The Fall of the English Empire

On the same weekend that we have had the celebrations for the 65th anniversary for the D Day landing and the European parliamentary elections.
Approaching this weekend the English media has been reporting about the events leading to D Day and the army campaign that followed until the final capitulation of the Nazi forces in Berlin. Parallel to this BBC had a short report about the rise of the extreme right, especially in eastern Europe and Germany. There was however no reports about the rise of extreme right views in the UK. It seems that the media and the established political parties have judged the silent treatment as the best prevention against among others the British National Party.
This treatment seems to failed dramatically with the resent election of 2 BNP representatives to the European Parliament. The BNP is a party that does not allow other ethnicities then Caucasian whites as members and that regards mixed ethnic relationships reason for exclusion of their party.
I can’t help but think that we are missing the historical perspective. Which is sad, especially on the anniversary of “the beginning to end” of a regime that was built on the book Mein Kampf. A book that the founder of the BNP John Tyndall referred to as “his bible”.
The UK today has many things in common with 1930’s Germany.
We have a population that has lost all belief in its parliamentary system. The recent Expenses Scandal was in my view the straw (a log is maybe more appropriate) that broke the back. The voters in the UK a disenfranchised with their politicians. The first past the post system in the UK causes the smaller parties in the UK not to be represented in the parliament and the only three voices we hear are Labour, The Tories and the Liberal democrats. The people elected seem to be from an upper class an very much out of touch with the general population.
Secondly there is a Labour government who had promised so much and delivered so little. I think its safe to say that when Tony Blair was elected people expected that things would change. That this was new Labour and new politics. That the NHS should become one of the best in the world and that the education system was going to recover from years of Tory government. This was hoped would raise the living standards of the average UK resident. In this the labour government seems to have failed. And with the credit crunch this has only become only more evident.
The voters that wanted change and expected it from Labour have been disappointed and their disappointment has turned them against Europe and worse turned some of them to vote for parties that are un-repentantly racists. As in Germany the hardest hit by the crisis start looking elsewhere for their solutions.
So how does Gordon get out of this?
As I wrote the now former minister for Europe Caroline Flint, as I see it there is only one solution.
Gordon needs to make reforming the English electoral system a priority. In this way he will be taking the first steps in creating a clear and visible change, one that a large part of the population has been wanting for a while and that would give a voice to those who haven’t been heard for a long time.
But wont this give BNP the same kind of speaking space that Hitler got from the Reichstag? Probably yes. But facisme and bigotry is not silenced by silence. Facisme and bigotry are conquered by the very fundamentals of our democracy, namely dialogue and well formed arguments.
I fear that a failure to address these issues will cause that a country that once prided itself of its freedoms to be known in the future for being represented by the BNP.

Revival for newspapers?

Just a short input today.
What do you think about banning paper advertising, the kind that would get in your mailbox and that you basicly throw out immediately? What if free news papers had to pay a fee for littering?
The obvious winners in this would be news papers that you have to pay for, which today are in a sorry state. Newspapers are the foundation of journalisme and yes they may have to move into a more digitised era, but I still enjoy picking up a low tech newspaper once and a while reading it on the plane or on the go, run into subjects that I would never otherwise have heard about and make nice paper hats.

The other winner would be the ressources saved on these wasteful pamflets that fill up our mailboxes.

Would the ban on pamphlets screw small businesses or would it help make local news media grow. (Imagine your own little neighborhood paper or website)

What do you think?

So what happens to you when you are dead...

It seems that these last weeks have been about religion belief and god. I talked to a couple of colleagues at work about this. One a believer, the other an ex-believer now militant atheist. Along this I read the excellent book by Gitta Sereny "Into That Darkness, From Mercy Killings to Mass Murder", about the governor of Treblinka extermination camp Franz Strandl. In this book Sereny also highlights some of the Vatican questionable actions.
As most of you will know I am most definitely an atheist, but that doesn’t mean that I don't try to understand religions or peoples need for answers or meaning in life.
On of the questions that I ask my self is what do you say to a person who has just lost a loved one? How do you justify it? How do you make them feel better? A lot of religions create a (I think false, but that’s my opinion) security for people, by stating that people are going to a better place and that you will see them again.
But what does one say from an atheist point of view, how do you create comfort without relying on better places, harps and so on?

I would love to hear your opinion. Here is mine:
The person that has just left you lives on in you and other people. Their influences, their actions, their words remain in the mind of the people that met with them.
Personally I try to listen to the learning and experiences of the people who are around me, both those who are alive and those who sadly has passed away. The one at the foremost of my mind when it comes to people who have since passed on is my maternal grandfather who died when I was 10.
His humble upbringing on a farm in Alsace, his experiences in the second WW, and his fight from under educated young man to sales director of the company he worked with most of his life, his generosity when it came to his grandchildren, his rather stubborn view on my mother’s upbringing. All this are both lessons that I should remember where I came from, that my family have been refugees (although for a short time), that there a good and bad ways to treat your children and etc.
In short that just the influence of him, of course one can argue that I pick and choose. But the fact remains that he inspires me and other people that he met. That some of the lessons he taught me, are in re-interpreted in my actions and therefore transmitted to others. He lives on in my actions.
So if you have recently lost someone, please take comfort in the fact that for some people the person you have just lost, meant something to them, taught them something. Even young children who tragically lose their life before it has even begun. Realise that, that child even in its short life time, probably inspired others to cherish their children even more, then before they passed on.
So what this mean to me? Well it means that I try to help the people that I come in contact with. That I make sure to smile as much as I can, all because I know that all that will remain of me when I go one day, is the memories of those moments.

P.S. Thank you Paolo Conte who always inspires and supplies the perfect music to write the above...

Europe must stand together....

Again my good american friends Dea and Masca have sent me an article from the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/opinion/13sat2.html?th&emc=th

And this my answer:

Yes absolutely true. But European unity is more likely then American authority. (Yes of course it had to rime)
I think this is a bit of short term thinking. Russians do have the power right now because of their resources, but in the long term this is another gain for the alternative energy block. Just as in the 70's when the oil producing countries kept putting prices up, the Europeans will put even more resources into becoming even more independent from Oil. This is some of the explanation that we are not as much in the shit right now as the US.

I love it when American media writes about how Europe must stand together. For the last 8 years yes Europe has shown weaknesses in the union, but they have also shown that they unlike the Bush administration try to play by the rule book.
I think it is fair to say that the state of democracy is in far better shape on the east side of the Atlantic, then in its modern day birth-place. Democracy is not easy as good old Churchill all made us aware of, and it does allow for criticism and divergent opinions.
My answer to this article, yes Europe has to stand together and find a way to negotiate with Russia (instead of heading over the Bering straight and going to war with them (right Mrs. Palin?)). In the meanwhile if America could sweep up the pieces of glass and fix the window that they smashed when they through out the rulebook on sovereign states and your right to invade them, us Europeans will take care of our business.

Please leave a comment - But mostly about Al Gore

So is this going to be Jan's contribution to a discussion on global warming...
Well I will have to disappoint and say no, not today, I haven't even seen an inconvenient truth (my mistake I know).
No what I want to launch on this page is the speculations on who Obama is going to choose as his potential Vice-president. Why do you ask? Well the other day I was watching Al Gore do a speech on the environment. Except it didn't sound like his usual ranting about the environment (admirable as it may be), this time he was launching a vision on how he thought the United States could pull itself out of the energy crisis. It involved a whole host of renewable solutions that especially my friends at Vestas will enjoy.
While watching this it hit me...Al Gore as Vice President? Before you say that this is ludicrous, let me present my points why...and then I'll shoot myself down afterwards...
Gore has the experience that Obama doesn’t.
Gore was the guy who actually won the presidency, but lost in court. A lot of Americans that I talk to find this incredibly shameful and may give Al some additional votes. (I can pretty much guarantee you that the districts that got cheated in Florida will turn up…)
Gore is from the south. Yes he did lose his own state in the elections, but I don’t see that many other Southern candidates. ( I think Edwards is too young and I think Richardson is too Mexican).
A lot of American’s miss Bill and when they can’t have his wife, maybe his VP will suffice…

So what is countering my arguments? I talked it over with my friends Caroline and Gene who are what I would call my Washington insiders (don’t know if they would agree).
They argued that being VP is too restrictive for Al and that he will rather be an envoy instead of be the head of a global organisation. Gene and Caroline have met Al, so they know him a lot better than I do, but what if Obama actually did the same as Bush did (oh my good please no…I can hear you thinking, but bear with me)?
So what the ape boy do that we can use. Well he has (or was forced to, I think more likely) let the Vice president have an influential role in his administration.
No one can deny that Dick has been among the most powerful VP’s in the history of the presidency.
Could Obama do the same? I mean the mess that the future American president face is daunting and extra experienced hands may be a good thing to have.

So what do you think Al as Obama’s pal…

P.S. Elke’s friend Reinhard told me that people who I know were actually reading my blog. I had no idea. Actually I have no idea who visits my site. So if you enjoy it and come by often or just once, please leave a little note as it motivates me a lot…

Deteriation of the European Middle Class?

I recently read an article that I got from a friend in the US (thank you Masca).

This is my response to it:

Well I guess that the simplistic answer would be thank you America…

So what do I think?

Well I think we are dealing with several factors.

1. All of the countries described in the article are countries that have failed to create a flexible and a higher educated workforce. If you look at what happened in the grandparents generation, most of that generation gained access to education and new work possibilities. And then the governments thought they had solved the problem, until former third world countries (read southeast asia) caught up with the level of education. On top of that those countries aren’t bogged down by rules such as the 35 hour work week and the impossibility of firing people (France and Germany). These factors have created none flexible workforces who are forced to stay in jobs that are disappearing or that they are not productive in (read they are bored…) My personal opinion is that Germany would have dealt with it had they not had to integrate Eastern Germany and carry the burden of the European union on their shoulders. In Frances case, it’s a blend of belief that they have the right system (some would call it arrogance) and that the top of the country really don’t give a shit. The Italian leaders? They really think that Italy can survive on selling the Italian way of life. And of they don’t give a katso either . I don’t know about Spain, but I think they are suffering because ironically their economy has now gotten so strong that the wages in Spain have gone up so they are losing their status of being the low cost production site of Europe. In short all of these countries need to relax labor laws, while at the same time providing social security and free education (yes the bill is steep). Or just wait it out till Chinese wages catch up with European one (which will take much shorter time then you think).

2. People have gotten used to other standards, the middle class now has 2 cars? (see article) What happened to people pilling on the bus, or driving your spouse to work and so on. Beyond this there is all the other stuff a normal family should have, television in every room, each child there own room and so fourth. Yes cost of fuel has gone up, but that’s because demand has gone up. Cost of food, is now, thanks to bio diesel, linked to fuel cost, which leads us back to the two cars. Second generation bio diesel is still far away, so I guess we will have to do it the Brazilian way and rely on the sugar (which is making all of us fat any way (which again raises fuel costs), so lets BURN it.

3. Thankfully people are generally eating better, more diverse and they want to eat things out of season, strawberries in January? This also increases the costs.

But yes going into Iraq has basicly hit the whole western world, so thank you George and please do sprint to the finish. I’ll give you a prize if you quit before July….

Where are the issues?

One of my rituals when I take a plane is going to the news stand and pick up Newsweek and if I'm in for a long flight the Economist. On my latest flight I dug into a Newsweek report on the Obama - Hillary battle that included a ten page collection of articles written by women on who they supported and why. It was interesting reading, some of the accounts being very personal tales of overcoming the same obstacles that both candidates have faced on their way to the forefront of the democrat party elections. When I finished reading I sat back and realised that not one of the articles had mentioned what the political programs of either of the candidates were. It was all about race, sex and experience. I started looking at other reports from the campaign and the trend was the same.
So why does this trouble me?
I understand that this election represents a breakthrough in womens possibilities as states"men" and that a minority candidate generates hope for the many in the minority communities. But I think that this categorisation of people and being for an against them because of their sex or race is at the heart of the problem.
The fixation on who the people are, instead of what their policies will be, reduces the electoral process to the election of caricatures.
If anybody thinks that this is a very American tendency, I can tell you that having followed the preseidential elections in Paris the trend was much the same between mr. Sarkozy and mme. Royale.
I wonder why journalists are satisfied to reduce their articles and stories to these caricatures. Is it easier to write about, are we the public so none discriminative or is it because the politicians have so little to say these days, that the only meat on the story are these caricatures?