Tag Archives: politics

Here we go again…

Posted on by
Reply

So we’re 8 days in, and the new president in the world’s «leading democracy» has started his campaign to make his country great. Or great again, according to his slogan.

It’s true that the USA was one held up as an example to the rest of the free world, but now we seem to be better moving along without them. Or we should use them as a text book example of how NOT to do things.

First, you don’t make any country great by degrading at least half its population as secondary citizens. That goes for both women, LGBTQIA+ and immigrants. You can debate all you want immigrants’ rights to be there, but they are still human beings, and not all the other things Trump is calling them. (And, a friendly reminder that all of your ancestors were once immigrants, but that seems to have slipped your memory.)

As for women, we have the right to control our own bodies, and our own reproductive rights. The conservatives push (and victory in many states) for a total ban on abortions, are not going to eliminate abortions, but instead it will cause thousands of women to die from unsafe abortions and lack of proper healthcare. The same will follow with the re-enactment of the GAG-rule, in other parts of the world. Why is it that American conservative Christians dictate the healthcare given to women, both in their own country, and elsewhere? But we get it, it’s more important to be against abortion at all costs, than taking into consideration that you get blood on your hands through all the unnecessary deaths following from unsafe abortions, refusal of care, or total lack of care due to your policies.

Second, you don’t make a country great by bullying others to obey your petty wishes. I’m sorry, but you have again elected a president that behaves like a spoiled child, and who bullies and intimidates anyone standing in his way. It has nothing to do with the interest of Americans in general, it has to do with his ego.

Third, you don’t make your country great by denying climate change, pulling out of international agreements, and rolling back on the development of green technology and industries. Instead of seeing this as a threat, you should see it as new opportunities and new jobs.

Fourth, you don’t make your country great by removing the pages of the history books that don’t please you and your narrative. You could rather do with an update of your history books, and throw in some real geography at the same time.

Fifth, you don’t make your country great by increasing the social and economic differences. On the contrary, that’s a good recepie for social unrest and violence, but it is perhaps what the president wants? I mean, Marxist equality politics, or as we call it in Scandinavia and Europe, redistribution and well-fare, are really scary stuff! Not sure how we survive on the European side of the Atlantic, with our public funded educational system, public health care and so on.

Sixth, you don’t make your country great, or even make it look great, when your president throws a tantrum each time someone disagrees with him, whether it’s a journalist or a prime minister of another country or someone else. It actually makes it look like you’re run by an idiot.

Your president keeps saying «make America great again», but I don’t know how it’s going to work, both for the above mentioned facts, and then because America was never really that great. You don’t have to dive deep into history, to see all the injustice and bullying the USA has been doing over the years. Both within your own country, and abroad.

The only thing that can make the US great again, is that you elect responsible politicians at all levels, that are more interested in the well-fare of every citizen in your country, and not only interested in clinging to their power and generous pay-checks, actually paid for by the tax payers at the bottom of the hierarchy…

The reason I even bother to write this, is that, unfortunately, the US has too much influence on the global scene, which means US politics actually affects people outside the US. I also feel incredibly sorry for all Americans that didn’t vote for Trump, and I hope you will unite and fight back (with all means except violence!) and that you (and the rest of us) will manage to create a better world in the future.

Why are we so obsessed with other peoples’ choices?

Posted on by
Reply

Why would I poke my nose into someone’s personal choices, like if they want to have children, or not?

Because really, how does it affect me if my friend decides not to have children? As a matter of fact, it doesn’t! If that is what she or he wants, to be without children, it’s their choice. Many seem to think that choosing not to have children is a selfish choice, but isn’t it just as selfish to decide to reproduce your own genes?

More women than men are being questioned about why they decide not to have children, and we have to stop doing that. It’s a personal choice, their choice, and it’s got nothing to do with the rest of us. A woman without children is as much of a woman with children.

Stop saying to young women who say they don’t want kids, things like “Oh, you just wait and see, one day you will come around and want your own children”, or “life will be so empty without children”. Maybe your life will feel empty without (your) children, or maybe you always dreamt of being a parent. But we don’t all share the same dreams.

Even as a mother myself, I’m actually provoked each time I see/hear other women being questioned about why they don’t want children. Why is it that they have to explain or justify that choice? We never ask people to justify their choice of career, do we? So why is it so important to us to know why people, in particular women, chose not to have children?

I don’t have the answer to that question, but what I can say, is that I don’t see why it should be of any interest to me. It might be worth adding that some people really want kids, but they can’t have them, for various reasons. Insisting on asking them about when they are going to start a family or why they haven’t got children yet, is actually very disrespectful, and stir emotions better left alone at social gatherings. It’s not your right to know everything.

With the holiday season coming up, you might find yourself in company of people who has decided to live their lives differently than you. As they will probably never demand an explanation from you as to why you decided to have children, don’t demand an explanation from them either, because frankly speaking, they really don’t owe you one.

My life, my choice ❤
Photo: pixabay.com

What should we learn from the US elections?

Posted on by
Reply

I will leave to other analysts and journalists to dissect the American elections, and what we might expect from it. I would rather like to reflect a bit on what we on the other side of the Atlantic, who doesn’t like Trump and his counterparts, can do as to not end up in the same mess.

First of all, I think that a big part of the electorate on this side of the Atlantic as well, is fed up with status quo. No matter the politicians we elect, few things seem to change. One of the reasons might be that political parties that used to speak on behalf of the working class, no longer do that. Instead they have moved towards the centre or even to the right, in desperate attempts to win back voters who have moved towards the extremes over the past ten years or more.

One example is the Norwegian Labour party, whose economic politics now are hard to distinguish from the Conservatives. Most people with normal salaries have small benefits of their tax cuts, while the better fortunate end up with larger tax cuts. It doesn’t seem fair for most people.

Rich people makes lots of fuzz about the taxes they have to pay, and several Norwegian millionaires have fled the country in recent years, taking their money with them. My question is, why should the normal working class pay their taxes with a smile, contributing to the common health- and education system, among other things, when the most fortunate ones find every possible loop hole to avoid paying taxes, and then complain about every cent they “so generously” contribute? Until it gets unbearable for them… Poor rich people…

We see the same in other countries, where corporations and rich people seem to have priority over normal people. Politicians are worried about the level of national and international tests comparing the results of their students, while at the same time never allocating enough money to uphold good schools with good teachers. Our kids suffer from lack of resources, both economically and due to lack of staff. Absent teachers are not replaced, causing at times big delays in the courses. Our children are our future, it’s actually not just a fancy slogan. How are they going to proceed if they don’t even get a good basic education?

Who are going to take care of the elder population, if no-one in the end qualifies for medical and nursing studies? Or the next generations, if the quality of the teachers are in free fall? Who would even like to work in the public sector if the salaries are no longer sustainable?

The rich will always manage, as they can afford to send their children to private schools. But what about the rest? This is really the recipe for even bigger socio-economic differences.

The endless hunt for more profits and higher economic growth are going to kill us in more than one way. Moving all production to low-cost countries might have seemed as a good idea at one point, but it also took away lots of jobs, and with that people’s wages. If people don’t earn money, have can they consume anything? Those who really benefitted from this are the owners and shareholders of the multinationals. They are lining their pockets, while their employees barely make a minimum to survive. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. And the impression left with the masses, are that most politicians are in the pockets of the multinationals, in one way or another. People don’t care of the BNP is growing, if they can affort less with what they are paid.

There are vital institutions in our societies that should not be run for profit, and health and education are two of them. Since the late 1980’s and the 1990’s, when neo-liberalism really entered the public sector, hospitals are no longer just providing health-care, they are also supposed to make money. We saw some disastrous effects of this during the Covid-19 pandemic. Saturated hospitals, all over the world, resulting in lock-down of the whole world for months. The cost of this, in terms of both lives and money were horrendous. And I’m sure we would have managed better if we had not in all these years before, cut down on the number of hospital beds, and got rid of national stocks of basic medical supplies. In stead, the world as a whole, were dependent on supplies from China. As soon as the supply-chain broke down, because factories were closed and movement strictly restricted, we all got confined in our own homes.

All the applause, and all the big words spoken about health-personnel being on the frontline, with the people working in our supermarkets (one of the few things left open), about how valuable they are to the functioning of society, and still we pay them nickels and dimes. We keep rushing patients through the hospitals, because it’s not cost-effective to keep them there.

Maternity wards in smaller places in Norway are closed, because they are not cost-effective. And that is in one of the richest countries in the world. At the same time, Norwegian women are encouraged to have more children! Where’s the logic?

Universities have much suffered from the same changes in financing. It’s more important to push through a bigger number of students, than to assure good quality. The students comes under more pressure, at the same time as their financing is not keeping up with living-costs. The more they have to work in addition to being full-time students, the less time they actually have to prepare their courses. Less time to prepare, worse results.

If politicians see higher levels of education in the population as a means to counter future challenges, they should act on it, not just talk.

Because, as we all know, we have a lot of challenges ahead of us, with an ageing population and climate changes. Instead of giving us plenty of bullshit about how we are going to save the world if we recycle our waste at home and drive electric cars, they should put more pressure on the real big polluters to clean up their mess. I don’t say that we as individuals should not do anything, but what you and I do alone is not going to make much of a difference. When we say that we all need to pull together here, it actually includes the big corporations, who are reluctant to do major investments in cleaner technology, because it means less profit for them.

And cleaning up in our own neighbourhood is not enough. It changes nothing if European factories pollute less, if in the end it means that there are even more factories in Asia polluting even more. All because we have become addicted to our high consumption. We want a lot of stuff, and we want it cheap, cheaper and cheapest. And why do we want the cheapest? Because our salaries are getting less worth every year. Indirectly we are told by our governments that we are less valuable than the multinationals with their focus on constant economic growth. It’s more important to keep the rich both rich and happy, than to ensure a decent living-standard for the majority.

If you are serious about saving the planet, make sure that people can actually afford to care about the planet. Because when they can barely manage to make ends meet, it’s more tempting to vote for someone who promise them more value for the money, than anything else. For them, what do they care happens to the planet in ten to twenty years, when they are not able to put food on the table for their kids today?

Our politicians have to realise at some point, that we demand action on behalf of the normal and poor people now, not the rich and super-rich. That we, the average people, don’t care about the shareholders of multinationals, because they have enough money already to support themselves in this life, and probably the next twenty as well. We are fed up of being down-prioritised, of being neglected or fed fancy slogans that in the end means nothing at all.

Extreme-right wing parties say they stand with “the normal” people, which is why they are coming to power in several countries. I don’t buy their rhetoric, though, and I certainly don’t like their views on immigrants and other minorities. But lots of people do, and this should have been a wake-up call long ago for other politicians more moderate, both left and right, but specially to the left.

Those who used to represent the working class, have instead turned into an elite, that moves further and further away from their original base.

When they, and the moderate parties at the centre and right, start to put people over profit, the voters might come back. I advise that they give it a shot before it’s too late, and we find ourselves under the rule of neo-fascism all over Europe.

Act of “kindness” or simple misogyny?

Posted on by
Reply

I recently heard of a female professional, who had been removed from the decision making process on a project without her knowledge. She was removed, without being consulted, because her older, male colleague “knew she was busy with her baby”.

Excuse me, but what could he possibly know about her needs, unless he spoke with her first? I know that for some women, becoming a mum takes up all their time, and all they want to do is taking care of their baby. For others, going back to work is a free choice, something they really want and need, not just for the money, but for their own sake. They want, and need, to continue a life where they are not “mum” all the time. And unless they are asking for a reduced workload, who is to decide what is best for them?

Maybe this male professor thought he was being nice, but the truth is, he wasn’t. He was infantilizing his younger, female colleague, deciding in his own mind what was best for her. This is a very old fashioned way of thinking about professional life and motherhood at best, misogynistic at worst.

I have met men who thinks that women should be the primary caretaker of the children, and of the home. Well, I still haven’t seen any scientific proof that says that women are, by nature, better caretakers than men. It’s all about how we are raised, and the so-called values that society pass on from one generation to the next.

When I ask these men why women should be the primary caretaker regarding children, they don’t manage to present me with a good answer. It’s more like “it’s the way it is”, or “it’s the way it’s always been”.

Well, they might be right in the way that it’s been like this for a long time, but who decided in the first place that this should be the norm? Women have been working since the beginning, in the fields, in the mills, in the guest houses, later in the factories, the schools, the hospitals, and in the offices. In addition, most of them are also the main responsible for the childcare and housework. Yes, it’s a big burden to carry.

But instead of a man making decisions, once again, about what women need or want, they should ask themselves how both parties can have a career and a family life, without one getting burned out, or one having to cut down on work to manage family logistics.

It might come as a surprise to some men, but many women would also like to advance in their career, without sacrificing having a family, or without having to employ someone else to take care of their children and house.

There’s a lot of talk about the importance of the mother’s presence in the early years of a child’s life, but equally important is the presence of the father. Children need several role figures in their lives, they need to see that gender is not what defines a persons ability to take care of them. When we keep reproducing the old fashioned stereotype that women should be home with the children, while the father is working, things will never change.

As different families have different needs at different times in life, I do favour free choice. But what concerns me, is that most of the time, this “free choice” results in women reducing their work time, or quitting all together, while the man continues like nothing has changed. (Having children is a true gamechanger!) Or he might even have to work more to compensate for the increased expenses coming with having children.

Which brings me to another point, the fact that men are systematically better paid than women. If you can’t afford childcare, and one parent has to stay home with the kids, who’s it gonna be? The one that earns less is the obvious choice. You don’t need to go to Harvard or Oxford to get that.

But why is it that women is systematically less paid? Is it another old fashioned thought behind? Stemming from the days pay was related to physical strength? And then continued when women started to work in offices, but only unmarried women were employable? Because they were forced to quit when they married, as from then on their responsibilities would be to care for their husband, their children and their home. Unmarried women back then usually lived with their parents, and like that less expenses, justifying less pay.

Also of importance is the way work-life is organised. You don’t get kids to put them in other peoples care from 7 in the morning till 7-8 in the evening. That means you never really see your kids awake. The less flexible working hours, the less people can make free choices when organising their private life. The Nordic countries have done a lot to accommodate work-life to family life, while most other countries still require that family life is adapted to work-life. Which in reality gives a lot of people little choice on how to manage their family life.

Still, when both parents manage to hold a job, and juggle as best they can, how arrogant is it for a male colleague to decide that his female colleague should be excluded from important aspects of their common project? She didn’t make any mistakes, didn’t complain about her work-load, she didn’t miss any deadlines. In my opinion his decision can’t be explained rationally, or justified. I worry for every woman returning to work after having a baby, because they risk being cut loose simply because “they are busy with a baby”. I have read stories about women coming back to work after giving birth, to find that their job is not really existing any more. Which is a cruel way to exclude them from the work-place.

This “a woman’s true place is in the home”-mentality has to change. Not just for the sake of women, but also for the sake of men. All the things they miss out on, because they have to work, work and work. And so much talent is wasted because women are pushed out of work-life.

We need both women and men in the work-place, as well as at home. Male executives, STOP making decisions over our heads, we are totally capable of taking care of ourselves, and we are damned good at logistics. Instead, work with us to change old fashioned mindsets and outdated structures in public policies and work-place policies. Men will benefit from it as much as women. Trust me.

Bombs don’t make peace

Posted on by
Reply

We see it again and again, world leaders thinking, for some obscure reason, that bombs can make peace. Well, they don’t!

Did Putin get what he wanted when he launched his “quick invasion” of Ukraine? No! Instead the war is still dragging on, two and a half years later. Do Putin really think that he’s going to enter the history books as the leader who managed to restore the Russian empire? No, he’s going to to be listed as a man abusing his power, a leader crushing down all opposition among his fellow countrymen and -women, one who ignore human rights and who prosecute LGBTQIA+ people and whomever speaks against him. A leader that waged war on a neighbouring country without provocation.

In addition, Putin is every so often threatening to use nuclear weapons. What would happen if he do? It will only escalate the conflict further, and a peace treaty will no longer be possible. The retaliations against Russia would be severe. And again, he will certainly not appear in the history books as a great leader, but the one crazy man that pressed the red button.

Do the Israeli government lead by prime minister Nethanyahu create peace with their invasion of Gaza? And more resent their invasion and bombing of South Lebanon? Do Nethanyahu and his cabinet think that by killing tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza and Lebanon, in their hunt for Hamas, that they will obtain any kind of peace and security for the Israeli people any time soon? NO! All they do is escalating the conflict.

I strongly condemn the Hamas attack on Israel October 7, 2023, their killings and taking of hostages. I also strongly condemn the continuous attack on Gaza by the Israelis.

The only thing they are going to achieve by this war on the Palestinians, is creating more hate, more Palestinians turning against them, willing to sacrifice themselves for a free Palestine.

The Israelis continue to bomb hospitals and schools where people has taken up refuge, because their homes are destroyed, the refuge camps are not safe, in their hunt for Hamas. So far more than 41 500 Palestinians have died, the great majority civilians. In comparison, the Israeli has lost 1 706 people. I don’t like to compare numbers like this, but it shows the efficiency of the Israeli army compared to their opponent.

Now the situation is getting even more dangerous, as Iran is about to be involved as well. We are on the verge of a full scale war in the Middle-East, a war that is only going to create more hatred and conflict, and no peace.

The Israeli government, led by Nethanyahu, has given the green light for more illegal settlements. They are still pushing on Palestinian land, imposing restrictions on their movements, blocking supplies. And this was before the war started. What do they think they will accomplish? That the Palestinians would surrender and say, OK, you win, we move? As long as Israeli politics are formed and carried out in a way that threatens the existence of the Palestinian state, Israel will never be safe either. How hard is that to understand?

With all this said about the Israeli response to the October 7 attacks by Hamas, I don’t understand what the latter thought they would obtain either, except for severe retaliations by the Israelis. Did they think that Israel would “surrender” after the attack? What on earth were they thinking? In one way, we might say that it was Hamas that brought all the destructions on Gaza, on it’s own people. They knew for sure that Israel would react. How could they not? If my neighbour starts shooting at me, am I not forced to protect myself? How come Hamas launched this attack, fully aware of the possible retaliations? Hamas also knew that the population of Gaza has literally nowhere to go, nowhere where it’s safe. It is pure cowardice to use women and children as shields. The Palestinians suffered enough as it was, for Hamas to bring this war on them by their actions. Again, acts of war don’t make peace.

Unfortunately, as long as there are people on either side that has no interest in a peaceful solution, the situation will never be solved. We all thought peace between Palestine and Israel would become a reality after the signing of the Oslo Agreement in 1993 and the Oslo Agreement II in 1995. It was supposed to be a first step towards a peaceful co-existence between Palestine and Israel. There were people on both sides that were not happy with the outlines in these agreements, but negotiations were supposed to carry on. When the Likud party (Israel) won the elections in 1996, the agreement was put aside, and negotiations halted.

Since then the situation has become more severe, until this last devastating escalation. Peace has never been further away. I don’t know how the situation can be solved, neither in the Middle-East or in Ukraine, but one thing is for sure, bombs don’t make peace.

Image by Banksy

What can we learn from the American election?

Posted on by
Reply

Yes, I freely admit it. I was one of them who didn’t believe Trump would run off with the victory in this election. He was too much of a bully, a misogynist and not really consequent (except for criticizing Hillary to the detail). That there exist resistance against immigration in USA was neither shocking nor surprising. We have seen too much of the same in Europe the recent years.

Maybe the Americans are not ready for a female president yet? That was more surprising to me at first, but looking to whom she lost against, it’s a natural conclusion.

Because what is most shocking, is that one who evidently looks upon women as objects he can treat as he likes, one who is degrading women, invalids and immigrants to second rate people, still gets enough votes to embark on the position as the world’s most powerful president.

It is obvious that we are many who hasn’t understood what it is that is going on in the American population. Perhaps it is not so strange, because our impression of USA is shaped most of all by what (political) news that reach us, films and tv-series. They clearly tell us next to nothing about the average American everyday life of people in like the Mid-West. As a matter of fact we know hardly anything about the actual living conditions in the USA. Now and then we read about how people have two or three jobs to make ends meet, we read every so often about shootings and murders. But most of all are we fed with “happy” political news from the country where everything is supposedly possible, if you just dream hard enough about it, and films and tv-series where love conquers everything or where the hero always beats the bad guy. What we do know about USA is in other words very superficial.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be so overly surprised about the outcome of this election. At least not if we take a closer look to our “near surroundings”. If you dear take a dive into the comments section in the internet newspapers, you’ll soon realize it’s a rather “muddy business”. Females engaged in debate are told they should be gang raped and beaten the shit out of. And what they write about is not even controversial.

There’s a strong resent against immigration in the comment sections, to put it mildly. The view on women is shocking as we write 2016. I would have thought and hoped for, that these views were thrown out the window long time ago, but evidently we are many being proved wrong about this.

The day after, we clearly see that masses of voters, previously not mobilized, this time finally left their sofas to cast their vote. Masses of voters who long have found themselves overseen and neglected. This is something we should learn from, even in little Norway. Because even if the turnout of the election is higher in Norway than in USA, there’s still plenty of people out there who feels invisible and neglected by the establishment, and the despise against politicians is blooming as the apple trees in Norwegian gardens in May.

I do hope, that also the French political establishment, takes a lesson from this as we are soon to enter into the presidential election campaign here. Marine Le Penn was the first, French politician to congratulate Trump with his victory, honouring the American people for “taking their country back”. The contrast to the rather coldly congratulations from President Holland could not have been more clear.

Le Penn has renewed her inspiration in front of the 2017 elections, and I guess it’s needless to say that I fear she will rise to power.

The European political establishment has to put a finger in the ground, or better still, get grounded. They have to open their eyes and see what is actually going on out there in their own countries. They have to remove their well-polished shoes, and stroll around in the dust trod by normal people. They need to understand why the average man and woman is angry and frustrated.

There’s no use in hanging around in their empowered offices and corridors, fiddling with their ties and wonder about what went wrong. It’s no longer enough to make some visits to construction sites or factories, shake peoples’ hands and think you earned their vote.

Let the average man and woman scream out why they are angry and frustrated, and meet them wih constructive ideas in a language they get.

The rhetoric might be nasty for some time, but at least, words kill nobody.

It would be a shame if we didn’t take any lessons from the American election, but keep shutting our eyes and ears to what concerns most people. If we insist on continuing down that path, we risk ending up with political leaders (I hope at least) the majority of us would rather not see in office.