Phlegma weblog

Trumpets Call

The Wall seperating Israel and Palestine is a problem which may cause a prolonging of an allready bloody conflict. With this post I urge all peace loving activists out there to protest against this wall - using means which are well known in both jew and christian mythology: Use trumpets to fight the Wall.

Make this a non-violent protest against the wall. Make sure that every day there are protesters with trumpets playing. Show the world, the Israelis and the Palestines that we don't want another Berlin, South Africa or Korea.

Join in this cause - and send this post around. This way we can all make a difference.

A presidential stike of genious

In a suprise move, Russian president Vladimir Putin dismissed the russian government less than three weeks before the presidential election, where he no doubt will be reelected as the russian head of state. This shows that mr Putin are eager to go on with the work - even though the government has to resign after an election.

Even though I think that mr. Putin is somewhat strict and rash in his politics, I admire this move. It shows strength and guts. A real presidential strike of genious.

A danger to what?

Just read that Junior claimed that the Democrats are a danger to America. Not bad, considering that he himself is a danger to the whole world. Junior wins!

Suicide bombers

What makes a man - or a woman - strap 20 kilos of explosives to his body and go on a public bus, and detonate the bomb? Why is this action logical for the ones doing it? Because it has to be logical. If not, suicide bombings would be rare. But they're not.

If you sacrifice your life for a cause, you'll have to be convinced that your action will have benefits that are greater than the life you're giving away. And you have very grim prospects if killing yourself and a dozen civilians is a greater benefit than being alive.

This should tell us all something about the situation in the Middle East. If we are to stop this ring of violence, we'll have to make sure that the benefits of being alive and building a peaceful life is greater than the alternative today. This would need Israel backing down, the US supporting both sides in this conflict - and making both Israelis and Palestinians see that they not only have to live side by side - they can profit from it as well.

Poker at the roulett table

Ralph Nader spoiled Al Gores campain four years ago - allthough with a little help from the Bush clan. Now he seeks to spoil another democratic candidates hope for election - and at the same time destroying the worlds hope of a Bush free Washington. (NYTimes)

Why on Earth would Nader run as an independent candidate? As an independent presidential candidate, he has no chance whatsoever to win the election - and the votes he'll get will mostly be from people who otherwise would vote for the democratic candidat (i.e. John Kerry). We can only hope that Junior will destroy enough of himself that the democrats will win even with Nader spoiling Kerrys ticket.

Now I have to say that I'm not a democrat - not in the US way anyway. But opposed to Junior and Seniors henchmen, any democrat would be better for the world.

But Nader has a point when he argues his case for running. Nader said he wanted to challenge what he called the "two-party duopoly" in American politics in which both the Democrats and the Republicans are "ferociously competing to see who's going to go to the White House and take orders from their corporate paymasters." (ibid)

"Washington is now corporate-occupied territory," he added. "There is now a for-sale sign on most agencies and departments." This is a vital discussion. But when you see what is at stake in this election, Nader is playing poker when all others are playing russian roulett. It is a gamble we all could lose.

Me

If anyone wonders who's writing this colomn, here's your answer. This is me, on a trainride at 0430 am - doing an article about the early commuters. They start their day hours before I even start dreaming about leaving my bed. But not this day.

I sat there with my camera, my pad and two very tired eyes. The commuters sat there with their lattes, brownies and a very jolly laughter. At 0430 am.

Back

I've been off line for a couple of weeks. Now I'm back - and I will be commenting as usual from now on. I hope that this will please both my readers.

Life on Mars? Most definetly

Lately there have been some discussion whether there is life on Mars. This picture gives the definitive answer.

The Ramblings of a Madman?

Just read the transcript of an interview with George W. Bush. And it's a scary read. First of all it seems that we're heading for war between the US and Iran and North Korea:

...lessons learned that we can apply to both Iran and North Korea because we still have a dangerous world.

(Meet the Press)

And he names himself as what he is - a war mongerer - though in more words:

I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind.

Junior looking for war:

And this is all in the context of war, and the more we learn about, you know, what took place in the past, the more we are going to be able to better prepare for future attacks.

But has to admitt that the basis of the war in Iraq wasn't well founded:

Russert: The night you took the country to war, March 17th, you said this: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

President Bush: Right.

Russert: That apparently is not the case.

President Bush: Correct.

Speaking of himself again is he?

I don't think America can stand by and hope for the best from a madman, and I believe it is essential I believe it is essential that when we see a threat, we deal with those threats before they become imminent. It's too late if they become imminent. It's too late in this new kind of war, and so that's why I made the decision I made.

Read the whole transcript. It'll give you the quotes in it's real context. But I have to say that the unelected president of the US is scaring me. He claims that he wants to make the world a better place. He's not.

The case for Violence

Violence has always been a political way for the ruling class to force its will on someone who don't agree to their suprimity. But at the same time it has been a way for the ruled to stand up to their «masters». Ever since we were but ideas of human beings this has been the case for social structures. But in smaller and less complex societies this is so clear that noone hardly thinks of it. In more complex social structures this is not so obvious.

In the modern societies violence have become the means for the underprivileged to revolt. Not because it will lead to anything, but at least they feel that they are making a stand against their oppressors.

The radical left wings of Europe (read Rote Arme Fraction and similar), the basques, the palestinians, the tsjetjenians, the nationalist freedom movements all over the world and the ismalists all tend to use violence to promote their view. They don't get any sympathy because of it, so why are they doing it?

The Americans were in shock after 9/11. And rightly shocked, because it was an gastly action. But as an outsider I think it is odd to see how Americans fail to understand why many in this world hate them, and turn to violence against them.

In many parts of the world US lead forces have intervened into smaller conflicts and made them into real blood baths. During the 20th century the US have sent military forces to other countries at least 66 times. The Country is in sharp opposition to any country with different agendas than them. The US fails to ratify international agreements if the treaty is somewhat negative towards the US. And the US naturally attracts hostillity on acount of their dominant position in the international community.

After the fall of the Berlin wall and the break up of the Soviet union Francis Fukuyama aksed if this was the end of history and the total victory of liberal democracy. Since then we've seen a revelation of extremist violence throughout the world. Organisations such as al-Quida gain the support of extremists, and use this influence to maim civilians - not because these are a legal enemy - but because such an atrocious act cause fear and shock.

The only way to combat political violence is to hold on to the political and democratic freedom that the political violence is directed against. And the West fails misirably in this. The Patriot Act is used to limit personal freedom. The prisoners at Guantanamo Bay is held without a most basic legal rights. And this list could go on for quite some time.

I detest the use of political violence. But at the same time I see where it is coming from. And we need politicians who understands this if we are ever going to beat the use of political violence. When the Bush and Blair administrations fails to see this, I'm scared. Because their actions not only ensuers that the use of political violence will continue. It also ensures that the violent extremists organisations will have a lot of recruting potential. So «The War on Terrorism» can only be won if we act with compassion towards the ones who want to disrupt our societies.

A great man once said that you should turn the other cheek. This is not only a good thought for a religion, it is an idea that the war on terror should be based upon.