From Breitbart.com:

Comedian Al Franken has decided to run for U.S. Senate in Minnesota in challenging incumbent Republican Norm Coleman, a senior Democratic official told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

This could be fun. Unlike most loud-mouthed Bush-bashers, Mr Franken has a sense of humour. His books on US politics are hilariously written, although the fact checks may not always be thoroughly done.

In interesting thing related to Mr Franken is his unfortunate icon status in leftist circles in Europe. In Sweden, his books are published by Ordfront, a communist organisation best known for their defence of Slobodan Milošević’s genocide in Srebrenica. I’m not sure he would be very pleased if he knew what interests profit from his books.

En läsare kommenterar mitt inlägg om altruism:

Intressanta resonemang kring altruism – egoism. Jag håller i stort sett med dig. Men en sak som altruismens tillskyndare (och även andra) bortser från är att vi är sociala djur. Vi vill ingå i ett socialt sammanhang och finna acceptans för vårt handlande. Moder Teresa, Bono och andra typiska representanter för altruismen fick/får nog en ganska stor känslomässig belöning av att leva de liv de valt. Men man vill inte kännas vid den rent personliga njutning det kan innebära att ”uppoffra” sig för andra. Dvs även den rent personliga egoismen blir tillfredsställd.

Ett annat liknande ordpar, som altruism – egoism, är kollektivism – individualism. Det är illa att individualism av så många ses som ett skällsord. De hävdar synen att helheten är mer värd delarna, som om kollektivet vore en tänkande kännande varelse, men all medvetenhet förutsätter en individ. Det är också därför devisen ”ändamålet helgar medlen” är så osmaklig. Ändamålet helgar aldrig medlen om de innebär att enskilda personers fri- och rättigheter kränks mot dessa personers vilja. Dessutom är det ofta helt i onödan, eftersom vi alltid tvingas genomlida medlen medan vi sällan får se målen förverkligade.

Altruismen är nära släkt men kollektivismen. Det handlar i båda fallen om att förminska individens betydelse till förmån för någonting externt. I altruismen fall är det andras behov som är viktigare än de egna. I kollektivismens fall är det (ofta konstruerade) gruppers rättigheter som anses viktigare än individers rättigheter.

Tankesmedjan Eudoxa has sammanställt en rapport om vad de menar att varje europé bör veta om den globala uppvärmningen. Mycket intressant. Ladda ner rapporten här (pdf).

Det är något som inte stämmer med växthusteorin. Danne Nordling försöker få klarhet i frågan. Läs hans blogginlägg här.

Marcus, på vars blogg jag deltagit i en diskussion om växthusteorin, har skickat en kommentar med anledning av ett tidigare inlägg:

Hej Cristopher!

Tänkte bara i sann retstickaranda påpeka att redan det som står i Eudoxa-rapportens översikt är exakt vad du kritiserade i det sammanfattande inlägg om klimatfrågan som jag författade häromveckan… ;-) Är du nu således beredd att instämma i att ”Global uppvärmning är något som faktiskt sker och människan är delvis orsaken till detta”?

Liksom jag konstaterar Eudoxa också att det därutöver handlar om en politisk frågeställning och inte en som vetenskapen kan avgöra (i alla fall inte i dagsläget). Att den liberala tankesmedjan och din egen holistiske tankesmed har olika uppfattningar i denna politiska fråga är å andra sidan ingen överraskning… :-)

Jag avsäger mig allt ansvar genom att påpeka att jag enbart skrivit att Eudoxas rapport är ”mycket intressant”. Men, ärligt, jag vet inte om jag någonsin förnekat den första delen av påståendet. Att jorden just nu blir varmare har jag nog inte ifrågasatt. Däremot är jag skeptisk till kopplingen mellan global uppvärmning och mänsklighetens koldioxidutsläpp.

British Conservative leader David Cameron on the ”Catholic adoption row” in this morning’s Daily Telegraph:

“Of course I want to keep the Roman Catholic adoption agencies. They do an amazing job in placing hard to place children and they perform a vital role but I’m passionate that in this country we have one law that is obeyed by everybody. And this is vitally important in the whole debate about how we need to sweep away the failed multiculturalism. I don’t think it would be right to allow carve outs for Muslim groups or Hindu groups or whoever, so that means one law that everyone has to obey. And that’s why I don’t think a block exemption for catholic adoption agencies would be right but by all means give them time to find a way through the new rules. But in Britain we shouldn’t put up with discrimination on the basis of race or age or sexual orientation. And I think this gives a great opportunity for a new, optimistic conservatism.”

När Nils Bejerot – det svenska narkotikapolitikens fader – skulle attackera sina kritiker undvek han alltid att bemöta dem i sak och valde istället att kalla dem ”socialpolitiska liberaler”. När detta inte längre fungerande starkt nog myntade han begreppet ”knarkliberaler”. Det var smart eftersom det som förenar socialister och konservativa är misstänksamheten mot allt liberalt. För den som ser samhället som en organism är inget mer hotfullt än tankar på att låta medborgarna göra som de vill.

Sedan Bejerot uppfann knarkliberalismen har många använt sig av olika varianter av begreppet. I Dagens Nyheter konfronteras jag idag med en variant som är ny för mig. Ett gäng konservativa kristdemokrater skriver i en debattartikel om ”abortliberala RFSU”. Deras syfte är uppenbart detsamma som Bejerots. Svenskarnas förakt för allt som beskrivs som liberalt ska smitta av sig och ge förbudspolitiken legitimitet.

Charles Alexander of the Michigan-based paper Between the Lines received a letter from an organisation that calls itself Balaam’s Ass of America. They asked him for a contribution ”on behalf of gender confused pets in need of prayer and reparative therapy”. I assume this is a gag, but I think the letter is hilarious even if it’s not. I quote from Mr Alexander’s article:

Dear Faith-Based Partner of Straight Animals of America! The cunning Serpent from the Garden of Eden is loose again! Lesbian swans are turning up in Boston. ’Cutesy’ gay penguins are swishing about in New York City zoos. Same-sex chimps are devotedly grooming each other (and worse!) in Royal Oak, Michigan. And, now, the latest affront to God’s Intelligent Design: 8 percent of male rams—sacrificial, not two-legged—are gay, and unrepentant about it!

If that isn’t a howling shame, here’s a quote (obviously a bear-faced lie) from the Oslo (Norway) Natural History Museum, where a so-called exhibit of animal gay ’kinkiness’ is drawing record-breaking crowds. ’Homosexuality has been observed for more than 1500 species, and is well documented for 500 of them.’ (BAA humbuggery!)

Let’s state truthfully: in the beginning there never was any same-sex hanky panky on Noah’s Ark (though incest may have been tried, but only because of overcrowding, boredom, or lack of Gentile standup comics).

Yes, Dear Friend: Same-sex animal distraction today is the result of two satanic technologies: 1) worldwide use of cellphones—with their high-frequency wave lengths altering DNA patterning and Christian missionary positions, and 2) rampant i-POD proliferation, covertly changing animal—and most importantly—human mating calls. (The problem can be overcome by broadcasting more Christian Hip Hop/Hard Rock and by writing to Oprah.)

BAA encourages all concerned theocratic animal lovers (and who among us doesn’t own, or know someone who does, a pit bull, a ferret, or a de-perfumed PC skunk?) to contact senators and congressmen demanding that LGBT-Q, left-wing subversives be legally stopped from owning canines (especially poodles), felines (alley cats for sure), horses (riding side-saddle’s a sin). Or gerbils.

$2.50 of your donation goes to building a BAA Center for Four-Legged Reparative Therapy (domestic and feral). Our Protestant Evangelical Treatment of Animals (PETA)—like that for human ex-gays—consists of prayer, celibacy (chastity belts are discrete and kosher designed), ALPO-fasting, and a period of confinement in a soundproof, fully holy-water-blessed cage or litterbox of choice -- no cellphone or i-POD interference—for anywhere from last leg-hump up to 10 years (whichever comes first).

Because: 1) gay animals are coming out everywhere, 2) pets are being coerced into leading a gay lifestyle at an alarming rate (one wonders if even the stately GOP elephant is safe), and 3) treatment space is limited, BAA also urges America’s biblical role models to adopt a gay animal (12 rams are ready for home schooling in time for Lent), to pray over, and sexually reorient same. (Last suggestion optional.)

Think your own Christian pet might be gay? Don’t panic. It’s just a phase.

The next time your male dog sniffs some other male dog’s private parts, you know where to send him.

Yesterday, Swedish radical feminist Linna Johansson wrote a leading article in tabloid Expressen. In the article, she attacked Petra Östergren, a more moderate feminist devoted to sex workers’ rights. The background is that Ms Östergren recently criticised a law prohibiting prostitution in a book that has attracted much attention. An interesting aspect of the Swedish debate on feminist issues is that the far-left, radical elements control the agenda by manipulating facts and discredit opponents. Petra Östergren is one of only a handful of public debaters who dare to give voice to the many sex workers that suffers severely under the law. The anti-liberal prohibitionists control all major newspapers, the parliament, the state television, and the public radio. Still, the only respond to Östergren’s fact-based arguments Sweden’s army of professional feminists can come up with are founded solely on personal attacks. Linna Johansson may think she is clever when she humiliates her opponent by questioning Östergren’s debate acumen, but that’s not smart, that’s only rude.

Swedish radical feminists preserve their own interest with the methods Steven M. Lukes describes as two-dimensional power: they control the decision-making, agenda setting, mainstream media, and all social institutions. Yet, they seek legitimacy by pretending to care about the women whose work situation they have no interest in.

Gregg Easterbrook of The Atlantic writes with optimism about global warming and people’s willingness to change:

One reason the global-warming problem seems so daunting is that the success of previous antipollution efforts remains something of a secret. Polls show that Americans think the air is getting dirtier, not cleaner, perhaps because media coverage of the environment rarely if ever mentions improvements. For instance, did you know that smog and acid rain have continued to diminish throughout George W. Bush’s presidency?

We have all heard stories about gay men and lesbian women being “cured”. The idea that there is something wrong with homosexuals is so well established that few outside the gay community even reflect on it. Still, most evidence indicates that mammalian homosexuality is only due to normal biological variation—comparable to left-handedness—and not a choice per se. But, of course, most gay people are not slaves under their urges. Unlike one’s sexual orientation, one can make the choice not to act upon one’s natural sexual desires.

Anti-gay organisations do not care about this. For them, the only thing important is to uphold prejudiced ideas. One of these is the popular belief that homosexuals can be cured.

Daniel Gonzales of the Ex-Gay Watch blog has looked into how homophobic organisations have distorted an academic study by psychiatry professor Robert Spitzer. The result is a brilliant video presentation entitled The Spitzer Study: Methodological Flaws and Abuse in Anti-Gay Politics (read transcript here).

Dr Spitzer himself is not thrilled about how the Christian Right has used his study. On 205/03/2001, he wrote about his dismay in the Wall Street Journal:

“My study concluded with an important caveat: that it should not be used to justify a denial of civil rights to homosexuals, or as support for coercive treatment. I did not conclude that all gays should try to change, or even that they would be better off if they did. However, to my horror, some of the media reported the study as an attempt to show that homosexuality is a choice, and that substantial change is possible for any homosexual who decides to make the effort.”

Tomorrow I will be in court all day. It is the premier for me—the first time I will step into my new role as a juryman. At nine o’clock in the morning, I will swear the judicial oath. After that, at about ten, I will take my seat in the courtroom and listen to the prosecutors, attorneys, and testimonies. It will be an interesting day, and I must admit that I am a bit nervous.

After my first day at Malmö City Court, I must attend a meeting with the District Council’s Environmental and Social Planning Committee.

It will be a long day, and it’s not likely that a have any time over for blogging. However, if you’re able to read Swedish I can suggest a few online discussions I have been occupied with. I often—too often—get tangled up in what goes on elsewhere in the Swedish blogosphere, so here’s some of the interesting stuff that goes on right now:

• Marcus Nilsson makes the preposterous claim that liberty is to denounce individualism. I object, of course.
• Mr Brown writes that liberalism has a serious problem with the concept of autonomous people. I disagree.
• Louise Persson reacts against a new article in Expressen, which is the latest contribution to the debate on sex workers’ rights. I point out that the prohibitionists make some untrue claims about the situation in Amsterdam.

See you back here on Wednesday.

The Michigan Court of Appeals has ordered an end to health-care benefits for same-sex partners of state employees. The always-brilliant John Corvino writes about it in a column published on Independent Gay Forum. I quote:

Remember: the people who fought for this assured us that none of this would happen, then they worked hard to make it happen. Family values, indeed.

At least one of Sweden’s many extreme-left bloggers is honest about why he’s so fond of the alarmism surrounding global warming—it gives anti-liberty campaigners a chance to re-launch the idea of command economy. Good for you, Lasse Strömberg!

Marcus Nilsson is unhappy about my choice of words when I described an idea he has ventilated on his blog. He thinks I should have chosen the word “freedom” instead of “liberty” and suggests the phrasing “Freedom is to resist individualism” instead of “Liberty is to denounce individualism”. Fair enough. I can see that his words are better than mine. But this is what’s so tricky about translating. In this case, the English language has two words whereas the Swedish only has one—“frihet”.

I consulted the Oxford Dictionaries and found the following definitions of liberty and freedom:

[U]nlike freedom, which implies an absence of restraint or compulsion (the freedom to speak openly), liberty implies the power to choose among alternatives rather than merely being unrestrained (the liberty to select their own form of government). Freedom can also apply to many different types of oppressive influences (freedom from interruption; freedom to leave the room at any time), while liberty often connotes deliverance or release (he gave the slaves their liberty)

Såg precis TV4:s dokumentär om Sverigedemokraterna. Det var mycket snack om svensk kultur, folkhem, ”kapitalets EU” och nationalstat. Efter programmet satte jag mig vid datorn och fick via Ali Esbati veta att den kommunistiske riksdagsledamoten Josefin Brink skrivit ett första inlägg på sin nya blogg. Där var det mycket tjat om den svenska modellen, ”Timbro-högern” och fackets rätt att tvinga småföretagare att lyda. Slående är att det som socialister till både höger och vänster fruktar mest är avvikelser. De kallar det solidaritet men det handlar alltid om att alla ska tvingas in i samma trånga norm.

An inimical blogger whose outlook on politics I despise (the feeling is mutual) is making some untrue claims about the popularity of Sweden’s infamous tax burden. Her first claim is that when the American breakfast television show Good Morning America broadcast from Sweden for a week in the 1980s the reporters couldn’t find a single Swede willing to voice criticism of Swedish taxes. Her second claim is that the level of taxation was higher at that time then it is now. This, she thinks, proves that ordinary Swedes don’t disapprove of having to live with the world’s heaviest burden of taxation.

When I looked into this, it turns out that both claims are false. To begin with, the American morning show was broadcast from Sweden in May 1997, a decade later than claimed. And after I have spoken to both ABC and the local co-producers at SVT I know that the ”Sweden Week” of Good Morning America was paid for by the Swedish Government, i.e. the socialist Social Democratic Party that ruled Sweden at the time. I have learned that the Government did not only pay for the show being broadcast from Sweden, they even provided ABC with a list of tax-loving Swedes to appear as guests on their programme. On the list was sociology professor Walter Korpi, a man known for his attempts to prove the success of big-government politics by dubious academic methods. No economists approve of his theories, which did not stop the tax-loving socialist government from labelling him an expert on tax issues.

This is not all. With the correct date of the broadcast, I can also conclude that Sweden had just made the biggest tax cuts in thirty years when the American reporters made their interviews. If we study the graph, we see that in 1989, the Swedish level of taxation was 56.5%. In 1997, it had dropped to 51.2%. Considering this, it is easy to see why so many Swedes were quite contented in the mid-1990s—things were improving after years of gloom.

Igår skrev RFSL:s nättidning K-online om att två moderata ledamöter i kommunstyrelsen i Malmö reserverat sig mot att inkludera våld i samkönade relationer i ett kommunalt handlingsprogram om våld mot kvinnor och barn. I artikeln framgick det tydligt att det var en enskild ledamot, Carl-Axel Roslund, som författat den olyckliga motiveringen. I reservationen stod det nämligen att moderaderna motsatte sig förslaget eftersom det sågs som ”ytterligare ett sätt för gayrörelsen att flytta fram sina positioner”.

I K-onlines artikel uttalar sig Malmö-moderaternas förste vice ordförande Anja Sonesson. Hon gör tydligt att formuleringen strukits och att Roslunds motiv inte är partiets.

Idag skriver Aftonbladet om saken men väljer att inte med ett ord nämna moderaternas korrigering. Istället handlar hela artikeln om att RFSL-Malmö kräver en ursäkt av moderaterna eftersom de ”anser att partiet har uttalat sig kränkande mot homosexuella”.

Att Aftonbladet väljer denna vinkling är kanske naturligt. Det blir mer dramatiskt så. Men bilden man ger av sakfrågan, moderaterna och Carl-Axel Roslund blir helt missvisande.

I sakfrågan är det så att men visst kan motsätta sig att misshandel av män inkluderas i en handlingsplan mot kvinnomisshandel utan att vara motiverad av homofobi. Jag tycker personligen att våld i nära relationer borde behandlas lika oavsett kön på de inblandade, men samtidigt finns det skäl som talar för att särskilt fokusera på mäns våld mot kvinnor.

När det gäller moderaterna i Malmö så är den insinuerade homofobin rent trams. Partiavdelningen har haft Tobias Billström som ordförande i många år (han avgår nu eftersom han blivit statsråd) och i riksdagsvalet var två av de tre första namnen öppna med sin homosexualitet.

Vad gäller Roslund, så är det ingen hemlighet att han är konservativ. Men han är inte homofob. Jag vet detta eftersom jag jobbade nära honom i valrörelsen. Roslund är däremot mycket principfast och menar att man ska hålla sig till sak. En handlingsplan mot kvinnomisshandel ska handla om just detta och inget annat.

Avslutningsvis så måste jag påpeka det uppenbara i Roslunds motivering. Det han syftar på är RFSL, inte homosexuella. Vi är många som är mycket kritiska till deras terminologi, genusteorier och tydliga lutning åt vänster utan att för det vara negativa till homosexuellas lika rättigheter.

From a blog article published on Crooked Timber:

In the Netherlands, children between the ages of 2 and 4 (which is the age at which compulsory schooling starts) and who are not attending nurseries, can spend two mornings a week together in so-called ”playgroups”. These playgroups are run by the municipalities. There is also a ”pre-playgroup” for kids between 18 months and two years, which only lasts one hour and where they are accompanied by one of the parents (or another adult). This morning a neighbour asked me whether I wouldn’t be interested in enrolling my son for such a pre-playgroup. But, she added, it’s only for mothers, fathers are not allowed. Apparently the justification is that otherwise mothers from certain ethnic minorities, where gender segregation is an important issue, would not attend with their children.

Secular Europe has spent the past two hundred years fighting religious oppression and discrimination. Now we surrender it all because we are cowards and want to avoid stirring up Islamist anger. Today it’s Nijmegen; tomorrow it’s your hometown.

(Via Andrew Sullivan)

The Swedish Government has suggested a new law that will enable headteachers to remove bullies from their school. Newspaper Dagens Nyheter publishes an article about this today.

To me the most astonishing about this is that schools aren’t allowed to do this already. I was a bullied child, and I know what constant abuse does to a young person. After a while, the bad treatment becomes an integrated part of one’s self and you begin to think that you really are no good. The victim adjusts to the oppressor that way.

People who never suffered bullying cannot comprehend the enormous impact it has. I think that explain why one in three headteachers say no to the proposed legislation. According to the DN article, most of them argue that moving bullies will not solve the problem; only transfer it to some other school. That may be true in a sense, but they forget two things. Firstly, the bullies need their friends. To get admiration and status from other group members is essential to most bullies. Secondly, what happens when bullies aren’t transferred to other schools is that the bullied are. When the abuse gets too severe and it becomes a matter of life or death, most responsible parents make sure their children attend some other school instead. That is what happened in my case. No one showed any interest in helping me except my parents. Unfortunately, not everybody has parents able to sacrifice time and money as my parents did.

When I listened to some European newscasts this evening, I got the impression that most journalists on this side of the Atlantic Ocean have decided that Barack Obama is their candidate in the US primary elections. While only a few bothered to report on any other candidate—with the exception of Hillary Clinton—no one seem able to resist giving detailed reports from Springfield, Illinois, where Senator Obama announced his candidacy earlier today.

I must admit that I know close to nothing about Mr Obama. But after browsing through his campaign website, I cannot say that I’m impressed. He seems nice and proper, but so do most politicians if you make a judgement from their own campaign material. One thing that strikes me though is that he—like many Democrats—appears to be very naïve when it comes to welfare state reforms. I think he and others could learn a thing or two by studying Europe on this issue.

However, I’m on a good mood, so I will quote a passage I found on Obama’s website that I really like. It concerns his work for promoting responsible fatherhood, an issue I personally think is one of the most important in Western societies today. Far too many children are abandoned by their fathers.

Since 1960, the number of American children without fathers has quadrupled, from 6 million to more than 24 million. A healthy relationship between children and their father is important to good development. Children without fathers in their lives are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of school, and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. Senator Obama introduced the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act with Senator Evan Bayh (R-IN) to remove some of the government penalties on married families and support fathers already trying to do the right thing, while also cracking down on men trying to avoid their parental responsibilities. The bill provides fathers with an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. It also would increase child support enforcement and strengthen domestic violence prevention services.

I’m not sure this reform will have a great impact on irresponsible fathers, but it’s a try.

The Danish Government gives the inhabitants of Copenhagen’s autonomous community Christiania new hope. In a letter to Christiania’s legal adviser, the Minister of Finance, Thor Pedersen, has given the occupants more time to settle an agreement with government officials. This is seen as a great victory for the “freetown”.

The story of Freetown Christiania goes back to 1971, when a group of anarchists began to occupy an area of recently abandoned military barracks. It has been a thorn in the side to the political establishment ever since. When the present liberal-conservative government coalition came into power in 2001, shutting down Christiania was high on their agenda. However, Christiania’s special atmosphere makes it popular among ordinary Danes. It is the second largest tourist attraction in Copenhagen. Only the amusement park Tivoli has more annual out-of-town visitors.

Biggles listar tio saker jag inte visste om förhuden på en penis.

Shora Esmailian, one of Sweden’s loudmouthed pro-Islamists, argues in favour of Iran getting a nuclear bomb in an article published by Expressen today. Her main argument is the one we know from the Cold War, i.e. that the peace is preserved by both side having equal access to weapons of mass destruction in that no one will benefit from a first strike. To a far-left extremist like Ms Esmailian, there are no significant differences between the fascist Iran and the democratic West. To the rest of us, however, the differences are obvious.

In its latest issue, the British newspaper The Economist comments on the trouble ahead. An a leading article the paper oppose an American bombing raid against Iran’s nuclear facilities, but it also warns of the idea that Iran with nuclear weapons is harmless. On the contrary, the article stresses the great danger this poses to the world. I quote:

[I]n present circumstances it would be wrong for America to launch a military strike against Iran. But it would be the height of self-deception for anyone to jump to the conclusion that a nuclear-armed Iran would not be dangerous at all. It would be very dangerous indeed.

For a start, there is a danger that Iran’s nuclear efforts will provoke a pre-emptive strike by Israel, which is already a nuclear power, albeit an undeclared one. For Israelis, whose country Mr Ahmadinejad says he wants to wipe off the map, it is not all that reassuring to hear that Iran can ”probably” be deterred. Even if Israel were to decide against such a strike, Iran’s going nuclear could destroy what is left of the international non-proliferation regime. It has proved hard enough for Arab states such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia to live with Israel’s undeclared bomb; if their Iranian rival got one too, the race to copy might soon be on. On top of this is the danger that a nuclear Iran would feel safe to ramp up attempts to spread its revolution violently beyond its own borders.

I beg to differ. I think it would be a mistake not to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities while we still have the chance to do so. Now we have a unique opportunity to prevent a new ”cold war” by taking some heat after an armed strike. The Far Left and the Islamists will make life difficult for the United States, Israel, or whatever country carries out this task, but in the long run it will be worth it.

I can predict that two lines of criticism. Firstly, that it is wrong to let the end justify the means, and secondly, that it’s not a genuine libertarian approach to the problem. Normally, I would agree with both these objections, but in this case, Iran stroked first by arming Hezbollah, threaten Israel and the US, and then refusing to comply with the United Nation’s Resolution 1737, which calls for an end to the nuclear programme. The world is under attack from Iran’s Islamist regime and must defend itself.

On 11 February 2007 the British Conservative leader David Cameron admitted he smoked cannabis as a teenage boy. It had the potential to be a damaging scandal, but instead it seems to have strengthened his position. While Mr Cameron himself pays a two-day visit to Sweden, the British press digest the “pot story”.

“The Conservative party yesterday threw its collective weight behind its leader, David Cameron, after he refused to deny stories that he had been punished as a schoolboy at Eton for smoking cannabis. One of his closest supporters, the shadow chancellor George Osborne, said the public did not care about his drug taking in his youth.”
– Guardian

“Cannabis smoked today is ten or even 20 times stronger than when David Cameron was a teenager in the 1980s – hugely increasing the danger it poses. The major difference is an increase in intensive indoor cultivation, rather than allowing the plant to grow naturally outdoors.”
– Daily Mail

“The episode undoubtedly left the future Tory leader shaken but, according to the book Cameron: The Rise of the New Conservative, it did not deter him from carrying on using drugs throughout his Oxford University days.”
– Daily Mail

“Drugs have lost their toxicity as a political issue, and my guess is that the change has happened in little over a decade—the result, more than anything, of a great demographic wave.”
– Sam Leith in the Daily Telegraph

“Mr Cameron’s position is even more secure for now. The public may generally be ready to believe the worst of politicians, but they do not currently care whether the Tory leader smoked cannabis while he was at school.”
– Guardian leader

“Mr Cameron had always intended to make 2007 the year in which he tried to reconnect with those Tory doubters by stressing the old themes, including law and order. But the revelation that he himself once had a small problem with law and order will not make this easier. It may persuade some doubting Tories that he is too metropolitan to represent them. Before coming to such a conclusion, however, those Tories should ask themselves how teenage boys are likely to behave.”
– Bruce Anderson in the Independent

Europe seems to slowly getting more relaxed about drug taking. That’s good news. No matter what opinion one has about the legal status of drugs, it serves everyone not to act with the kind of irrational hysteria that was often the case in the past.

My brother is buried next to my dad. I like to think of them together. I used to think suicide was a conscious act. A plan made, then carried out. I know now it’s not always like that. My brother was a sweet young man who wanted to be in control. In the end, he simply wasn’t. None of us are. We all dangle from a very delicate thread. The key is not to let go.

Anderson Cooper anchors his own show on CNN. He is one of the most hyped celebrities of American news television. He is also considered one of the best looking male newscasters, at least according to Playgirl. But to me his best quality is his open and honest approach to difficult subjects. I remember when I first memorised his name. It was in late September or early October 2003. I was flipping through the latest issue of Details Magazine and came across one of the most moving articles I have ever read. It was Anderson Cooper writing about his brother’s suicide. I think it affected me so deeply because I too have experienced someone close to me committing suicide.

Anyhow, just now I came across Cooper’s article again. This time on CNN’s website. Read it if you want to. You find it here.

Cartoonist Mike Lane’s take on the Iran situation.

An advertisement for Snickers chocolate bars that broadcast during the Super Bowl has caused some stir in both the gay and evangelical communities. Jennifer Vanasco of the Independent Gay Forum writes about this in her latest column:

To me, the Snicker’s ad was not making fun of gay men as much as it was making fun of homosexual panic, that strange mental condition that forces otherwise sane, rational men into making fools of themselves in order to prove that, really, they’re not gay!

”Those silly men!” the ad exclaims. They’re so cuckoo that they’ll mutilate themselves—or drink engine oil, as they do in an alternate ending—in order to avoid the appearance of enjoying the lips of another man. But we’re not fooled, because that second of lust, of erotic interchange, seemed so real, that we know they’re trying to blind themselves to the obvious. After all, they don’t wipe their mouths. They don’t spit. They don’t even look disgusted, or shamed—just shocked.

I agree. I think the Snickers campaign is funny. The joke is on the straight men terrified of accidental ”gayness”.

Björn Elmbrant gör en Anna Kinberg när han i dagens Aftonbladet skriver om moderniseringen av P1. Hela debattartikeln går nämligen ut på att säga att ”Stockholmare är smartare än lantisar”. Kvalitetsradion har blir sämre, vilket påstås bero på att Sveriges Radios nya ledning bestämt sig för att ta in erfarenheter från vildmarkerna utanför tullarna.

Nu har khmererna från P4 erövrat huvudstaden och intagit Radiohuset. Det är för det mesta radiobyråkrater som sällan eller aldrig gjort egna program, och vars tidigare publicistiska insats som lokalradiochefer varit att exempelvis skicka ut dekret om att Elvis skulle spelas varje timme. De har levt i decennier på P4, utan resurser att kunna gräva och förklara samhällsfrågor och därför byggt sina liv på att göra billig, puttrig flödes-radio.

Huvudstaden är alltså under attack från bönder med dålig musiksmak. Likt Nils Dacke på 1540-talet hotar dagens revolutionära P4-lantisar den gamla maktens envälde. Och, som om inte ockupationen av slottet på Gärdet vore illa nog, så har det nya herrefolket oförskämdheten att skicka ut korrespondenter till konungarikets alla landsändar istället för att nöja sig med ambassadörer vid hoven i fjärran länder. Det gamla herrefolket tycker det är hemskt pinsamt. Elmbrant skriver:

Utrikesmaterialet i Studio Ett tycks vara på väg att pressas tillbaka, till förmån för direktsända ”fönster” från köpcentra och liknande i Malmö, Göteborg och Umeå. De har tillkommit enbart därför att cheferna där uppe gett order om att P1 ”måste synas”. Men människorna i Östra Nordstan och på andra sändningsplatser jäktar förbi, nästan ingen stannar och lyssnar. Det blir pinsamt.

Bönder ska mjölka kor, inte snacka samhällsfrågor i finradion. Att det nya herrefolket inte förstår detta måste bero på att de valt yta framför innehåll, inte att de faktiskt tycker det finns ett egenvärde i att också P1 speglar det folk som betalar för verksamheten.

Comedy Central’s television shows The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are great successes. The idea is simple, put some comedian in the role of fake newscasters and let them satirise the latest headline news into a comedy show.

The problem with the news shows on Comedy Central is that they are seen as bias in favour of the political left. Conservatives have long been slightly annoyed by this. But now Fox News is launching its own comedy news programme with ”24”-writer Joel Surnow entitled ”The ½ Hour News Hour”. The first show will air on Sunday night.

Leif Nilsson, verksam inom Statens institutionsstyrelse, SiS, riskerar att få sparken efter att han kritiserat svensk narkotikapolitik. Bakgrunden är att Skånska Dagbladet den 25 januari publicerade en debattartikel i vilken han redogjorde för egna erfarenheter av en förbudspolitik som inte fungerar men föder intressen som ägnar stor kraft åt att dölja sina misslyckanden.

Det kraftfullaste propagandainstrumentet är dock det man kan kalla den legala knarkindustrin – hela den skattefinansierade sektor – vars existens till stor del är beroende av den nuvarande narkotikapolitiken: Knarkspanare, tull, vårdinstitutioner, projektanställda och olika ”ideella organisationer” som har ett egenintresse av att måla upp hotbilden, för att öka det redan ymniga pengaflödet till sina verksamheter. De använder naturligtvis en stor del av sina resurser till propaganda och att framställa rapporter som visar behovet av den egna verksamheten.

Nilssons kritik blev för mycket för den statliga Tunagården i Malmö. Bengt Hansson, chef vid denna institution, anmälde Leif Nilsson till personalansvarsnämnden, PAN. Brevet är daterat den 31 januari och diariefört vid SiS den 5 februari:

Anmälan avser Leif Nilsson [personnummer borttaget]

Lärare och pedagogisk ledare vid Tunagården.
Anställd sedan 2000-09-04

Nilsson har 2007-01-25 i Skånska Dagbladet fått en debatt artikel publicerad angående narkotikalagstiftningen. I artikeln har Nilsson använt sin tjänstetitel och organisationens namn, Statens institutionsstyrelse. Artikeln avspeglar en kontroversiell syn på svensk narkotika politik som tillika strider mot SiS grundvärderingar. Eftersom Nilsson undertecknat artikeln med SiS organisationsnamn och sin tjänstetitel, måste förtroendet för hans lojalitet mot arbetsgivaren ifrågasättas. Det kan inte uteslutas att SiS lider stor skada i förhållande till allmänhet, klienter, deras anhöriga och medarbetare. Jag överlåter härmed ärendet till PAN för vidare ställningstagande.

Torbjörn Lindström och Malin Lundgren, personalchef respektive personalsekreterare vid SiS:s huvudkontor i Stockholm, författade redan dagen efter ett brev till Leif Nilsson.

Du har genom en skrivelse som inkom till Statens institutionsstyrelses huvudkontor den 5 februari 2007 blivit anmäld till personalansvarsnämnden. Kopia av anmälan bifogas detta brev. Härmed ges du möjlighet att, för den fortsatta handläggningen av ärendet, skriftligen yttra dig över det som anförs i anmälan. Skicka yttrandet så att det inkommer till Statens institutionsstyrelses huvudkontor, adress nedan, senast den 19 februari 2007.
Personalansvarsnämnden fattar bl.a. beslut i frågor om disciplinpåföljd.

Leif Nilsson har ännu inte skickat något svar på brevet, men efter kontakt har jag fått tillgång till texten som kommer SiS tillhanda om någon dag. Nilsson skriver:

Det har aldrig varit min avsikt att skada min arbetsgivare SiS. Jag har heller aldrig haft för avsikt att uttala mig i deras namn vilket torde vara uppenbart för envar som läst debattartikeln. Jag anser självfallet att man i en debattartikel både har rätt till, att det tillhör god ton och att det är praxis att man redovisar sin yrkesbakgrund/titel och det fackområde man verkar i. De facto arbetar jag inom SiS.

Jag har i min artikel kritiserat svensk narkotikalagstiftning, vilket jag hävdar är min lagstadgade rätt enligt RF, tryckfrihetsförordningen och yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen …

Hela händelseförloppet har tagit hårt på Leif Nilsson, i synnerhet sedan hans chef vid Tunagården låtit meddela att han personligen hade velat avskeda Nilsson direkt. Alla inblandade måste dock vänta tills dess att personalansvarsnämnden i Stockholm behandlat ärendet den 13 mars.

Jag tycker fallet är principiellt intressant på flera plan. Dels handlar det om möjligheten för statligt anställda att yttra kritik mot sin arbetsgivare, men det handlar också om de metoder som statliga organisation använder sig av för att tysta kritik mot det repressiva narkotikapolitiken. För oss med intresse för frågan är det uppenbart att man fortfarande följer den mall för brännmärkning av kritiker som Nils Bejerot förfäktade. Istället för en saklig diskussion misstänkliggör man meningsmotståndarens avsikter. Redan den 25 januari uppmanade jag mina bloggbesökare att läsa Nilssons debattartikel i Skånska Dagbladet. Den är informativ och saklig i sin kritik mot den svenska narkotikapolitiken utan att vara ideologisk. Då fanns inte artikeln tillgänglig på internet, men det gör den nu. Läs! Om denna artikel resulterar i ett avsked är det en stor skam för Statens institutionsstyrelse.

From an article in the EU Observer:

A group of nine member states have issued an open declaration calling for more promotion of social Europe, asking that the issue raised at an EU leaders summit in two weeks time.

France, Italy, Spain, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Hungary, Belgium and Greece have all signed up to a two-page long declaration in which they argue that the 27-country bloc should be more than just an internal market.

Calling their statement, which has been sent to all member states, “enhancing social Europe” the currently nine-strong group want to use the ongoing negotiations on the EU constitution as a springboard for their ideas. “A link between enhancing Social Europe and a new impetus of institutional process is needed,” says their declaration, which has also been supported by EU social affairs commissioner Vladimir Spidla. It continues by saying that a Europe of 27 member states ”cannot just be a free trade zone but shall guarantee the necessary balance between economic freedom and social rights.”

Social Europe is defined as a set of ”common values” such as social justice, equality and solidarity.

Don’t let them fool you. “Social Europe” is code for more bureaucracy and higher taxes on your expense, and ”social rights” stands for new imposed obligations towards the elite. Worse still is that several EU countries want to make big-government ideas a part of the European constitution, which would make all liberal activism useless. From the same article:

Even calls for a protocol on social Europe to be attached to the EU constitution as a way of reaching out to French citizens—largely thought to have rejected the EU constitution for being too Anglo-Saxon—are likely to cause rifts with some states worried about Europe getting any sort of foothold into social policy—a jealously guarded national domain.

The problem with the European Union is that its leaders never seem able to learn from their mistakes. Instead of taking a step back and let the individual member states take care of themselves as long as it’s not interfering with the Common Market and humans rights declarations, the union’s elite repeatedly try to expend their powers into areas best handled by national or regional authorities. Back off, EU!

One of my American readers sent me an email on global warming a while ago. She was a bit annoyed with the fact that Europeans often point out that the United States has 4% of the world’s population and contributes about 25% of the world’s global warming gasses. In her first email she linked to a website with information on the twenty largest emitters of carbon dioxide. The idea was to show that Europe’s biggest polluters aren’t that much better than America. I share her frustration with Europe’s anti-American blame game, but I couldn’t buy her argument since the American share of global CO2 emissions is so much bigger no matter how you calculate.

About a week later, my email friend came up with another explanation that seemed plausible by the first look at it. She suggested that the emission of carbon dioxide was linked to landmass. I quote:

Although we figure out CO2 emissions per capita usually—we really need to take into account land mass.

For example picture a square drawn that is one mile square, with lines connecting each point. That would mean six lines about 1 mile each (actually the middle diagonal lines are more like 1.4 miles)—so a total of about 7 miles of lines. Pretend 6 people live on the points of the square. Picture those lines as the distance people would have to travel from each point to each point on that square to get all the points connected, which would be 7 miles.

Now picture the same square as being 2 miles big with the same 6 people living on it and taking 6 trips to connect each point. That would be a total distance of about 14 miles traveled.

As you can see, we in the US could drive the same amount of trips per capita with the same cars and the same gas mileage, but even if we did all those things, because our country is larger, we would still be driving twice as far and emitting twice as much CO2 as the EU. I haven’t figured out yet the exact difference in size between the land mass of the top 20 emitters of CO2 gasses in the EU and the US, but I’m sure it’s much larger (excluding Russia) and I’m sure there must be an effect to this.

Like I said, this seems plausible. But when I studied the figures, I realised that the argument wouldn’t wash.

According to the CIA factbook, Sweden has a population of 9,016,596 people and a landmass of 410,934 sq km, whereas the US has a population of 298,444,215 and a landmass of 9,161,923 sq km. When I divide the population by land mass I get 21.4 for Sweden and 32.6 for the US. Now, if we look at the graphs below, we see that the CO2 emission would suggest something completely different. As we can see here, Sweden (top graph) releases less then half the amount of CO2 per capita. (Click on graphs for sources.)

To find an explanation, I turned to CIA’s figures again. I thought that perhaps the income per head could explain the difference. It couldn’t. On average, an American citizen earned $43,500 in 2006 while a Swede made about $31,600. A significant difference, but not enough to explain the huge gap in carbon dioxide emissions.

Update: Two readers have emailed me to say that I’m doing this the wrong way. According to them, I should extract the square root of the land area in order to learn the average distance. I honestly don’t understand why this would be more accurate, but I sense that they are on to something. Perhaps I’m a bit slow. Maybe I get it when I’ve had good night’s sleep.

From Jacob Weisberg’s collection of ”Bushisms” in Slate Magazine:

“You never know what your history is going to be like until long after you’re gone.”

– G. W. Bush, Washington, DC, 05/05/2006

A quote from Reason Magazine’s edited transcript of a discussion with Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the co-creators of the highly controversial and massively successful TV show South Park:

In the episode “All About Mormons,” a Mormon family moves to South Park, and one of the boys finds out that they’re pretty nice. Then they have a fight, and at the end the Mormon boy teaches him a moral lesson:

“Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life and a great family and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don’t care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice, and helping people, and even though people in this town might think that’s stupid, I still choose to believe in it. All I ever did was try to be your friend, Stan, but you’re so high and mighty you couldn’t look past my religion and just be my friend back. You’ve got a lot of growing up to do, buddy. Suck my balls.”

I think that Mormon boy is on to something.

From an article in the Local:

New rules introduced in January mean immigrants with the right to live and work in Sweden are being barred from receiving Swedish ID cards. A Swedish ID is required to exercise many daily activities in Swedish society, including collecting packages from the post office, opening a bank account, seeing a doctor, or even hiring a DVD and buying alcohol or cigarettes.

This causes a great deal of problem to new immigrants, which may be breaking European law. Fortunately, Liberal MP Fredrik Malm is determined to do something about it. He suggests that the Swedish Migration Board becomes certified to issue identity cards in conjunction with the granting of residency permits. This would be perfect solution. When I moved to the Netherlands in the late 1990s, I received a card that stated both my identity and status as a legal resident.

Rudy Giuliani is one of the top candidates in the Republican primary election. He’s perhaps most famous for his heroic mayoral leadership in the days following the 09/11/2001 attack on New York City, but he is also known for his laid-back sense of humour. Here he’s seen dressed in drag smooching Donald Trump.

Read More

If the YouTube-clip isn’t showing or working properly, you find it here.

Frequent readers of this blog know that I am fond of skyscrapers and new urban construction. This is one of the reasons I enjoy living in Malmö. In itself, Malmö is not a big city, but its innovative architecture and close relation with Copenhagen and other towns in the Öresund Region makes it one.

On 7 August 2005, the tallest building in Sweden was officially opened. It is named Turning Torso because of its form of a twisting human being. The building has caused some envious comments from politicians in the Swedish capital. Stockholm has long nourished a self-image of being the only ”metropolis” in Sweden.

Today I read in Dagens Nyheter about plans for new and taller buildings in Stockholm. I welcome the development. I do not care much about Stockholm—it is too far up north for me—but I like a modernisation of Swedish urban architecture. Skyscrapers are only one small part of it, but it is a part that is clearly visible.

Sadly, Stockholm seems unable to compete with Malmö when it comes to height. None of the planned new buildings will be taller than Turning Torso and Malmö Tower.

(Seen in picture is a planned new building on Hornsbergsstrand in Stockholm.)

Three years ago the Swedish mining company LKAB—which provides the city’s economic lifeblood—informed [Vice Mayor] Swedell and other local officials that a century of extracting iron ore from underground was taking a toll on the bedrock under the town’s homes and offices. Cracks had developed in the mine wall that angles thousands of feet beneath the city, and if they didn’t start moving the buildings in a couple of decades, key parts of the city might collapse.

Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post writes about Kiruna, a town in northernmost Sweden that has been forced to move four kilometres in order to save itself from disaster.

From the Egyptian Today according to a translation provided by the Free Kareem blog:

The family of Al-Azhar student Abdul Kareem Nabeel Suleiman, accused of ”contempt of religion”, has disowned him before his court verdict session on the upcoming Thursday. His father, a retired mathematics teacher, has demanded applying the Sharia [Islamic law] ruling on him by giving him three days to repent, followed by having him killed if he does not announce his repentance.

The father of the Al-Azhar student, who is accused of contempt of the Islamic religion, harming the reputation of Egypt, and inciting to disrupt the peace and to overthrow the regime, has decided to rescind from boycotting his trial hearing sessions. [He has decided] to attend the court verdict session with his four brothers, who completely memorised the Holy Quran, to announce disowning the accused Abdul Kareem inside the court room, in order to reduce the embarrassment and pressure that civil rights organisations are applying on the court panel.

The father of the accused also described the organisations that are working on having his son acquitted as “monkey rights” organisations, in his own words. He also described his son as the “monkey” who has imitated the atheists of the West in their intellectual thinking.

The family also said that they will announce their disownment of their son on the Internet as well.

The Dean of Sharia in Al-Azhar University, which the student Abdul Kareem attends, had him attend a disciplinary hearing after he attacked the Islamic religion on the Internet, and spoke against the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—and the companions [of the prophet of Islam]

From an article published in the Observer yesterday:

Amer will learn on Thursday whether he faces 10 years in jail, following a trial that has been condemned by human rights groups. He is the first person to be prosecuted in Egypt for online writings; observers fear this may mark a new clampdown on freedom of speech.

Amer, 22, a former student at al-Azhar University, wrote blog entries criticising Egypt’s al-Azhar religious authorities, President Mubarak and Islam. Charges against him include “spreading information disruptive of public order and damaging to the country’s reputation”, “incitement to hate Islam” and ”defaming the President”.

His lawyer, Gamal Eid, said last week: “I am very pessimistic about the verdict, but I have great hope for the appeal.”

Malcolm Smart of Amnesty International said: “Karim Amer’s trial appears intended as a warning by the authorities to other bloggers who dare criticise the government or use their blogs to spread information considered harmful to Egypt’s reputation.”

Click here for full background story.

Note: Although the name is spelled different in the two quoted articles, it refers to the same person.

Update: You can give Kareem your moral support by linking to the blog devoted to his cause with the image seen here. Copy and link now!

From an article on My Way:

Shortly after midnight, Steven Goldstein and Daniel Gross renewed their vows as New Jersey became the third state in the nation to offer civil unions for gay couples.

The law that took effect Monday was ”a big giant step forward,” said state Sen. Loretta Weinberg, a prime sponsor of the civil unions law, who hosted ceremonies for couples including Goldstein and Gross.

The civil unions, which offer the legal benefits but not the title of marriage, were granted automatically to the hundreds of gay New Jersey couples who had previously been joined in civil unions or married in other states or nations.

(Photo: Tim Larsen)

From the Breitbart.com:

A premature baby that doctors say spent less time in the womb than any other surviving infant is to be released from a Florida hospital Tuesday.

Amillia Sonja Taylor was just 9 1/2 inches long and weighed less than 10 ounces when she was born Oct. 24. She was delivered 21 weeks and six days after conception. Full-term births come after 37 to 40 weeks.

“We weren’t too optimistic,” Dr. William Smalling said Monday. “But she proved us all wrong.”

Neonatologists who cared for Amillia say she is the first baby known to survive after a gestation period of fewer than 23 weeks. A database run by the University of Iowa’s Department of Pediatrics lists seven babies born at 23 weeks between 1994 and 2003

According to a new ICM poll, the British Conservative Party rise three points on last month to 40%, Labour Party are unchanged on 31%, and the Liberal Democrats drop 4 points to 19%. This could result in a liberal-conservative win in the next general election.

(Via the Tory Diary.)

From a notice published by and Johan Norberg and the Free Kareem blog:

The Egyptian blogger Abdelkareem has been detained since November because he spoke his mind. On February 22nd Kareem will be the first Egyptian to stand trial for Internet-based journalism. Because of his arguments for secularism, women’s rights and free speech this 22-year old blogger faces up to 11 years in jail. More information here.

Right now several Swedish bloggers and others are preparing a protest against this attack on freedom of expression. Please help us to show support for human rights in Egypt. Mark your calendar, and if you are a blogger, please spread the word.

Meet us outside the Egyptian Embassy

Strandvägen 35, Stockholm
Wednesday, 21 February, 12.00

Speakers:
Henrik Alexandersson, blogger
Fredrik Malm, Member of Parliament
Johan Norberg, author

I’m not in Stockholm tomorrow, so I cannot participate myself, but I hope as many as possible will turn up in front of the Egyptian Embassy to voice their support of Kareem and free speech.

Från en veckogammal ETC-artikel:

”I ett rappt föredrag går Johan Ehrenberg igenom maktlöshetssjukan som styrt s och v under många år och försöker visa på botemedlen.”

Hur mycket kan den gamla arbetarrörelsen vältra sig i självömkan innan de själva inser att det blir patetiskt? Vänsterpartiet och socialdemokraterna har haft makten de senaste tolv åren och mestadels av det senaste seklet, ändå arrangerar de föreläsningar om sin egen maktlöshet. Eftersom problembeskrivningen så fundamentalt skiljer sig från verkligheten misstänker jag att svensk vänster helt enkelt njuter av sin självömkan. De vill vara svaga offer för att det är skönt att slippa ta ansvar och kunna skylla allt på andra.

Som om inte föredraget var nog så säljer ETC nu också en knapp som patetiskt självömkande socialister kan pryda sig med.

I know—I do have a tendency to quote the same people and blogs again and again. It gets predictable and boring after a while. I’m aware of this, and I do try to stop myself from being one of those overly predictable bloggers. But sometimes it’s too hard to resist. Some people say things too brilliantly not to be quoted repeatedly. So, I apologise in advance, for here is yet another passage picked up from Andrew Sullivan’s blog:

There are so many reasons why gay people might vote Republican if the GOP were a conservative party and not a religious one. Small government, individual freedom, low taxes, strong defense: these are values shared by many gay Americans. Personal responsibility is also one of them. When I think of a gay person who lives responsibly, saves his or her money, goes to church, contributes to charity and settles down in a stable relationship, I think: conservative. When such a couple wants to get married, I think: conservative. When such a person decides to serve his country in the military, I think: conservative. But the new Republican base sees all this and thinks: evil. It didn’t have to end this way. But it has. The GOP won a couple of elections with the help of it. They have won a generation’s contempt as well.

A reader comments on my entry entitled “Landmass and Carbon Dioxide Emissions”:

Glad to see you examining the factors in an intelligent way. I agree that distance might not explain it all.

However, one factor to consider in making comparisons between the US land area and Sweden’s land area is that, as far as I know, Sweden has a fairly large land size but most people are concentrated in the southern tip. That pattern of concentration seems to me to apply to some other larger countries such as Australia (everyone near the coast) and Russia (everyone near the west—not Siberia). I think this contrasts to the US in that every part of this country is populated. Of course the populations are densest by the coasts, but we have many larger cities throughout every part of the country and we have a large amount of transportation of goods and people constantly crisscrossing between the far-flung east and west coasts. This is in contrast to, say Sweden, which doesn’t have a large population center in its north, and so doesn’t have as great a need for a large amount of transportation between all the ends of the country.

So in other words, we need to drive a lot here in the US. We are spread out. In fact, every time our European cousins come to visit here, they always are surprised at how far we have to drive to get anywhere. A lot of us practically live in our cars. And sometimes, that means literally. If any of you have followed the news here this winter, there have been several incidents of ordinary families getting stranded on roads in mountainous areas in cold weather, and had to literally live in their cars for weeks before they were rescued. One father died before he could get help. Although those are extreme cases, such fears of being stranded with no one around to help are common to many drivers and not altogether unrealistic in many parts of the country. So because our cars mean so much to us, we want them to be large and comfortable and safe. And unfortunately, that isn’t always compatible with global warming.

In the email, my American reader draws my attention to new research on the sun and cosmic rays published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society. I don’t know of any Swedish newspapers writing about this, but I found several British articles. From The Times:

The impact of cosmic rays on the climate could be greater than scientists suspect after experiments showed they may have a pivotal role in cloud formation.

Researchers have managed to replicate the effect of cosmic rays on the aerosols in the atmosphere that help to create clouds. Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist in Denmark, said the experiments suggested that man’s influence on global warming might be rather less than was supposed by the bulk of scientific opinion.

From the Sunday Telegraph:

Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth’s climate than global warming experts previously thought.

In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet. High levels of cloud cover blankets the Earth and reflects radiated heat from the Sun back out into space, causing the planet to cool.

Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing. He claims carbon dioxide emissions due to human activity are having a smaller impact on climate change than scientists think. If he is correct, it could mean that mankind has more time to reduce our effect on the climate.

The controversial theory comes one week after 2,500 scientists who make up the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change published their fourth report stating that human carbon dioxide emissions would cause temperature rises of up to 4.5 C by the end of the century. Mr Svensmark claims that the calculations used to make this prediction largely overlooked the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover and the temperature rise due to human activity may be much smaller.

(Explanatory image taken from the Sunday Telegraph.)

To many of my non-Swedish readers it might come as surprise that some Scandinavians are unused to snowy winters, but this is the case for many who—like me—live in the southernmost part of Sweden. Malmö, the city I live in, is snowed in. The snow came overnight, and the city hasn’t seen this much of it in years. The police are advising people to leave their cars unless it is absolutely necessary. The roads and railway tracks are very slippery, so most buses and trains are cancelled. As a result, people can’t get to work, therefore schools and shops are closed.

I took a walk a short while ago. When a crossed the street outside my office, I snapped the photo seen above. The snowploughs began cleaning the streets in the city centre early in the morning, so most of the snow where gone when the photo was taken, but it is still bizarrely quiet. Normally the street in the picture is one of the busiest in the city; today it’s virtually deserted. It’s a bit like being in a ghost town.

Breaking news from the Free Kareem blog:

Dalia Ziada, a human rights activist and blogger, informs us that Kareem is sentenced to FOUR years in prison: three years for contempting religion, and one year for defaming the president. His appeal will be launched on Saturday by his lawyers, but we are told that it won’t do much. Hopefully it will shorten the sentence. This is bad news for all of us, and we’d just like you all to know that this fight for his freedom will still continue until he is freed.

Update: I suppose I’m running the risk of being labelled an Islamophobe, but this quote from a Reuters article on Kareem’s sentence is simply too revealing of how Islamic fascists think about free speech. This extreme anti-liberalism is truly sickening.

“I was hoping that he would get a harsher sentence because he presented to the world a bad image of Egypt. There are things that one should not talk about, like religion and politics. He should have got a 10-year sentence,” said lawyer Nizar Habib, who attended the trial as a member of the public.

On 11 January, I published a blog entry on Nepal’s Maoist guerrillas because I had learned that they announced “a zero-tolerance policy towards homosexuality”. I wrote harshly about Kalle Larsson, a Swedish MP for the communist Left Party, since he on several occasions has voiced public support of Nepal’s Maoist terrorists and described these lunatic murderers as democrats.

Last night I learned that Larsson posted some kind of silly reply on his blog a few days ago. As could be expected of him, he doesn’t comment or mention the very serious issue I brought up. Instead, he rambles on about how stupid liberals are and how little we know about the struggle for democracy in Nepal.

Well, I never claimed to know much about Nepalese politics, but after many years as a gay-rights activist of sorts, I know a lot about the situation for gays and lesbians in many countries, including Nepal. My guess is that I know a great deal more than Larsson, even though he recently joined a group of pro-gay MPs. I have “lived the issue” for twenty years.

What bothers me more than Larsson’s silly remarks is that he’s typical for a growing number of dishonest, “political correct” European politicians, who promote themselves as gay-friendly in order to get votes and credibility from the gay community, only to put gay rights last on their priority list when elected. Kalle Larsson represents a kind of macho-politician that pretends to care about us but really doesn’t give a toss when we are being treated as subhuman creatures.

Björn Pedersen has launched HomOnline, a website with news from and beyond the gay community.

According to Slate’s Timothy Noah, President Bush wants to know.

George W. Bush had to ask his father, who answered ”Israel”. I am not satisfied with that answer, so I consult the Encyclopaedia Britannica. This is neoconservatism:

U.S. political movement. It originated in the 1960s among conservatives and some liberals who were repelled by or disillusioned with what they viewed as the political and cultural trends of the time, including leftist political radicalism, lack of respect for authority and tradition, and hedonistic and immoral lifestyles. Neoconservatives generally advocate a free-market economy with minimum taxation and government economic regulation; strict limits on government-provided social-welfare programs; and a strong military supported by large defense budgets. Neoconservatives also believe that government policy should respect the importance of traditional institutions such as religion and the family. Unlike most conservatives of earlier generations, neoconservatives maintain that the United States should take an active role in world affairs, though they are generally suspicious of international institutions, such as the United Nations and the World Court, whose authority could intrude upon American sovereignty or limit the country’s freedom to act in its own interests.

In 1959, Mike Wallace interviewed Ayn Rand, who I consider one of the most interesting philosophers of the twentieth century. Now you can see this interview on YouTube:

Part One
Part Two
Part Three

(Via Nattväktarstaten och välfärdssamhället.)

Catholic Bishop Anders Arborelius and Pentecostal leader Sten-Gunnar Hedin threaten to withdraw support of the Swedish Christian Democrats if Göran Hägglund, the Minister for Social Affairs, doesn’t stop a proposed law on abortion. The two make the threat in an article published by newspaper Dagens Nyheter.

With only about 5% of the votes in the September 2006 election, the Christian Democrats is the smallest of four political parties in the government coalition. That makes it the Government’s weakest link. If the party gets less than 4% voter support in the next general election, it will lose every seat in the parliament, which in turn could result in a win for the socialist bloc.

The question of abortion is rarely debated in Sweden. Although the legislation is fairly liberal, Swedish women are not as free to terminate pregnancies as some believe. Abortions later than week thirteen are rare and after week eighteen they are illegal. Strangely enough, what sparked the new debate on abortion has nothing to do with neither legality nor week limits. What the pro-lifers want to stop is a proposed law that will allow foreign women to come to Sweden for abortions.

Many Swedish liberals and socialists ridicule the Christian pro-lifers. I don’t like that. I have much sympathy for the pro-life argument, even if I’m very mush pro-choice myself. To someone who opposes abortions based on a belief that morality should promote life, hinder even a single termination is vital. However, I don’t support the restriction on freedom. Women who cannot get a legal abortion in their native countries should be free to come to Sweden for help. Swedish pro-lifers must refocus on the core of their argument, which has to do with foetal human rights. If unborn humans have rights, these rights must be universal and not relate to the mother’s nationality.

Note: Some Swedes have misunderstood the issue. They think that the proposed law will allow foreign women abortions in Sweden on the taxpayers’ expense. This is not correct. Like all foreigners getting medical treatment in Sweden, these women will have to pay for it themselves.

This must be the best-ever collection of fallacies in reasoning. Social democrat Roger Jönsson and a few of his self-opinionated comrades manage to appeal to composition, person, ignorance, pity, popularity, consequences, and a bunch of straw-man arguments—in a single blog post. If you ever needed proof that slothful reasoning is more harmful than drug taking, here it is.

Don’t assume that the alternative to hidden charges is no charges at all. Tim Harford explains the minibar economics.

Socialism in all its forms is irreconcilable with freedom. That’s a fact. The fundamental idea of socialism is collectivism, i.e. that all powers are administrated by an elite on behalf of everybody. At first glance, this might come across as democratic. It is the opposite. When powers are collectivised, individuals are deprived of their ability to change the society. In the collectivist society, the government or person that controls the powers sets the agenda on behalf of the people. Only the already powerful have any say on economics and state affairs. For any single citizen to have the slightest bit of freedom, he or she must prove loyalty to the ruling class or the dictator. In other words, a socialist society is exactly what socialist politicians claim it’s not—a class society.

Some socialists are better than others are at hiding the power structures of their social order. Thus, Swedish social democrats are more restrained and freedom-friendly than Cuban communists. But when they are in government position, the underlying collectivism makes powers transfer from citizens to ruling class nonetheless. It would be strange if it didn’t since this is what socialism is about.

In the latest issue of The Economist, I read an article about Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, a socialist de facto dictator with no self-restrained qualities. The article deals with Mr Chávez’s silencing of free media and how he centralises power in his own hands. It’s easy to get upset about Chávez, but one should keep in mind that this is not that different from Europe’s socialist fondness of government-controlled media. The main difference is that Chávez doesn’t hide the fact that “public service” is only a service to the ruler. It’s all about telling the citizens how to adjust. I quote the article:

Mr Chávez this month relaunched his weekly ”Hello President” programme as a 90-minute nightly radio show, with a TV version once a week. Promising “exclusives” in every edition, he used the first to announce a new decree against ”hoarders and speculators” with six-year jail terms for offenders. He also regularly obliges all TV and radio stations to broadcast his rambling speeches live.

(Seen in the picture is one of Caracas’s many murals of Chávez—ordered by the man himself and paid for by the taxpayers. Photo: Francesco Spotorno.)

The Atlantic Online presents a narrated photo essay by Emily Hiestand. A beautiful portrait, although somewhat overly indulgent.

On 24 February, I recommended three video clips with a 1959 Ayn Rand interview on YouTube. Here’s a Rand interview from 1980, made by Phil Donahue only two years prior to her death.

Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Part Five

Rand is not as alert in this interview as in the one I recommended earlier, which probably has some to do with her lung cancer and her husband’s recent death. She is fascinating nonetheless.

Carl Bildt is not only the Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs, he is also a blogger. He is the first cabinet minister to combine government work with blogging. This direct contact between an elected official and the electorate has upset two backward journalists comfortable with setting the public agenda. On 23 February, Per Svensson of Expressen wrote harshly about Bildt; today, Svenska Dagbladet’s former chief editor, Bertil Torekull, goes one step further in an article published by Dagens Nyheter—he compares the foreign minister’s blogging to the methods used by despotic dictators.

Personally, I think Blidt is doing the right thing. We need more politicians using modern technology as a tool for directly communication with voters. Grumpy old-school journalists we are better off without.

Every Thursday, one of Husie District Council’s popularly elected politicians takes questions from the public at the Civic Office (Medborgarkontoret). Tomorrow, on 1 March, I will be that politician this for the first time. Come by for a chat if you have the opportunity. The address is Agnesfridsvägen 2 in Malmö. It begins at five o’clock and lasts for an hour.