Yesterday saw the release of the long-awaited Symbian Belle (I refuse to call it Nokia Belle – don’ let yourself be fooled, it is a Symbian, no matter how they brand it) OS for older versions of the last generation [...]]]>

Yesterday saw the release of the long-awaited Symbian Belle (I refuse to call it Nokia Belle – don’ let yourself be fooled, it is a Symbian, no matter how they brand it) OS for older versions of the last generation Symbian mobiles from Nokia. An update originally scheduled for late Q3 2011, postponed until late Q4 2011, then 8 February 2012. Surprisingly, though, the launch took place yesterday, Tuesday 7 February, providing us with the false impression of an expedited release (if that is what the 7 Feb 2012 launch of an intended Q3 2011 release is).

At any rate long awaited, as you may well understand (cont’d after video clip):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3REHGbxqn0

Granted my patience with Nokia had long-since run out, to such an extent that I swore never again to buy a Nokia product (well aware that I may some day have to take that back), but as rumours of an immediate release started to pick up momentum across the Internet yesterday morning, all was forgotten. Checking for availability every five minutes, I could hardly contain myself. Several hours later the official Nokia announcement was a fact.

However, it would appear that my network operator, Telenor Mobil (whose website appears to exist in Norwegian only) is withholding the release – as the only Norwegian carrier doing so (cont’d after table):

So I decided to take the matter in my own two hands, with the following tweet:

@nokia Before we srt the blaming game, who needs 2 make a move 2 make Belle update available 4 Norwegian Telenor customers? @telenor_service

In addition to responding to another:

@NokiaUpdate Not so fast. Some carriers, such as Norwegian Telenor, apparently have decided to withhold the Belle release. @telenor_service

Resulting in the following reply:

telenor_serviceTelenor Kundeservice

@J_Petterson Hello Jarle. Firmwares branded by us will usually be avaiable a couple of weeks later than the unbranded version. /Morten

Cursed be my damned politeness, but my response sounded something like:

@telenor_service thx a million 4 yr swift reply. I only wish U sorted out ths matters w/ @Nokia prior 2 their (long overdue) release.

Truth of the matter is, however, that I’m in no need of a Telenor – or any other – branding. I simply want the latest version of my mobile OS. How hard can that be? Clearly, as shown in above table, smaller Norwegian carriers have made it available to their users. How can it be that Norway’s – by far – largest mobile network operator employs fewer developers than that of their much smaller competitors? And what makes them think customers are willing to wait for their branding, in order for Telenor to distribute free marketing – at the expense of inpatient, unsubsidised, paying customers? Besides, branding (implementing a Telenor browser start page and including a few Telenor specific apps) shouldn’t require more than an hour or two – 20 minutes tops, if they put a small team of developers on the task. After all, it’s not as the OS update came unexpected. Do you hear me, Telenor?

I can tell you this much, though: I should have stuck to my four-year-old plan.

As for Belle, I’m (still) more partial to the one accompanied by Sebastian (the song’s title is for you, Telenor):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UeFaayyw3o

Late edit: Apparently, according to a Telenor spokesperson, this procedure applies to mobiles of all makes and models, which, contrary to his intention, makes the matter even graver than originally suspected (insofar that my problem isn’t caused by my choice of manufacturer, but the choice of carrier).

We all wonder, from time to time, why the Germans allowed themselves to be seduced by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist party, and how they persuaded the better of an entire nation to consider the Jews criminal, greedy, self-absorbed and prepared to poison German culture with Judaism.

These questions have been asked over [...]]]>

We all wonder, from time to time, why the Germans allowed themselves to be seduced by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist party, and how they persuaded the better of an entire nation to consider the Jews criminal, greedy, self-absorbed and prepared to poison German culture with Judaism.

These questions have been asked over and over again, leaving us completely dumbfounded, even though we’re full aware of the effects of mass psychosis and an efficient propaganda machinery, and yet, we’re just as receptive of it as the pre-WW2 Germans.

Third Reich Führer and dictator Adolf Hitler.

They had the Jews, while the average 21st century Norwegian suscpects the Muslims of pretty much the same. In fact, it’s turned into a bit of a frenzy, leading yours truly to conclude we’re only a handful left prepared to offer the Muslims a chance to be fully integrated into society.

You’d think that massive slamming of Islam was restricted to the unemployed, the uneducated and the prejudiced, but recent developments show that leading politicians, as well as intellectuals, have joined the collective outcry, demanding severe restrictions on immigration and limitations in the Muslims’ right to exercise their religion in everyday life.

The far right Progress party, advocating stricter immigration policies and warning of a subtle islamification, have obtained a whopping 29.6 percent in recent polls, positioning itself for a landslide in the upcoming autumnal election, while people calling for our renowned tolerance are told to emigrate – to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.

The average racist is reluctant to see himself as such; marching about in uniforms, yelling heil this and heil that, blinded by the fact that those were mere cosmetics. Championing the core of nazism; hatred, scepticism and fear of the “unknown”, remains racism to me, if you don’t mind my saying so.

If we’re unable to recognise the very obvious resemblance to attitudes demonstrated some 70 years ago, we may as well give up on humanity altogether.

Previous posts on the matter

• Norwegian racism on the rice – 26 March 2009
• Freedom of speech – within “reason” – 12 March 2009
• Political turmoil over uniforms – 24 February 2009

In the news (in Norwegian):

• Mener norsk kultur er truet av muslimer – db.no
• – Norsk kultur blir styrket med muslimsk innvandring – db.no
• – Vi tar ikke over landet – db.no
• – Mellom 4 og 11 prosent muslimer i 2060 – db.no
• – Vi vil få et samfunn som bygger på hellige skrifter fra 600-tallet – db.no
• – Innvandrere bak alle anmeldte overfallsvoldtekter i Oslo – VG Nett
• – Norge er verdens frieste samfunn – db.no

As for propaganda machineries; here’s P Machinery, from, while we’re at it, a German 1980′s group, very appropriately called Propaganda:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0cFzZt4mc4

P.S. I’ve noticed lately, how, on declaring my Norwegian nationality, an urge to add “But with Swedish ancestry”, even though my Swedish blood’s been severely diluted over generations.

That can’t be good.

Top photo: Adolf Hitler attending a Nazi rally.

We’ve seen an impressive involvement in freedom of speech issues in Norway over the last couple of years, which interestingly seems less related to the freedom of speech itself  than to our right to discredit and insult members of the country’s largest minority and its religion. It is that specific right we wish to [...]]]>

We’ve seen an impressive involvement in freedom of speech issues in Norway over the last couple of years, which interestingly seems less related to the freedom of speech itself  than to our right to discredit and insult members of the country’s largest minority and its religion. It is that specific right we wish to defend.

We’re talking muslim immigrants, an ethnically very diversified group, to be more precise. Any attempt at criticising overzealous islam or muslim skepticism is met with accusations of either high treason or censorship, while censorship abroad appears to be of little or no interest. Judging by the domestic press coverage of the event in question; the 12 March international campaign for the freedom of expression, we really couldn’t care less. Whereas hijabs in the police, on the other hand – or attempts at passing a bill forbidding blasphemous conduct, in words or in action, stirred much collective anger, among politicians, the media and, not least, bloggers.

Let me just emphasise that I too think little of forbidding blasphemy, but I also happen to know that chances of attacks on christianity were (are) pretty skimpy, unlike that of attacks on islam. It is that right we wish to reserve, and let me tell you: It has less to do with our sacred freedom of expression than with the prewar Nazi attacks on the Jews.

That is a kind of “freedom of speech” I think I can do very well without, thank you very much.

Other countries’ (and their citizens’) freedom of expression, on the other hand, are completely without consequence, as demonstrated by our press’ blatant indifference on this occasion.

Then again, we do care about today’s topic in Norwegian news: Political ads on Norwegian TV, however remotely connected with the freedom of speech.

I will keep you posted on later developments, should anything happen, but have to warn you that the unlikely linked articles will be in Norwegian.

Norwegian press coverage as per 16:41 Thursday 12 March

• Ballongslipp for ytringsfrihet – Rogalands avis

Late addition: We have a saying, ascribed to Norwegian poet Arnulf Øverland, which, loosely translated, goes:

Thou shalt not suffer gladly the injustice that does not affect thyself.

We do however not abide by it.

For detailed information on today’s issue, please visit:

• Irrepressible.info
• Press freedom day by day (Reporters without borders)

As a matter [...]]]> I’ll be the first to acknowledge a bias in my recent comments on Israel’s military operations in the Gaza strip, undoubtedly fuelled by disgust over the cruelties taking place. But we’d be ill advised to draw civilian Israelis or Jews into this. Let’s put the blame where it belongs: On Israeli authorities.

As a matter of fact, I’m equally disgusted by Norwegian protesters going after a supporter of Israel, shouting “Take him!” and “Bloody Jew!”, as was the case with the 73 year-old Mr. Sverre Martin Haug, who, incidentally, probably isn’t a Jew at all (screendump from Dagbladet.no – in Norwegian):

Norwegian Israel supporter attacked by protesters (Screendump from db.no)

It’s almost as if you hear the word Jude resounding in the street, invoking a chilling sensation I can do without very nicely, thank you.

We should be very careful not to mistake the average Jew or Israeli for representatives of their warmongering government, hard as it may seem – especially if the bloodthirsty bastards are reelected later this year. Granted, the people responsible for the above mentioned attack were morons. Then again, as were the Nazis. If anything, the incident shows how vulnerable we are, allowing for that kind of attitudes to emerge. Also, it clearly demonstrates that anti-Semitism lurks under the surface.

The Israelis are quick to drag anti-Semitism into the picture, but let’s not forget that the term “Semite” pertains to all people of Middle East origin:

The term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern people originating in southwestern Asia, including Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, and Ethiopian Semites. It was proposed at first to refer to the languages related to Hebrew by Ludwig Schlözer, in Eichhorn’s “Repertorium”, vol. VIII (Leipzig, 1781), p. 161. Through Eichhorn the name then came into general usage (cf. his “Einleitung in das Alte Testament” (Leipzig, 1787), I, p. 45. In his “Gesch. der neuen Sprachenkunde”, pt. I (Göttingen, 1807) it had already become a fixed technical term.^[1]

I don’t know how the expression “anti-Semitic” came to apply to Jews only (well, I do now, obviously), but:

The term “anti-Semitic” (or “anti-Semite”) usually refers to Jews only. It was coined in 1879 by German journalist Wilhelm Marr in a pamphlet called, “The Victory of Jewry over Germandom”. Using ideas of race and nationalism, Marr argued that Jews had become the first major power in the West. He accused them of being liberals, a people without roots who had Judaized Germans beyond salvation. In 1879 Marr founded the “League for Anti-Semitism”.

Semantics aside, I would like to use the opportunity to urge bloggers and commentators, yours truly included, to exercise a minimum level of temperance, in spite of current atrocities resembling those of some 65 years ago – however similar.

There were Nazis and there were Germans. I think, or at least I hope, it’s safe to say that there are Israelis and there are Israelis. I only wish they had distinct designations.

And please ponder this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kIx221KCxo

In this day and age, with greenhouse gases engulfing the planet amid a financial crisis likely to bury the auto industry (which in all honesty ought to be long-since buried anyway) we need to explore the alternatives, of which one has been available for decades. The first streamlined high-speed trains, with a 130 km/h [...]]]>

In this day and age, with greenhouse gases engulfing the planet amid a financial crisis likely to bury the auto industry (which in all honesty ought to be long-since buried anyway) we need to explore the alternatives, of which one has been available for decades. The first streamlined high-speed trains, with a 130 km/h average speed and a more than 160 km/h top speed were introduced in Europe and the United States as early as 1933, as a matter of fact, and yet, some countries, such as Norway, are still hopelessly behind.

I pondered these things travelling from Oslo to Bergen and back, visiting family for the holidays – an altogether 496 kilometre stretch both ways, with ample chance to enjoy fabulous sceneries while you work, read – or enjoy the relaxation of your choice. Personally I find the opportunity to work en route, now that more and more trains offer wireless Internet connection, most enticing, even though I’ve preferred trains for years already. And yes, I do feel a little guilty for leisure travels even by train, unnecessarily spending electricity that I’m convinced could be put to better use, but the alternative, going by plane, is simply too unheard of.

Not an environmental issue – alone

Having said that, I must admit that my concern for the environment probably isn’t my chief rationale for preferring trains. Contrary to popular belief, travelling by train is so much more convenient. Think of it: If I were to fly to Bergen, I’d first have to go by local train to the Oslo central station, whence I’d have to take the (expensive) airport express train. By the time I arrive on Oslo Airport Gardermoen, an hour or so will already have passed. Pressing on, we check in, stay in line for a security check, walk for quite a stretch, only to find that departure’s been postponed, due to unforeseen reasons (in reality the airlines skip flights in order to fill up another one). Then you queue up in front of the gate, and wait on board for quite some time before take-off. By which time I will have reached almost halfway to Bergen by train. Late edit: If you’re not yet convinced, I actually quite forgot that a crucial element remains: Waiting for luggage and getting from the Bergen airport to Bergen itself. Add an extra hour to the equation.

I think you get the picture. Speaking of pictures: Which airlines offer these kinds of sceneries, anyway?

Norwegian ski resort Geilo as seen from the window of the Bergen line. Mobile photo: Jarle Petterson

Even so it just will not do. With high-speed trains I’d be in Bergen long ago by the time the air plane took off. That’s what I call competition. Look at Japan’s Tokaido Shinkansen, opening back in 1964, France’s TGV, The European Eurostar! From what I understand, even Spain is pretty well covered by high-speed trains, the so-called AVE (Alta Velocidad Española).

The centennial perspective

We’re about to turn another year. On 27 November 2009 the above mentioned Bergen Line marks its 100th anniversary. To think what investments we were willing to make at a time when Norway’s finances were very slim, to say the least, compared to today’s unspeakable wealth and paralysis… Certainly, there’s been much talk of a high-speed rail in Norway over the last years, but very little is expected to happen in the nearest decades. In fact, chances of seeing a high-speed rail materialise in these parts is likely to happen in yet another 100 years, rather than a couple of decades. That’s how decisive Norwegian politicians are. After all, and as you can imagine, for a country like ours money simply is no object.

Think of the environmental implications of reducing air traffic to a minimum. There’s little doubt that, with a two-hour fare from Oslo to Bergen or Trondheim, it’d most certainly be the preferred means of transportation for most business travellers, who, just to top it all, is offered online services as well, facilitating two very productive hours – in preparation of a meeting, perhaps. Freight and cargo not withstanding.

An economy with an expiration date

During these last 100 years since the Bergen Line was opened, it soon became clear that we geared up to catch up on the automotive revolution. The development of Norwegian infrastructure has been extremely car-centred this last century, whereas rail roads have been put on hold, more or less. Granted, we’ve seen a modernisation in rail road equipment, trains included, but the infrastructure as such… Zip, zilch and nada, save for an extra track here and there. All very much in line with the overall economy, which, to say the least, is everything but visionary. We’re building roads instead. Knowing Norwegian politics, I can only speculate as to why that is so, but here’s an educated guess:

Cars need fossil fuel. Norway is a considerable provider of fossil fuel. If it’s good for the automotive industry, it simply has to be good for Norway, no?

I don’t know about you, but I’ve always thought there’s something fishy about economies based on a commodity with an expiration date. All the more cause for concern, then.

Substantial savings

I interviewed top executives in The Federation of Norwegian Industries in relation with just high-speed rail earlier this year, who were adamant that high-speed trains would improve the industry’s conditions considerably, not only in terms of reduced emissions, but also substantial cost reductions – and really, it isn’t that hard to understand why.

There’s little doubt that the investments will be sizable, but the return on investment is likely to be colossal.

Honest to God, I’m not sure I understand how they think… Are they per chance under the impression that harvesting is feasable quite without the element of sowing?

It would appear so – in too many questions, I’m afraid.

Anyway, here’s what we’re missing out on. A German ICE3 passing a station at 300 km/h:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yp8kIl_EYg

Top photo: The Oslo Airport Express (Mick Tully).

As I mentioned in my last post, there’s a fierce debate going on in Norwegian blog land, with harsh words and a wide range of accusations – as usual, whenever feminists are involved. But it’s quite the proverbial storm in a cup, really, as the discussions are restricted to a very limited core of [...]]]>

As I mentioned in my last post, there’s a fierce debate going on in Norwegian blog land, with harsh words and a wide range of accusations – as usual, whenever feminists are involved. But it’s quite the proverbial storm in a cup, really, as the discussions are restricted to a very limited core of bloggers, whose impact on the public debate is less than insignificant, I’m afraid. Which is all good and proper, as the debate’s level of reasoning serves neither parties.

But I can’t for the life of me figure out how it’s possible to derail the overall issue to such an extent that it all boils down to a quarrel over what it is that actually defines a feminist. Do the Gucci feminists qualify, for one, and is their reluctance to embrace the feminist label acceptable at all?

These are the focal points of Norwegian bloggers’ debate on equal rights. Which, as you may have surmised, has taken me aback quite a bit – even if my interest in the subject is somewhat limited, to say the least. Even so I’m dumbfounded by how an inner circle of the blogosphere’s hoity toity toffs (incompatible and incomparable with those of the “real world”, as if blogs aren’t part of it) claim to be the bearers of the one single truth, shunning opposition in the most manipulative ways.

If I took a lesson from my two previous posts on feminism, the one recently published in Norwegian included, it’s that dissent from feminist consensus is met with accusations of childishness, prejudice, male chauvinism and similar condescending characteristics, from people labelling a little fun with feminism patronising — as if dismissing your opponents’ arguments as childish or sad isn’t (patronising).

But you know, such are the ways of the pack.

Bewildering inconsistencies

Women in charge of household routines, such as cooking, dishes, laundry, groceries and children are in general informed that they should rise against the oppression, whereas men assuming same responsibilities are met with cheers or an awkward silence, prompting me to ask:

• If cheered, because it’s time that olden days’ oppression of women is reversed, rather than balanced?
• If met with awkward silence, because continued oppression is recognised, but hey, at least the victim is the former oppressor (or a symbol thereof)?

I wouldn’t be so presumptuous as to claim that I possess the answers, but I do get a feeling that it could indeed be so, for want of an explanation to the absence of protested male oppression — unless, of course, such oppression is believed unexisting – or justified, perhaps.

In fact, contradictions stand in line. Equal pay for same work is – or ought to be – a given, but although many a modern-day suffragette demands it, she’d generally despise her spouse for not being the household’s chief or sole provider. It’s that ghastly old cake again. Eat or have? By which I do not imply that conditions should remain unchanged. It should be fairly obvious by now that I’m all for equal rights, but please bear in mind that it requires an end to that kind of habitual thinking, even among feminists.

As a fairly liberal man, brought up by old school standards, there’s no denying that I’m torn between habitual thinking and sheer reason myself. Certainly, growing up at a time when women were considered mere accessories, amid the dawn of women’s lib, with its infuriated, fearsome Amazons, marching Chinese Red Army-style, I’d be lying if I said their appearance didn’t scare me shit-less.

To this day that’s the kind of imagery the term “feminist” invokes. Being a man in the mid-forties, and a liberal one at that, it should come as no surprise that many of my peers – or older, of whom there are quite a few – associate feminists with these qualities, too. Yet, feminism has changed, or so they say. If so, why cling to the term at all? Surely, keeping middle-aged to old men (and women, for that matter) at bay, will only contribute to a delay of feminism’s ultimate goals. At least taking us aboard definitely wouldn’t hamper the process.

There’s a reason why I put up the picture (This is what a feminist looks like) on top here, you know. If most people did not associate feminists with bra burnings, uni-sex attires and raging furies — why spend so much time on explaining that it isn’t so? Explanations are unnecessary, I expect.

Another, yet weightier reason for replacing feminism with a better word, though, is its misleading implications. Perhaps I’d better go to the dictionaries for support:

fem – i – nine [fem-uh-nin]

-adjective

1. pertaining to a woman or girl: feminine beauty; feminine dress.
2. having qualities traditionally ascribed to women, as sensitivity or gentleness.
3. effeminate; womanish: a man with a feminine walk.
4. belonging to the female sex; female: feminine staff members.
5. Grammar. noting or pertaining to that one of the three genders of Latin, Greek, German, etc., or one of the two genders of French, Spanish, Hebrew, etc., having among its members most nouns referring to females, as well as other nouns, as Latin stella “star,” or German Zeit “time.”

Then we add an ism:

The suffix -ism denotes a distinctive system of beliefs, myth, doctrine or theory that guides a social movement, institution, class or group. For example, baptize (literally derived from “to dip”) becomes “baptism,” a distinctive system of cleansing in water to testify to the forgiveness of sins^[1]. It is taken from the Greek suffix -ismos, Latin -ismus, and Old French -isme, that forms nouns from verbal stems. Greek baptismos “immersion”, for example, is derived from baptizein, a Greek verb meaning “to immerse”. Its usage has since been extended to signify the ideology or philosophy surrounding the element to which the suffix is added.

— Wikipedia

Hang on… I thought feminism was all about equal rights for both sexes, but this just doesn’t add up, does it. Last week’s quarrel with the Norwegian feminist crowd was a bit of a revelation in that respect. Although all appear to approve of equal rights for both sexes, giving up a definition which blatantly favours only one seems something pretty close to impossible – maintaining that feminism has incorporated male rights over the years. Only problem is: It appears to have slipped under the radar. Just as troublesome however: Quite a few among us are bound to interpret definitions literally. Turning to the dictionary and to encycopledia we’re offered explanations leaving no doubt that feminism is all about women, which feminists may contest until their faces turn blue, but they’ll still be hard-pressed to prove the books wrong.

If clinging to a gravely misleading definition is of the utmost importance, you really can’t help but wondering, now can you…

Legal quota with consequences

Earlier this year Norwegian public limited companies were forced to ensure a 40 percent female board representation – or face legal implications imposed on them. Seeing as Norway’s population is made up by approximately 50 percent of each gender, 87 percent men employed versus 60 percent women, would imply that, with a 40 percent female boardroom – or management – representation, men are significantly less suited for responsibilities or much less competent.

If, however, that doesn’t hold true, the companies would yield drastically worsened earnings. The above conclusion could just as well be correct, however, leaving us no option but to crowd the boardrooms and the managerial offices with women. That goes without saying. Any recruiter hiring employees (or directors of boards) based on gender rather than capabilities, has proved her-/himself incompetent – period.

If at any time we all agree on that, that’s when feminism will have obliterated itself. Meanwhile, please find a better term – or face continued alienation by those who see feminism as a one-way struggle.

I should, of course, add that there are other aspects aplenty. We have structural issues, intolerable rape statistics, male and female students’ tendency to make traditional choices, the challenges posed by immigration from not-so-liberal cultures – and so forth and so on, but my access to research resources is limited. The above mentioned topics alone should however give plenty of cause for reflection.

In pointing out these things among Norwegian bloggers, I’ve succeeded, beyond my wildest imagination, in earning much aggravation and estrangement in the Norwegian blogosphere – a quest I set out to fulfil by other means, too, but holding up feminism’s shortcomings is always a winner. Some things should never be questioned.

F……….ism, you say?

I suppose you could say that.

Dear Senator McCain,

I’m sure you’re a fine man, in every sense. Maybe not president material, but in every way a trustworthy, honest, through and through decent man, in whom I in fact recently regained some faith (in Norwegian) when you tried to stagger your running-mate’s crazed stampede against Obama only [...]]]>

Dear Senator McCain,

I’m sure you’re a fine man, in every sense. Maybe not president material, but in every way a trustworthy, honest, through and through decent man, in whom I in fact recently regained some faith (in Norwegian) when you tried to stagger your running-mate’s crazed stampede against Obama only weeks ago. And that’s not all:

I’m also quite grateful that you seem to have taken a sustainable stand in environmental matters, unlike the president currently in office and, again, your running-mate Governor Palin. There’s not a doubt in my soul that, although you voted with president Bush in so many cases, you represent an altogether different view on foreign politics and America’s place in the global community. If there’s any truth to your promise that you’re not Bush, I’m confident that, in supporting him, you were only being loyal. A fine quality in an old soldier like yourself.

Having said that, I fail to see a clear vision behind your policies, unlike your opponent.

In short: If you come out of this victoriously, I promise I’ll eat my… Breakfast tomorrow.

May the best man win.

The Norwegian population said no to EU membership, not once, but twice; in the 1972 and the 1994 referendums. Why? Only years before the 1972 referendum it became clear that Norway’s economy was in for a major boost, facilitating unprescedented wealth for one of Europe’s up until then poorest nations. A wealth which definitely [...]]]>

The Norwegian population said no to EU membership, not once, but twice; in the 1972 and the 1994 referendums. Why? Only years before the 1972 referendum it became clear that Norway’s economy was in for a major boost, facilitating unprescedented wealth for one of Europe’s up until then poorest nations. A wealth which definitely had taken effect by 1994, at which point we turned down membership once more.

Even though we were stinking rich at the time, the debate revolved around this single issue: What’s in it for us? Of course it ought to be “How can we contribute for the European greater good,” but no. What we need to remember, is: This is Norway, strikingly characterised by playwright Henrik Ibsen in this very descriptive Peer Gynt quote:

Man, be thyself. Troll, to thyself be – enough.

There’s wide consensus that this statement in fact describes a very typical Norwegian trait: Egoism, which Ibsen himself criticised – by way of trolls. A trait very much alive even today, manifesting itself in our no to the European Union.

Now you turn us down

Keeping to yourself – and, by all means, keeping your wealth to yourself – is all just fine and dandy when things are going your way, but that just may not last for ever, which is what some have come to realise. We see it in Iceland, who, by the way, turned an EU membership down, too, is beginning to feel the credit crunch’s effect, only days after the nationalisation of its leading bank, Glitnir. According to Norwegian online daily VG Nett Icelandic trade unions have started talking of an EU membership as a means of support to Icelandic banks.

This in turn has lead the Norwegian European Movement to deem a renewed Norwegian application inevitable.

If so, please remember that we turned you down twice when you needed us. I suggest you do the same when we need you, which inevitably we will, once our oil and gas resources are out.

Serves us right.

As we all know, US president George W. Bush’s plead for a USD 700 billion bi-partisan bailout plan failed yesterday. Quite a few Republicans attribute the failure to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who, apparently, did not stick to the original transcript for the speech she gave prior to the [...]]]>

As we all know, US president George W. Bush’s plead for a USD 700 billion bi-partisan bailout plan failed yesterday. Quite a few Republicans attribute the failure to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who, apparently, did not stick to the original transcript for the speech she gave prior to the congressional vote. I think I’d better quote Politico on this one:

[…] But anyone who looked at the transcript of Pelosi’s speech released by her office might have been puzzled by the complaints.

The transcript seemed relatively tame - with only relatively mild shots at the Republicans in the text.

But a review of the video of Pelosi’s comments shows the speaker deviated substantially from her prepared remarks when she stepped into the well of the House at about 12:20 p.m. Monday afternoon – delivering a series of ad-libbed jabs at President Bush and his party.

Have a look at Speaker Pelosi’s transcript here (The New York Times), then compare with her actual speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3J8HpoDDJY

Nancy Pelosi, a seasoned Democratic politician, wasn’t born yesterday. I suspect there’s every reason to believe she knew the outcome of her speech. Which only goes to show that Politico may be right in speculating that she indeed did ad lib doom the deal.

The remaining question, however, is: What did she think she’d achieve by doing so? Pave the way for Barack Obama? Granted, John McCain did a serious slip-up, by prematurely taking credit for the deal, but if further inquiries (I expect there will be some) show that Democratic concern for the American economy means less than a Democratic victory, I fear she may only have accomplished quite the oposite.

As my esteemed reader and avid commenter Finne igen remarks:

[…] There will be strong US in the future but no longer the sole super power, just one of the powers in league with China, Russia and some others. It is funny that every few decades or so the so called free market system needs goverment intervention of some sorts for the simple reason: free markets don’t work. Totally free markets do not benefit us all, just the greediest players, and that is why there must be regulatory system of the markets. What is also funny now is that in the US the people do not understand that unlike 1930′s there will be no credit for no one. US goverment is on debt for thousands of billions so the goverment is almost bankcrupt.

I fear he may be all too right in that assumption. But they (i.e. the Americans) may not be the only ones. Norwegian experts maintain that the crisis may already have landed on our shores, too (in Norwegian), which should come as no surprise, really. Or put in other words (again): When America coughs, the world gets a cold.

When the very symbols of America and everything American – Chrysler, Ford and GM – need a USD 25 billion dollar federal rescue plan in order to survive… That’s when you know The Great Depression 2™ simply has to be just around the corner. I [...]]]>

When the very symbols of America and everything American – Chrysler, Ford and GM – need a USD 25 billion dollar federal rescue plan in order to survive… That’s when you know The Great Depression 2™ simply has to be just around the corner. I think we’d be well advised not to look at recent developments in the American economy as an American problem, as Wall Street (and the American economy as such) has a huge impact on just about any economy in the world. There’s a contradiction in there, if you think about it, as no country’s economy can be seen as a separate entity. We’re dealing with a vast organism, headed by the United States of America, whether we like it or not.

When America’s president George W. Bush pleads for congressional support for his USD 700 billion bailout, there’s every cause for the rest of us to pay attention. Actually, for the first time – as I recall – I feel a little sorry for the man. Did you ever see him so humble?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsDmPEeurfA

The main thing that I’m trying to put across here, however, is this: There’s no reason for the rest of us to feel high and mighty as the United States faces its worst economic crisis in a long, long time.

Remember the saying: When America coughs, the world gets a cold. And I fear this one’s going to be very hard to shake.

I wrote an article on the return of the cold war over at iNorden some time ago, even though the matter has had me worried for quite some time, really, and honestly, recent developments give plenty of cause for concern. In today’s New York Times there’s

I wrote an article on the return of the cold war over at iNorden some time ago, even though the matter has had me worried for quite some time, really, and honestly, recent developments give plenty of cause for concern. In today’s New York Times there’s a brief account on Russia’s deployment of warships in South American waters, we’re beginning to get an impression of what’s actually taking place:

The convoy – including the nuclear-powered guided missile cruiser Peter the Great and the anti-submarine ship Admiral Chabanenko – left the fleet’s base in Severomorsk bound for the Venezuelan coast, where the ships will take part in joint maneuvers with the Venezuelan Navy sometime in November, said Igor Dygalo, a Russian Navy spokesman.

And:

[...] Last week, two Russian Tu-160 strategic bombers flew to Venezuela for exercises over the Caribbean Sea, and a Russian delegation led by Igor I. Sechin, a deputy prime minister and chairman of the Russian oil company Rosneft, visited Caracas and Havana for talks on expanding economic ties. It was Mr. Sechin’s second visit to the region in less than two months.

If you mean to tell me that we haven’t seen the return of the cold war, I’m afraid you’ll find it difficult to persuade me.

[...] The decision to deploy Russian warships so close to the American coastline could also be linked to the Kremlin’s frustration over the presence of NATO and American naval vessels in the Black Sea, a region Moscow considers its sphere of influence. Earlier this month, an American naval ship delivered humanitarian aid to Georgia in one of the country’s Black Sea ports.

The Russians may well be right in claiming that this is nothing to do with the recent conflict with Georgia (and, therefore, with the West). If it does not, it only means that the Russians were about to build up military strength anyway, including a very harsh tone against the EU and, especialy, the USA.

Not sure if that’s more reassuring.

We’ve had Russian bombers and warships patroling just outisde Norwegian waters for the last year or so, and I have to tell you: Those of us who experienced the cold war up close aren’t too comfortable with current goings on.

It would seem that Norwegian media have picked up on the issue (in Norwegian), too. Being among Russia’s closest neighbours just isn’t very fun these days.

There’s no denying it: We tend to favour Barack Obama in these parts, or the Democrats, for that matter. Unfortunately we’re not allowed to cast our votes in the upcoming US election, even though some would argue that we really should be granted admittance, seeing as American politics affect us all.

However, there’s this [...]]]>

There’s no denying it: We tend to favour Barack Obama in these parts, or the Democrats, for that matter. Unfortunately we’re not allowed to cast our votes in the upcoming US election, even though some would argue that we really should be granted admittance, seeing as American politics affect us all.

However, there’s this thing that I just can’t seem to get my head around: Why is it that Europeans and Americans differ in so many political aspects? One would’ve thought we’d be a lot more alike, given the common cultural background, after all.

I won’t be so presumtuous as to expect American readers to visit, now that the blog is barely launched, but any thoughts at all are most welcome. Plese leave a comment.

It’s a bit ironic, wouldn’t you say, that the current American administration (through the Fed), champion of the free market and freedom of enterprise, just recently nationalised Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and, so far, AIG – a measure usually attributed to socialists like Hugo Chávez and the likes of him.

Still, you can’t blame [...]]]>

It’s a bit ironic, wouldn’t you say, that the current American administration (through the Fed), champion of the free market and freedom of enterprise, just recently nationalised Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and, so far, AIG – a measure usually attributed to socialists like Hugo Chávez and the likes of him.

Still, you can’t blame them for trying to avoid a collapse, which seems more and more inevitable day by day. And then, of course, there’s the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, just one day ahead of the AIG intervention. Norwegian banks and finance institutions saw a similar crisis some 15–20 years ago, culminating in a government takeover, prompting many conservatives to brand Norway a socialist state – for taking some of the steps now seen in America.

Needless to say, Chávez, whom the Lehman Brothers slammed for his economic, nationalising policy, is over-thrilled by recent developments:

“They were always producing negative reports about Venezuela,” Chavez told reporters. “They forgot about themselves … and ‘boom!’ they were bankrupt.”

— Reuters

I wouldn’t revel in the American recession, if I were him, or is he convinced that Venezuelan finances are invulnerable, unaffected by the American economy? Well I’ve got news for you, Mr. Chávez: This is most certainly going to affect us all, one way or the other, and it won’t be pretty.

Perhaps it’s time we pick up some of those good old tunes again (here performed by Bing Crosby)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eih67rlGNhU

Of course, that’d be overreacting, but these are difinitely scary times, and I’m afraid we haven’t seen nothing yet.

I overheard CNN anchor Adrian Finighan today, expressing concerns over the redundancies in Wall Street and London’s city. Certainly, there’s every cause for concern, but the financial centres constitute the tip of the iceberg, I’m afraid. What Finighan failed to take into the picture, is the vast amount of jobs at risk in industries depending on stock market and monetary prosperity, which more less amounts to every industry – or corporation therein.

Now that’s what I call depressing.