This is amazing! What we are seeing here is a wave that is enormous, the little white string in the middle is made by the surfer. Imagine that!
Surf that wave
This is amazing! What we are seeing here is a wave that is enormous, the little white string in the middle is made by the surfer. Imagine that!
Europe is vital
It started like a good idea and with good intentions in line with "Let us cooperate to avoid future conflict." Now eleven leading European intellectuals warns that Europe is dying, they claim that Europe is heading towards the darkest chapter in its history. They claim that the Europe their parents built for peace after the war is disintegrating before their eyes. The cause for this is reported to be the Euro crisis. They call the crisis in Greece a Greece that is disintegrating before the eyes of the world followed by crisis in Italy, Portugal and Spain. The "11" suggest that an increase in the political cooperation in the European Union is the solution, basically to create a United States of Europe.
I think there's only one downside with this approach, it won't work. If I look back in history I can see that every time someone have tried to unite Europe it always ends with basically everybody trying to kill everybody, not a good indicator of future success. I seriously doubt that Greece is disintegrating. The Greeks have managed to handle the Persians, the Romans, the barbarian invasions in the 5th century, 400 years of ottoman oppression, the Nazis and military juntas, I'm pretty convinced that it takes more to bring down Greeks than some bureaucrats in Brussels. There will be hard times for the Greeks ahead of course, but they will survive.
There are two types of people in Europe, generally speaking. There are the ones wanting to build a super structure and then there are those that just want to be able to live a descent life. The problems arise when it is the first group that makes the decisions and the latter that must bare the consequences of them. I've heard politicians say that if people only would understand that this is the best way forward for Europe they would support it. The only problem with that is that it is totally irrelevant what would happen if the political decisions were understood, democracy is based on the opinions of the voters, not their understanding. The notion that the political leadership is the avantgarde that shows the way to the "glorious future" in opposition to the wishes of the people is actually a Leninist concept.
One thing that probably can be stated with a certain amount of certainty, is that if you don't address the right problem you don't get the right solution. I think that it is a mistake to blame the Euro crisis. The Euro crisis is just a symptom of the real problem. It should be indisputable and universally accepted that it can't be the Euro crisis that is the cause of the Euro crisis. Greece doesn't have problems because of the Euro crisis, Greece's problems with the European Union is the cause of the Euro crisis. The solution is not more political centralization and an expanded political system within the EU that already is lacking in legitimacy. It never fails to surprise me to what extent people think that more of that which caused the problem is the solution. People generally don't take well to leaders that runs them over, patronize and ignores their wishes, especially when the leadership is lacking in legitimacy. The solution is not more centralization with a disintegrating democracy and a monstrous European bureaucracy, it is the opposite. Another mistake is to use the European Union as a synonym with Europe. It might be that the European Union is facing difficulties that are fatal to its existence as a political organisation, that is necessarily not a bad thing. It might as well be interpreted as a sign of democratic health, the result of Europeans protesting against lacking democracy and lacking legitimacy in the leadership, a sign of vitality, the people saying "don't push us around." Europe is not dying, Europe is very much alive.
Europe is not like the United States, created upon shared ideals and beliefs, and even under those conditions the United States had to go through a cataclysmic civil war before it was consolidated. Europe is diverse with a long and complicated history, if oil and water doesn't mix, why insist on mixing it? Given that the original objective as a peace project is true, why not concentrate on peace instead of creating problems that is counterproductive to peace? Generally, I think people that are left to make their own decisions tend to be happier than those that cannot. It's not exactly rocket science, happy - good, unhappy - not good. Happy people rarely cause conflicts.
(The eleven signers are: Juan Luis Cebrián, Umberto Eco, António Lobo Antunes, Gabi Gleichmann, Julia Kristeva, György Konrád, Bernard-Henri Lévy, Claudio Magris, Salman Rushdie, Fernando Savater,
Peter Schneider)
Dave Morrow Photography - Awe inspiring photography
Dave Morrow Photography: Under the Stars: Night Photography Workshop - Moun...: This shot was taken at Sunrise Point on Mount Rainier, one of the spots we will shot from. Mount Rainier is one of my favorite places t...
Wolves kill for a living
At the hands of environmentalists and animal lovers there is a great ecological and anthropological experiment going on in Sweden. From having been almost entirely extinct the government has for some years now actively transplanted large numbers of wolves into Sweden.
All concerns expressed by the public that wolves can pose a danger to humans are fervently denied with two exceptional statements.
1. Wolves are not dangerous to humans and
2. Wolves only kill what they eat.
Both statements are false. Healthy wolves are known to participate in "sport killing" and healthy wolves are known to attack humans.
Now several media in Sweden reports that a wolf has been seen roaming around on the streets of Gothenburg at night, Sweden's second largets city. The wolf was filmed by an individual on his way home late at night. Nelly Grönberg, a conservation officer for that region, informs the public that Sweden (she actually says "we" meaning Sweden) has not had any wolf incidents for the last 150 years and that's why nobody needs to be worried. Then she goes on to state the following remarkable declaration: "There exists of course nothing that indicates that wolves are dangerous to humans,"(in Swedish "Det finns ju ingenting som tyder på att vargar är farliga för människor", the Swedish word "ju" is used to emphasize and to preempt any hypothetical opposing view).
Well, that's great, except for one little thing - there hasn't been almost any wolves in Sweden during that time in populated areas. I remember when I went to middle school, we were taught that there were two known wolves in Sweden in the farthest northern region. Besides, if there's been wolf incidents in Sweden or not, as claimed by Nelly Grönberg, when there were no wolves in Sweden, seems to be of little real consequence. What's the focus on Sweden about anyway? Are Swedish wolves different from other wolves around the world? Many of the wolves transplanted into Sweden have been taken from Russia. Russian wolves are known to kill hundreds of people ever year! Here's an article from 1911, and here "pacifist" wolves are attacking shoppers in Russia in a parking lot for crying out loud. Considering the circumstances, if I were to choose between Nelly Grönberg or Will N. Graves, I'd stick with Mr. Graves any day, or as Jim Rearden, Ph.D. and former Head of the Wildlife Department at the University of Fairbanks, and author of "The Wolves of Alaska puts it: "This amazing book (Wolves in Russia) presents for the first time, in detail, the facts on Russia's huge wolf problem."
So how is it in other places where there have been wolves during the last 150 years? Here are some pointers that a 5 minute internet research brings up.
1987, Vancouver Island, a 16 year old girl killed by wolf.
1996, British Columbia, 11 year old boy viciously attacked by healthy wolf that bit of most of his face.
2005, Canada, 22 year old man killed by a healthy wolf.
2006, Canada, 14 year old girl and others attacked by wolf.
2012, China, police shoots wolf dead after attacks against humans.
Wolf romantics often claim that healthy wolves are harmless. I have yet to see though, how exactly it will be made sure that only healthy wolves are allowed to roam the streets and communities of Sweden?
The wolf-huggers in Sweden not only propagate incorrect information about wolves, but they also expose the public to danger. Meanwhile no one is discussing what the sudden influx of large packs of wolves do to the indigenous people of Scandinavia. The Sami population's traditional lifestyle involves the herding of reindeers across vast stretches of wilderness in the far north. As indigenous people the Sami has by international law a right to be able to continue living according to their traditions without being discriminated by the government. No official in Sweden would ever dream of introducing legislation or policies that are openly aversive of the Sami way of life. Its a totally different ballgame though when its possible to publicly discredit the Sami and other interest groups as "anti-environmentalists."
I am concerned for the Sami situation. Obviously the roaming of "pacifist" wolf packs poses a problem since they not only kill the reindeer for food but also to pass time, as they are known to participate in "sport killing". The Sami way of life, to have their herds walk freely across the wilderness is doomed by the wolves. It is probably only a matter of time before the last Sami that herds reindeer calls it a day, packs it up and moves to the city - together with the wolves.
The "I’m leaving" routine
Parents need to chill. Sometimes when I’m in a public place, I hear parents go: ”Ok, we’re leaving now, bye bye, you gonna be here all by your self. ” Probably everybody has heard that at some point, it stuns me every time. I think these obvious lies are messing up a lot of good things. Apparently its a common thing according to the International Journal of Psychology as reported by the BBC.
Every time I hear a parent doing the ”I’m leaving" routine my thinking is ”what are they thinking?” Then I look at the kid looking at his parents, and depending on his age his reaction is either panic or ”yeah right!” Kids are not stupid, after a while they have it all figured out. They know mom or dad won’t leave. Basically it’s just a way for parents to undermine their authority. It’s the dumbest thing any parent can do. The horror of the kid before they figure it out is heartbreaking, the person they rely on for their survival just said she is going to dump him with some old lady, strangers, kidnappers and what not. This is serious emotional abuse, a child just might not have the ability to express her feelings but that doesn’t change the fact.
Why do some parents lie to their kids? I guess because they are stressed out and doesn’t know better. I can understand some things, like ”that is beautiful” when it really isn’t, but then again who can really say that’s a lie. Everybody knows parents sometimes needs to boost confidence, so its not really a lie is it? Its more an expression of a parent’s love and support for their offspring, and that’s a good thing.
The bad things are threats and scare tactics. I don’t think management by fear and parenting mix well. The problem becomes obvious when you consider that parenting involves a bunch of years and the individual being parented is changing and growing and maturing. That’s a problem since this means that a course of ”fear” always must be adjusted to the maturity and increased accordingly. Since this can’t be done, which most parents discover soon enough. The only thing that has been achieved is distrust, and then your are in a sticky place as a parent in the coming years, when its really going to matter.
Don’t lie to the kids. Tell the truth. It’s very simple and its better in the long run.
Swedish shrink fired after mimicking movie
Ola Gefvert, refused Ms. Salander Nora treatment
after she was raped by the police chief.
"The girl with the dragon tattoo" is a 2011 American mystery thriller film based on the Swedish novel of the same name by Stieg Larsson (original Swedish title: ”Men that hates women”). It tells the chilling story about the abuse of the main character Ms. Salander, and her struggle to overcome it. Many have commented that although very good criminal novels, the trilogy suffers from a certain lack of connection to reality. Based on sentiments in line with; ”Sweden is such a wonderful country” or something to that effect.Well, it seems that the image and likeness of Sweden as expressed be these utterances is not in agreement with the reality of things, just as image seldom is.
Swedish media is just reporting, something that is strikingly similar to the horrible backdrop of the trilogy, to the point that one wonders if it is fiction describing reality or reality mimicking ficition. Based on a documentary called ”the girl that was kept in restraints” media reports that ”Nora” a young woman that was brutally raped by the Swedish police chief Göran Lindberg (also called ”Captain dress”), was refused treatment and subjected to psychological abuse by the psychiatrist Ola Gefvert.
Captain dress was before he was caught and convicted for several counts of aggravated rape, known for his diligent work to achieve workplace equality within the police force and also in the treatment of victims and an advocate for women's rights, hence his nickname ”Captain dress.”
In a recording the psychiatrist, Gefvert, is stating that he doesn’t have to listen to her (Nora’s) yapping, and that she doesn’t need treatment and that ”Captain dress” is nothing compared to what his other patients have experienced. Nora also requested a female doctor due to her traumatic experiences with men but her request was refused by Gefvert, instead he assigned a male caretaker to her. Gefvert is now being sacked from the clinic in Uppsala, Sweden because of his misconduct and a spokesperson for the clinic says that they consider Gefvert to be a security risk.
Swedish professor claims big gov't is bliss
Professor Bo Rothstein is criticizing a suggested policy by the Swedish Center party to work towards a "small government." Rothstein, professor in political science at the university of Gothenburg, declares in an article in the Swedish daily Expressen, that a large government is best suited to give people the circumstances to achieve happiness.
He declares that research support this view, such as the fact that many third world countries have small governments. That might be, but to go from that, to – “see, small government means poverty”, is a conclusion that the research does not support. It seems to me that in this discussion between small and big government somewhere there should be a reservation for the result of simply “bad governments.”
In other areas of life bad results are usually attributed to lack of competence rather than size primarily.
Also Prof. Rothstein suitably avoids bringing up the soviet experiment with its government totally subjugated by its Leviathan complex. When discussing government size and success and happiness, I think the total failure and collapse of the soviet giant should be very relevant part of any balanced discussion. The United States, having built an economic empire of unprecedented historic magnitude, have done it with a rather small government with explicit regional differences and freedoms. It is interesting to note that the United States at its present state, has the biggest government it has ever had, and it has the greatest economical problems it has ever had. I don’t draw any lengthy conclusions from that. It could be seen though as an indication of a reality opposing the socialist dogmas that are broadcasted from Swedish universities.
Prof. Rothstein also seems to equate or confuse building wealth with sustaining wealth. These are two concepts that are very different. It’s a mistake to infer that it's the current state of affairs that have created our present standard of living, when any logical analysis makes it overtly clear, that the source for the present wealth lies in the predominating attitudes and the political systems of the past. Which incidentally almost universally were comprised of smaller governments than today.
17 billion and one planet
NASA has calculated that in our own galaxy alone there are over 17 billion earth like planets, wow!
That’s a lot of planets! The immediate question that comes to my mind is what these planets look like and how many of them sustain life?
Not many years ago it was said that earth was unique in the universe and that it was very unlikely that we would find similar planets. Well that was wrong. We are in the process of finding planets similar to ours, and undoubtedly before long there will be evidence of life on other planets out there. Maybe not your average martian, but life in some form. The question is do we really want to know? Do we really want to go there? Do we really want to bring it here?
In the movie Avatar a beautiful environment and species play with our imagination of what another planet could be like. But what is to say it has to be like that? Our sense of beauty have evolved throughout the ages and is intrinsically connected to our environment. By this reason alone we probably by some sort of evolutionary necessity is going to find an extraterrestrial biology and environment disgusting. What if we come across a planet where advanced species have evolved that look like giant insects, it would be totally repulsive. What if we find an eco system full of slimy disgusting creatures that can’t even be differentiated if they are something like plant life or animal life.
Given humanity’s tendency to fight with each other, be it with neighbors or neighboring countries, how can we possibly hold the belief that our hypothetical relationship with an extraterrestrial culture would be one of reciprocity and understanding? It is contradicted by the total accumulated experience of human history. Homo Sapiens exterminated the Neanderthals, Romans committed genocide against the Gauls, Europeans killed of the native americans and no less than 70 years ago the Germans tried to kill off just about everybody that wasn’t considered an aryan german.
Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I kind of like earth, the oceans, woods and the beautiful animal life and abundance of life everywhere. The air is good to breathe, the crops are good to eat and there is plenty of wilderness and the planet provides us with all we need, food, medicine, materials for our industry and knowledge. Turns out, our earth is a pretty nice place.
