissinger writes: "In Nixon's perception, peace and harmony were not the natural order of things but temporary oases in a perilous world where stability could only be presented by vigilant effort." Kissinger and Nixon were not idealists but rather realists that believed in the balance of power. Interestingly, the time when he ruled had many similarities to ours. We are at war and in a finance crisis (war) just like him and wonder what new interational system will form when the relative power of the US is diminishing.
Ed Crane, the libertarian, also believe that the difference between order and chaos is small. I agree. One example is when the US, Germany and Japan all went for the nuclear bomb at approximately the same time. Then as now it is important that the US is powerful. Their system have earned that judgement. Others are new kids on the block. I imagine seeing a positive trend through history which calls for optimism.
President Obama is entering this scenario now. Without Kissinger and with little foreign relations experience. Will he make AfPak, already Obama's war, into his Vietnam instead of chilling out?
Another development is that trade will be the dominant foreign relationships in otherwise isolationistic America, Europe, China and Japan. Diplomacy less important, for a while. With ministers of finance doing the talking.
I find this interesting since I have been trying to figure out what the best background for studies in political science is. Nixon was not, like John Locke, a physician by trainíng but rather a lawyer. I have read that Ronald Reagan did not know history either. Being a president might differ from being a political scientist, though. It is more of a managerial endeavour.
Kissinger writes: "In Nixon's perception, peace and harmony were not the natural order of things but temporary oases in a perilous world where stability could only be presented by vigilant effort." Kissinger and Nixon were not idealists but rather realists that believed in the balance of power. Interestingly, the time when he ruled had many similarities to ours. We are at war and in a finance crisis (war) just like him and wonder what new interational system will form when the relative power of the US is diminishing.
Ed Crane, the libertarian, also believe that the difference between order and chaos is small. I agree. One example is when the US, Germany and Japan all went for the nuclear bomb at approximately the same time. Then as now it is important that the US is powerful. Their system have earned that judgement. Others are new kids on the block. I imagine seeing a positive trend through history which calls for optimism.
President Obama is entering this scenario now. Without Kissinger and with little foreign relations experience. Will he make AfPak, already Obama's war, into his Vietnam instead of chilling out?
Another development is that trade will be the dominant foreign relationships in otherwise isolationistic America, Europe, China and Japan. Diplomacy less important, for a while. With ministers of finance doing the talking.
Libertarians?
Ohe of the leading libertarian thinkers, Ed Crane, is CEO of the think tank Cato Institute which has 105 employees and that, as Crane says, puts the libertarian idea on the table in the US. Thanks to BigThink.com it is possible to find out a little of how he views the world.
Libertarians stand up for the dignity of the individual. Freedom is the goal of mankind. Egality isn't, says Crane. I have objections on the equality question. I believe strongly that civilized man should provide healthcare, schooling, and aid to the poor for all people. "All men are created equal". As I pointed out earlier human goodness is a biological trait. The reward center in the brain responds on good deeds and gives us happiness. I agree with Crane on the pursuit of happiness clause in the Declaration of Independence. It is grand.
I don't understand why freedom and the by me prescribed amount of egality cannot coexist. Freedom ought to be created when the peace of mind comes due to knowing no one suffers unnecessarily. If one considers the amount of unemployed in the welfare states of Europe, the question is where the percentage of unemployed is going to land when globalization is complete. How many will need provisions of a given population? What I have understood from between the lines of President Obamas work so far is that he aims to turn the US into Europe in this respect, the equalities I mentioned. I believe many Europeans like that about him. The important thing to realize is that there is a certain amount of people that is going to need help.
However, the comparison between the US and Europe ends there. I believe that there is too much community in Europe. Crane believes one third of Americans are libertarians. The party, however, has only some 226,000 members. One third of Americans might have that free spirit that David Brooks talked about yesterday from the Western movies, and which is the essence of man, but for modern reasons they crave more and end up conservatives or liberals instead.
The libertarians are noninterventionists internationally also. Crane said they show humility towards other nations. Thus they stand out against both Republicans and Democrats. I am for the Iraq war and I believe that interventions can be motivated but that this motivation has to be understandable. AfPak is not understandable which might make me a libertarian on that one at present but I'm probably not a libertarian at heart on the issue.
I'm for limited government though. For example, I used to think that the state should take care of basic research. I'm not sure anymore. In the US it is both in government and private care. This might be optimal because there are different kinds of scientists. A lot is performed in corporations also. President Jefferson is supposed to have said that science is too important to be subject to political trickery. He might be right.
Libertarians stand up for the dignity of the individual. Freedom is the goal of mankind. Egality isn't, says Crane. I have objections on the equality question. I believe strongly that civilized man should provide healthcare, schooling, and aid to the poor for all people. "All men are created equal". As I pointed out earlier human goodness is a biological trait. The reward center in the brain responds on good deeds and gives us happiness. I agree with Crane on the pursuit of happiness clause in the Declaration of Independence. It is grand.
I don't understand why freedom and the by me prescribed amount of egality cannot coexist. Freedom ought to be created when the peace of mind comes due to knowing no one suffers unnecessarily. If one considers the amount of unemployed in the welfare states of Europe, the question is where the percentage of unemployed is going to land when globalization is complete. How many will need provisions of a given population? What I have understood from between the lines of President Obamas work so far is that he aims to turn the US into Europe in this respect, the equalities I mentioned. I believe many Europeans like that about him. The important thing to realize is that there is a certain amount of people that is going to need help.
However, the comparison between the US and Europe ends there. I believe that there is too much community in Europe. Crane believes one third of Americans are libertarians. The party, however, has only some 226,000 members. One third of Americans might have that free spirit that David Brooks talked about yesterday from the Western movies, and which is the essence of man, but for modern reasons they crave more and end up conservatives or liberals instead.
The libertarians are noninterventionists internationally also. Crane said they show humility towards other nations. Thus they stand out against both Republicans and Democrats. I am for the Iraq war and I believe that interventions can be motivated but that this motivation has to be understandable. AfPak is not understandable which might make me a libertarian on that one at present but I'm probably not a libertarian at heart on the issue.
I'm for limited government though. For example, I used to think that the state should take care of basic research. I'm not sure anymore. In the US it is both in government and private care. This might be optimal because there are different kinds of scientists. A lot is performed in corporations also. President Jefferson is supposed to have said that science is too important to be subject to political trickery. He might be right.
20090505
Republicans in a crisis
David Brooks at nytimes.com writes a column today called The Long Way Home where he buries freedom and individualism for community and order. Does he want the Republican party to turn into CDU of Germany?
Freedom and individuality does not resonate with people anymore. At least not in the large cities where the Republicans are getting beaten badly, says Brooks. The column seems to be like the discussion between Johan Norberg and Roland Poirier Martinsson the other week here in Sweden. Classical Liberalism versus Conservatism.
However, I don't understand how you get community and order without freedom and individualism which spell entrepreneurism that creates jobs. PJ Anders Linder pointed out that one needs both isms. He might be right.
I guess Brooks is tired of the Rush Limbaughs of the party since he is a moderate himself. The situation is reverse in Sweden where the Social Democrats are in the position of the Republicans and have lost the center position. Talking Socialism with the Left Party.
In Sweden Fredrik Reinfeldts skill as a leader, like that of Barack H. Obama, is compared favourably with the opposition. They call it "regeringsduglighet" or competence for governance. The Republicans should probably get together a shadow government, like the one in Great Britain, with which they can prove competence. Team up behind a new leader non-ideologically like Obama.
Freedom and individuality does not resonate with people anymore. At least not in the large cities where the Republicans are getting beaten badly, says Brooks. The column seems to be like the discussion between Johan Norberg and Roland Poirier Martinsson the other week here in Sweden. Classical Liberalism versus Conservatism.
However, I don't understand how you get community and order without freedom and individualism which spell entrepreneurism that creates jobs. PJ Anders Linder pointed out that one needs both isms. He might be right.
I guess Brooks is tired of the Rush Limbaughs of the party since he is a moderate himself. The situation is reverse in Sweden where the Social Democrats are in the position of the Republicans and have lost the center position. Talking Socialism with the Left Party.
In Sweden Fredrik Reinfeldts skill as a leader, like that of Barack H. Obama, is compared favourably with the opposition. They call it "regeringsduglighet" or competence for governance. The Republicans should probably get together a shadow government, like the one in Great Britain, with which they can prove competence. Team up behind a new leader non-ideologically like Obama.
20090504
More concerning AfPak
Is it possible to have an opinion different to The US Department of Defense on AfPak? I don't know, but I realized that the mere presense of Western troops on the premises of AfPak might be creating more trouble than it solves.
The question therefore arises whether it is within our reach to affect the situation in for example Pakistan. Jackson Diehl writes an article called: A Crisis Out of Reach?. For the reason I gave above?
The possible exception is Iraq where 40% liked the invasion of 2003. Life under Saddam Hussein must have been really terrible. The editorial of The New York Times today reminds us that it is important not to forget Iraq. The article is called: Still Unfinished Business.
According to Charlemagne, who listened to Obamas speech in Prague, Europeans are not afraid of terrorism. I myself must represent an exception. Because, I fear a suitcase nuclear bomb placed somewhere where it hurts in the West. I believe there are people that would do such a thing if they could.
What I don't quite understand is why it would be effective to prevent this from happening with the ongoing AfPak mission? The 9/11 catastrophy, as Obama himself pointed out, was planned partly in Hamburg. My question is therefore, aren't we increasing the risk of triggering a suitcase bomb by trespasssing on Muslim territory? It really irritates these people.
Pakistan generals are apparently more afraid of India than of internal Talibans according to an article in The Economist called: A Real Offensive, Or A Phoney War?. The article asks the question if Zardari is not pocketing donor funds for greasing his corruption wheels and if the army in Pakistan is not faking their efforts. They have a problem, because civilians are killed more by the army than by the Taliban. Would outside military efforts change this equation?
The question therefore arises whether it is within our reach to affect the situation in for example Pakistan. Jackson Diehl writes an article called: A Crisis Out of Reach?. For the reason I gave above?
The possible exception is Iraq where 40% liked the invasion of 2003. Life under Saddam Hussein must have been really terrible. The editorial of The New York Times today reminds us that it is important not to forget Iraq. The article is called: Still Unfinished Business.
According to Charlemagne, who listened to Obamas speech in Prague, Europeans are not afraid of terrorism. I myself must represent an exception. Because, I fear a suitcase nuclear bomb placed somewhere where it hurts in the West. I believe there are people that would do such a thing if they could.
What I don't quite understand is why it would be effective to prevent this from happening with the ongoing AfPak mission? The 9/11 catastrophy, as Obama himself pointed out, was planned partly in Hamburg. My question is therefore, aren't we increasing the risk of triggering a suitcase bomb by trespasssing on Muslim territory? It really irritates these people.
Pakistan generals are apparently more afraid of India than of internal Talibans according to an article in The Economist called: A Real Offensive, Or A Phoney War?. The article asks the question if Zardari is not pocketing donor funds for greasing his corruption wheels and if the army in Pakistan is not faking their efforts. They have a problem, because civilians are killed more by the army than by the Taliban. Would outside military efforts change this equation?
20090503
How dangerous are the Taliban?
Foreign Affairs is having a discussion on whether the Taliban and al-Qaida are dangerous enough for keeping on fighting in AfPak. It is Professor John Mueller that asks the question.
I have earlier suggested that all effort should be directed to the Iraq situation and that AfPak could be counted on maturing on its own. My question is therefore if John Muellers view is the beginning of a policy change on the issue or whether it is his rather a lonely idea?
I have earlier suggested that all effort should be directed to the Iraq situation and that AfPak could be counted on maturing on its own. My question is therefore if John Muellers view is the beginning of a policy change on the issue or whether it is his rather a lonely idea?
20090502
The Constitution?
Read in The Washington Post about Justice Souter's retirement from The Supreme Court in the US. Many wrote opinions about a possible replacement.
Found two very interesting legal concepts. Originalism and The Living Constitution. People fight about which is more correct.
Originalism is the belief that the text of the Constitution meant and means the same thing. A proponent believes what is said is said. Conservatives like this theory better in general.
The Living Constitution is the idea that the interpretation of the Constitution must change with the times and with the accumulation of knowledge.
It appears to me that the The Living Constituion must be the correct one. Because, if something occurs that invalidates the Constitution it must be reinterpreted.
Found two very interesting legal concepts. Originalism and The Living Constitution. People fight about which is more correct.
Originalism is the belief that the text of the Constitution meant and means the same thing. A proponent believes what is said is said. Conservatives like this theory better in general.
The Living Constitution is the idea that the interpretation of the Constitution must change with the times and with the accumulation of knowledge.
It appears to me that the The Living Constituion must be the correct one. Because, if something occurs that invalidates the Constitution it must be reinterpreted.
The relation between political science and economics?
My Swedish is probably better than my English but most of the people that might read my blog know English and thus I would increase the possible number of readers of the blog if I write in English instead of Swedish. Most of what I read is written in English and I don't get any comments on my blog so I don't know if anyone is reading it. For some reason I can't get information on how many hits I get on the blog and who is calling. I might as well practise my English from now on.
I wondered if Political Science is more biological than Economics? Found the following citation:
"The American Political Science Association was founded in 1903 and the American Political Science Review was founded in 1906 in an effort to distinguish the study of politics from economics and other social phenomena."
Have they moved back again? Political Man, Economical Man. My feeling is that there is more biology in Political Man. There is, however, a subject called Behavioral Economics. Now that we know that human goodness is a genetical trait it is reassuring to know that Harvard Business School teaches that the good wins out and that integrity is the highest of virtues. At least that is what professor Nancy Koehn believes.
The integrity question has been very important here in Sweden the last year or so. The virtue Koehn is discussing, however, is probably the integrity of a human mind. That a people stand for what they believe, that they are not robots.
I wondered if Political Science is more biological than Economics? Found the following citation:
"The American Political Science Association was founded in 1903 and the American Political Science Review was founded in 1906 in an effort to distinguish the study of politics from economics and other social phenomena."
Have they moved back again? Political Man, Economical Man. My feeling is that there is more biology in Political Man. There is, however, a subject called Behavioral Economics. Now that we know that human goodness is a genetical trait it is reassuring to know that Harvard Business School teaches that the good wins out and that integrity is the highest of virtues. At least that is what professor Nancy Koehn believes.
The integrity question has been very important here in Sweden the last year or so. The virtue Koehn is discussing, however, is probably the integrity of a human mind. That a people stand for what they believe, that they are not robots.
Important note from my Journal
Saturday May 2, 2009—I should make a note of the fact that yesterday on May 1 blogger.com erased my Archive month of April posts on my screen. The posts remain on my account and are displayed as Visa, i.e., they should be published, and are. I don’t really know what this means but someone might have flagged my blog and complained. My feeling is that my blog has not been published correctly in the past. I don’t get comments in a regular fashion and people have messed with my display at bloggportalen.se. Someone might actually have my blog hidden and edit and rewrite it on another blog. It seems like someone is trying to remove access to important posts from my blog. As I pointed out earlier, I'm a new type of prisoner without human rights.
20090501
Har vi hamnat i en situation där den muslimska världen är emot Väst men Väst inte är emot den muslimska världen?
Caroline Glick skriver i sin fredagskrönika om hur enligt hennes bedömning kriget mot terrorismen har blivit enkelriktat. Muslimerna är emot oss men åtminstone enligt President Obama är vi inte mot muslimerna.
Om detta stämmer och alla muslimska makter vare enade mot Israel skulle kanske en exodus vara att föredra? Hundratals miljoner muslimer mot 7.4 miljoner Israeler och ett USA och Europa som inte bryr sig.
Men är det verkligen sant att en "Clash of Civilizations" mellan Väst och muslimerna kommer att ske? Tony Blair, en nybliven Katolik, verkade också tro att där var en stundande uppgörelse mellan Kristendomen och Judendomen å ena sidan och Islam å den andra. Jag ser dock i min okunnighet en möjlighet till ett framtida Mellanöstern som lever i fred med Västvärlden likt George W. Bush och nu senast President Obama.
Om man börjar med maktbalansen, som kan vara övertygande nog, så representerar G20 länderna 85% av världens BNP. Ingen av Mellanösterns länder är med i denna skara, utom Saudiarabien. Robert Gates, den Amerikanska försvarsministern, säger att ytterligare sanktioner mot Iran kan vara en väg att gå. Man hävdar att Iran sponsrar terrorism som motiverar dylika sanktioner. Själv tror jag att det kunde vara mer effektivt att lägga ner santionerna. Ett mindre pressat Iran skulle kanske integreras i världspolitiken fortare. Anti-amerikanism i världen skulle inte heller underbyggas med en aggressiv hållning gentemot Iran från Västvärlden.
Jag håller däremot med David Horowitz i hans krönika idag att det inte finns mycket hopp om en lösning på det palestinska problemet. Som jag ser det finns bara en väg genom ett närmande till Iran och normalisering av förhållandena där. Den 18:e maj möts Obama och Netanyahu i Vita Huset för en policydiskussion. Artig konversation leder garanterat ingen vart. Om Obama skulle börja kräva Israeliska eftergifter, som han vet Netanyahu inte accepterar, skulle han ta ett stort steg mot Araberna och Iran och på så sett få fart på en två-stegslösning på kort sikt. Den skulle inte fungera på lite längre sikt.
Jag har passerat den frustrerade fasen i förståelsen av det Israeli-Palestinska problemet genom att acceptera omöjligheten i att finna en lösning. Vad Araber och Västvärlden verkar nöja sig med är att mantrat kan gå. Det skall gå att säga att att man arbetar för freden, och på lång sikt, när situationen i Mellanöstern förövrigt stabiliserat sig, så finns det möjlighet för fred.
Om detta stämmer och alla muslimska makter vare enade mot Israel skulle kanske en exodus vara att föredra? Hundratals miljoner muslimer mot 7.4 miljoner Israeler och ett USA och Europa som inte bryr sig.
Men är det verkligen sant att en "Clash of Civilizations" mellan Väst och muslimerna kommer att ske? Tony Blair, en nybliven Katolik, verkade också tro att där var en stundande uppgörelse mellan Kristendomen och Judendomen å ena sidan och Islam å den andra. Jag ser dock i min okunnighet en möjlighet till ett framtida Mellanöstern som lever i fred med Västvärlden likt George W. Bush och nu senast President Obama.
Om man börjar med maktbalansen, som kan vara övertygande nog, så representerar G20 länderna 85% av världens BNP. Ingen av Mellanösterns länder är med i denna skara, utom Saudiarabien. Robert Gates, den Amerikanska försvarsministern, säger att ytterligare sanktioner mot Iran kan vara en väg att gå. Man hävdar att Iran sponsrar terrorism som motiverar dylika sanktioner. Själv tror jag att det kunde vara mer effektivt att lägga ner santionerna. Ett mindre pressat Iran skulle kanske integreras i världspolitiken fortare. Anti-amerikanism i världen skulle inte heller underbyggas med en aggressiv hållning gentemot Iran från Västvärlden.
Jag håller däremot med David Horowitz i hans krönika idag att det inte finns mycket hopp om en lösning på det palestinska problemet. Som jag ser det finns bara en väg genom ett närmande till Iran och normalisering av förhållandena där. Den 18:e maj möts Obama och Netanyahu i Vita Huset för en policydiskussion. Artig konversation leder garanterat ingen vart. Om Obama skulle börja kräva Israeliska eftergifter, som han vet Netanyahu inte accepterar, skulle han ta ett stort steg mot Araberna och Iran och på så sett få fart på en två-stegslösning på kort sikt. Den skulle inte fungera på lite längre sikt.
Jag har passerat den frustrerade fasen i förståelsen av det Israeli-Palestinska problemet genom att acceptera omöjligheten i att finna en lösning. Vad Araber och Västvärlden verkar nöja sig med är att mantrat kan gå. Det skall gå att säga att att man arbetar för freden, och på lång sikt, när situationen i Mellanöstern förövrigt stabiliserat sig, så finns det möjlighet för fred.
Hur kör man maskinen Sverige?
Dick Erixon recencerar en bok som tar upp SSU:ares visioner för framtiden. Erixon tycker det är OK att de lämnar det centristiska perspektivet och går åt vänster vilket ger mer plats åt Alliansen. Jag håller med. Vill de begå självmord för att de inte antar den pragmatiska inställning som krävs för att optimalt driva maskinen Sverige så gör de tydligen detta.
Vad gör de för fel då? Är det ekonomi de skall lära sig för att förstå hur fosterlandet skall drivas? Inte ens sossen Paul Krugman vet vilken ekonomi som är den rätta men förmodligen finns där Européiska trender som man kan följa. Enligt Charlemagne på The Economist så verkar det som om Tyskland håller på att bli två länder precis som USA så SSU:arna kanske kan hänga på SPD och Peer Steinbrück snarare än att satsa på ett nygammalt svenskt koncept. Det vore mer Européiskt. Men funktionsssocialismen kanske är Européisk? Vad vet jag. Kanske vill man säga att svenskarna var före tyskarna?
Mona Sahlin pratar jämt om att hon gillar politik. Jag får känslan av att om man är socialdemokrat och gillar politik måste man gå åt vänster, bort från maskinistjobbet. Det är kanske därför man gått samman med vänstern. Annars oförståeligt. Det verkar med andra ord som om driften av den Européiska staten har hamnat vid sidan om socialisterna och att man försöker komma in på marknaden igen med något man kallar funktionsocialism. Den socialism som fungerar?
Frågan är om Europa kommer att indelas i stater som ligger åt vänster eller åt höger där de språkliga inramningarna blir mindre viktiga?
Vad gör de för fel då? Är det ekonomi de skall lära sig för att förstå hur fosterlandet skall drivas? Inte ens sossen Paul Krugman vet vilken ekonomi som är den rätta men förmodligen finns där Européiska trender som man kan följa. Enligt Charlemagne på The Economist så verkar det som om Tyskland håller på att bli två länder precis som USA så SSU:arna kanske kan hänga på SPD och Peer Steinbrück snarare än att satsa på ett nygammalt svenskt koncept. Det vore mer Européiskt. Men funktionsssocialismen kanske är Européisk? Vad vet jag. Kanske vill man säga att svenskarna var före tyskarna?
Mona Sahlin pratar jämt om att hon gillar politik. Jag får känslan av att om man är socialdemokrat och gillar politik måste man gå åt vänster, bort från maskinistjobbet. Det är kanske därför man gått samman med vänstern. Annars oförståeligt. Det verkar med andra ord som om driften av den Européiska staten har hamnat vid sidan om socialisterna och att man försöker komma in på marknaden igen med något man kallar funktionsocialism. Den socialism som fungerar?
Frågan är om Europa kommer att indelas i stater som ligger åt vänster eller åt höger där de språkliga inramningarna blir mindre viktiga?
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)
