Turkey and the EU and US?

Obama Gets High Marks in Europe, but U.S. Foreign Policy Is Less Popular - WSJ.com: "Turkey seems increasingly distanced from both the EU and U.S., despite Mr. Obama's trip to the country in April. Only 3% of Turks say the U.S. should be their country's 'major international partner.'"

Turkey's relationship with Iran is good, however. And the seaways for Russia out of the Black Sea are more secure than ever. Turkey then has to be called the most rebellious NATO country? The Turkish military might still be in NATO but the Turkish public seems to have left it.

41% of Americans think that the joining of Turkey with EU would be "a good thing" but only 12% of French and 16% of Germans do. The Europeans think of the problems of integrating Muslims in Europe which is not a problem for the Americans who mainly think of security.

Well, of Obama personally is popular but the war in Afghanistan is not, this might mean that Europeans still hope the US will retreat from Afghanistan.

Hamid Karzai has just faked himself passed the 50% level and won the election to little ovations. There is no legitimacy for him as a leader for Afghans. Obama faced his nation tonight with his speech to the Congress but did not bring up the Afghanistan problem. What a scoop for everyone, and for ObamaCare, if he just decided to leave Afghanistan.

International Migration--A Debate

Economist Debates: International Migration: Statements: "In addition to border and visa controls that regulate migratory flows, considerable cultural, linguistic and other barriers limit international migration. For example, even in the European Union, where policymakers have desperately tried to remove barriers to mobility, less than 2% of the population is thought to live in another member state. This should be compared with some 3% of Americans move to a different US state every year."

There is an ongoing debate this week at The Economist where International Migration is discussed. Found this interesting comparison in the argument of the opposition, arguing that migration is a good thing, and currently have 70% of the votes.

Even if they have been talking about moving around in Europe they are far behind the mobility observed in the US. It is probably very important for people to move to areas where work is accessible at a given time. There is a great resistance in these work related moves even inside a country like Sweden. The government is currently trying to motivate people, and even legislate, to increase the mobility.

One comment argued for less migration for maintaining diversity. It is an interesting argument since it rhymes with environmental concerns for maintaining various species in nature. However, benefits from mixing people from different areas is probably currently superior to potential loss of diversity. The people of the earth are still quite diverse and on top of this it seems like people are more or less the same and that most of the differences stem from physical attributes like skin color and the like.

Other arguments against International Migration was that given countries should be allowed to maintain their uniqueness and inspire immigrant to assimilate. However, a guest writer argued that the moral attributes for such inspiration has dwindled, at least in the US, and that multiculturalism thus is maintaining itself.

Other arguments for the migration was that there is so much economical differences among countries that some degree of equalization was motivated. It was also pointed out that migrants in rich countries send home $300b per year. A considerable aid to poor countries. Thus migration is altruistic in nature, as well as beneficial economically for the recipient countries.

Interfering with parent's upbringing of children?

Obamas skoltal: Se upp med Facebook Utrikes SvD: "- Det är en sorglig dag när det politiska käbblet stoppar någon från att tala till elever och lärare om ansvar, sade Vita husets presstalesman Robert Gibbs."

Maybe I'm getting old fashioned but I believe that a president shall leave the upbringing of children to the parents. It is not "political bickering" that people complain over being assumed to not take care of their own children. It is an attempt of moving parental authority over on the state. I have myself experienced the same problem where parental authority is replaced by the "clan" chief.

I had an early complaint during the presidential campaign concerning the use of academics as presidents. I thought that there might be a risk that they try to solve problems rather than manage their teams. The "beer summit" is an other example of a president that gets bogged down in details. It is becoming a classical problem of lack of ability to delegate.

Children are probably more clever than what people think. They find their role models in a well functioning society the goal of which should be that of the president.

German Federal Election September 27

SPIEGEL Interview with SPD Chancellor Candidate Frank-Walter Steinmeier: A CDU-FDP Government Would Be 'A Threat to Stability in Germany' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International: "It's good for democracy that grand coalitions remain the exception. Long-standing grand coalitions naturally pose the risk that the fringe, the extremists, will gain strength. That's another reason why the repeat of a grand coalition should not be the goal of politics."

The interviewer said that the word out on Steinmeier was that he was a secret lover of grand-coalitions but he deferred. Merkel has been flanked by the two powerful finance minister Steinbrück and foreign minister Steinmeier as SDP have had a good deal of the power in the current grand-coalition. Steinmeier apparently hopes voters will rally to the SDP and prove the polls wrong because not only does he dislike the grand-coalition the black and red but also the red-red-green which would be SDP, Die Linke and the Greens. Steinmeier does not believe Oscar Lafontaine is fit for governing since he as an SPD leader left and formed the Left Party out of the old East German communist party.

Apparently on the lands level Germany is going to be governed by black and yellow groupings, i.e., CDU/FDP which would be the same as Allianser. Steinmeier means that on the federal level a coalition between CDU and FDP is not going to materialize and that it would destabilize Germany. He is probably only tactical when he plays down the grand-coalition. If not black and yellow black and red seems the only reasonable arrangement.

Otherwise Unity governments seems to be popular. Netanyahu fought for one in Israel recently. There is thus a replacement in stall for regular democracy but because no one can talk about TTDE no one wants to discuss that. A grand-coalition in Sweden is not unlikely though. What would have to happen is just that Kristdemokraterna and the Left party falls under 4% and thus breaks both blocks, as suggested by Lena Hennel the other day a SvD.se.

Steinmeier is worried that grand-coalitions lead to the ascent of fringe parties but this did not happen in the European Parliament even if some people wanted to spread these rumors. In Germany I guess he is worried over the recent success of Die Linke in regional elections. The left party phenomenon is interesting though as a moderator for the increased dependence of energy from Russia. A new form of harmony in between the two countries.

The election September 27 will tell whether Germany will follow Sweden with an Alliansen or if Sweden might follow a grand-coalition in a year.

With a good sense of humor

Lexington's notebook The Economist: "Maybe the message will be more effective when Obama himself delivers it. But for now, the president's attempt to foist alien values such as diligence on the nation's children has met with at least one abject failure."

The question if Obama is Super Man has been settled, he is not, in fact he seems to evolve into something like Super Sossen?

Block Differences?

Culture of Sweden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "Swedes have an egalitarian outlook. The concept of Jante Law is, in many areas and fields, still strong today in Sweden, and any form of elitism is likely to meet strong criticism. This attitude goes in hand with the Swedish lagomhet, the appraisal of modesty and humbleness."

I don't know who wrote this but it is interesting if it is a foreign observer. Reinfeldt made an exception the other day when he talked about Sweden as a "föregångsland". Since his approval rating seems to have gone up the last year, this might not have been something the Swedes disagreed about? Or is it only an expression of the increase in nationalism that is currently seen in EU?

I have been trying to understand what the difference, if any, there is between the two blocks in Swedish politics. It seems like the key difference is what the Red-Greens call "klyftorna", i.e., the differences in wealth seen among Swedes. "Klyftorna" can of course be derived from equality and the Law of Jante. Thus it seems that what makes about half of Swedes sympathize with the Red-Greens is some kind of comfort stemming from your neighbor not having a fancier car, and God forbid, a better job.

The problem with elitism, on the other hand, results in problem with the enthusiasm for the EU. Another reason is that Sweden after World War II have been affiliated with the English-speaking countries and the United Kingdom is rather EU sceptic. A person like Annie Johansson (C) have said that Centerpartiet does not subscribe to the Law of Jante but at the same time she is very careful not discussing elitism. Perhaps still a dirty word in politics. I have argued for EU elitism because it represents a bulwark against the elites of major systems like China, Russia and the US for a small nation of 2% of the EU population and 4% of its GDP.

What also plays in the hands of the Red-Greens is, I believe, the love for nature of Swedes and the so called "Allemansrätt", i.e., where people can move relatively freely on other peoples land to enjoy the outdoors. It is all a part of the egalitarian outlook, the so called "jämlikhet". "Jämlikhet" will be a difficult word to beat now when the unemployment figures will be double digit at the time for the election.

Wikipedia also informs that there has been large attempts to liberalize Sweden which has been Anglo-American in nature. However, I expect Germany's influence to grow again now after this cataclysmic financial meltdown. The bonus bashing is a sign of this. Both SPD and Labour are placed more to the right than the Swedish Socialdemokrater and this is probably due to their recognition of the failure of socialism to a larger extent. On top of this the Swedish Socialdemokrater are now in a coalition with the Greens and worse with the Left Party. This opens for moral support from the German CDU/CSU for the Swedish Alliansen. Don't expect Reinfeldt to turn Merkel down on the North Stream pipeline.

People without legal papers in Sweden and in the EU

There been a discussion for some time about what to do with people that become ill while hiding in Sweden and in other countries in the EU. I first encountered this problem while I was doing voluntary work for Caritas with people requesting asylum a few years ago.

Some people say that these people don't pay taxes and should not be allowed to get help from society. This is a weak argument because people on welfare with papers have the same problem.

However, I don't think this is an economical issue. It is a matter of helping a fellow human being in need. It is being civilized versus barbarian. If it is indeed regarded as an economical issue, I think it is of higher priority than many other expenses. In general I'm against strategies where people die on the streets like animals.