Headline News: the tiniest dictatorship in Europe falls

On the wikipedia homepage, the following headline item drew my eye: "The Channel Island Sark abolishes the last remaining feudal system in Europe. "

I laughed out loud several times while reading about this island. If we were any earlier in april I would strongly suspect an elaborate April Fools hoax, but this seems legitimate. Try finding the parts of the article referring to the "One Man Invasion" and "Clameur de Haro" for extra kicks. I used to think people living on small islands inevitably became crazy: I now know this for a fact!

Two sides to every story

I received a link from Tobias, a good friend despite his suspicious political affiliations (liberal, supports McCain in the US and Moderaterna in Sweden), perhaps because we share a passion for calling each other out for being the reason the world is an imperfect place, and sometimes rarely agreeing on certain things. A good argument can really raise your pulse and get you thinking - or can cause headache and loss of happiness - and sometimes all at once.



Our current disagreement revolves around the war on Iraq. I have gone from carefully optimistic to profoundly skeptical about the Iraqi war and have few illusions that anything good will happen to Iraq in the next 10 years or so. Tobias is more optimistic and points to current signs of improvement in the security situation. I know that skepticism for the future don't earn you points because something bad is ALWAYS likely to happen, I'm pretty sure that Iraq is currently too traumatised and fractured to pick itself up - in one piece at least.

Two articles, one sent in by Tobias and one by me, regarding the current strategy of US soldiers to create a new branch of security (Al Sahwa) mostly composed of Sunnis. The two perspectives are quite different, and I encourage you to read both; it's always a good idea to read an article you agree with and one you don't - you'll be more confused but probably a better person for it.

Perspective 1:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120787343563306609.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Perspective 2:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18722376/the_myth_of_the_surge/print

As long as it's a Democrat, I don't care

Obama or Clinton? is the question a lot of people have on their lips. The two candidates have been surrounded with large media attention due to their unusual demographics; woman vs African American. Both are underdogs, and are getting attention and support due to their underdog positions.

If either is better than the other is difficult for me to discern, mainly because during the campaigning session a lot of focus is on the progression of the votes in the primaries, and not on the facts about what the candidates represent. Or maybe I'm just too lazy to find out?

But honestly, I don't give a damn who wins. Both candidates have a good shot at the White House, and probably, neither will be a disaster of Bush-proportions. Because at this point, I'm mostly interested in getting that Republican fool out of office, and not having him replaced by another bloodthirsty Republican (fool or otherwise). I want a U.S. president that will heal the wounds caused by the Bush administration. I mean, the amount of goodwill the world had towards the US on account of 9-11 has been completely squandered.

I've often privately suggested that the entire world's population should be allowed to vote for the US president. But that just wouldn't be faire to the Republicans. So I guess it's up to the good people of US to do the right thing and elect the Democrat, Obama or Clinton!

Freedom of press: the right to oppress?

The controvery surrounding the publication and republication of pictures of the prophet Mohamed is typically the kind to induce heavy headaches. To me, it is a moral, political, religious and ethical grey area which dumbfounds. On the one hand, reading about the frightening surges of violent or dramatic protests rocking through the muslim countries make you curse out religious fanatics; on the other, you wonder what is achieved by pissing them off.

Because, have no doubt about it: while the initial publication may have been a desire to create a buzz and unintenionally led to a bizarrely overstated response, the republication of the pictures serves no additional purpose. Except of riling people up. It seems the Danish press had discovered a button labelled "Piss off muslims worldwide". While the creation of a debate may be a healthy alibi, the immediate consequence is that you portray your opposition as mindless fanatics and effectively alienate them all as a group. "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" indeed. The purpose, in my opinion, is to enforce the wave of xenophobia coursing through the country and isolate muslims, instead of encouraging a real conversation between the immigrant muslim minority and the Danish society.

I, for myself, am not that upset about the publications. I still believe in the freedom of the press, but I also wish that the press had higher ambitions than to create confrontation between two groups who already have some serious communication problems.