Weather update

Right now the outside temperature is 22° Centigrades below zero. Calculating in the chill effect of the current wind speed at 4.1 meters per second means the temperature you actually feel is 31.5° C below zero.

Ever wondered where Dante got inspiration for his description of the innermost and most terrible Ninth Circle of Hell? Just come visit!

Happy New Year!

At least, that is what we all wish for. Isn't it? But are we going to get it? Hopefully yes, but realistically?

Right now I would be very happy, or at least grateful, if someone could wake up Mother Natures bloody janitor and tell him to fix the bloody thermostat! It is 17° C below zero out there, and quite frankly, it's not that warm and cosy in here either.

I was supposed to go out today, get some fresh air. Even do a bit of target shooting. In this temperature? Who do you think you're kidding? Not me. No way. Target shooting involves exposing at least part of your body, the face and fingers at a minimum, to the elements. I'd rather keep both my nose and fingers thank you.

So I've spent the day as I have spent most of the Holidays. Indoors, watching old movies and listening to music. Most of the music are rather old as well. Not quite as old as me, but even so. Rather old. And I see the truth in the old saying, they don't make 'em like that any more.

Right now I'm listening to Deep Purples "Concerto for group and orchestra" from 1969. Rock music with a full orchestra can, to be honest, be a bit vulgar. But this is really good. Admittedly, John Lord must have been bonkers when he wrote the piece, not to mention Malcolm Arnold as well agreeing to conduct it. But they pulled it off quite nicely if you ask me. It should perhaps also be noted that it took all most thirty year before they got the recognition they really deserved.

Now as far as movies go I've just finished Terry Gilliam's "Brazil" from 1985. I have seen it several times before, but it never ceases to draw me in. There is something about the story, inspired by George Orwells great novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four". A novel Gilliam is said to not have read, but even so he is quoted saying that "Brazil is the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984". The actors are brilliant. And Gilliam? Well, he is also at his absolute best.

"Citizen Kane" by Orson Welles was on this mornings program, and even though the film bears strong evidence of the time it was made, it is still both thought provocative and entertaining.

I also watched "V for Vendetta" last night, and I must say, that even if not quite true to Alan Moores original story, it was to quite fascinating. As was Natalie Portman. And the finale? Seeing both V's and Guy Fawkes post mortem revenge come through and the Parliament blown up was absolutely priceless!

Now, what has all this movie and music stuff to do with 2010? Nothing at all I suspect.

But anyway, may this year be just a little less rotten to us all than last year.

Now, can somebody turn on the heating again?

What prize?

On December 10th Barack Obama, the US President, will receive the Nobel Peace Prize in a ceremony held in Oslo, Norway. Obviously a great honour, and one of the most prestigious prizes that can be awarded to any politician or activist. The question is, does he deserve it?

First of all. The nomination process. The nomination had to be in before February 1st . If we assume that the nomination made the deadline by the smallest possible margin, Mr. Obama had been in office for no more than 11 days. As far as I know there was no major events instigated by, or announcements made by, Mr. Obama, in the span of those 11 days that can, by any standard, be considered of such importance that they deserve any prize at all. He hadn't even gotten around to getting a dog. Something every US President must have.

It must therefore be assumed that the nomination was for achievements by Mr. Obama before the nomination. But what achievements? So far I have found absolutely no source that can point me to anything that Mr. Obama has said or done before he was nominated that bears any relevance what so ever to the Nobel Peace Prize. In all fairness his association with U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar had some bearing on the subject, but Peace Prize level achievements?

Since there are no achievements in Mr. Obamas past as of the date of nomination, it must therefore be assumed that they would happen in the future. The nominators, and the committee must be clairvoyant. Being able to see great achievements for Mr. Obama in the future.

The problem is that there is nowhere in the Nobel Charter any mention of expected future achievements or contributions. The chairman of the Nobel Committee Mr. Jagland says the committee was particularly impressed by a speech given by Mr. Obama in June in Cairo. Excuse me, but isn't that months after he was nominated?

And the rest of the track record? Bailing out the US car industry? Failing to dismantle the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay as promised? The Health Insurance Reform? 30,000 more soldiers for Afghanistan? Nothing here as far as I can see.

So what do we end up with really? A man of colour becoming the first US President. A great achievement in itself. No doubt. And he's still alive. Also impressive. Considering all the nut cases that would rather see him dead. Let's hope it stays that way.

But there's hardly anything here worth a Nobel Peace Prize. So we end up with something completely different don't we? A political prize. After eight disastrous years with Bush in The Oval Office there is hope. And hope is a good thing. Only time will show if Mr. Obama will deliver.

Being the cynic I'm not overly optimistic.

It is the opium of the people.

I'll try to avoid becoming overly philosophical in my ramblings. But as the observant reader may have noticed. Politics and religion, and maybe even more so, the politics of religion or visa versa, do tend to interest me. Religion influence politics and politics influence religion. Almost no major multilateral, bilateral or unilateral conflict in the last two millennia have been without a religious element of some sort.

Very early in my life I came to the conclusion that a supreme being was impossible. I will not argue that position here, but just conclude that the evidence in favour of such a being in my opinion is completely and irrevocably denied. There are no gods. But even so, the gods play a major role in our lives. And the God of the Abrahamic religions are playing first violin it seems. But there is an obvious disharmonious note here. All though Muslims, Jews and Christians basically believe in the same deity, they have been at each others throats for as long as they have been around. They have even fought, and continue to fight, amongst themselves. What's wrong with these people?

The simple answer, preferred by among other, the Marxists, by their own definition, materialists, and thus not influenced or biased by religious views, is that it is all all a cover for very materialistic motives. For a time I bought that. Hook, line and sinker. And became a Marxist myself. Until finally I realised that Marxism is a religion just like the rest. Their deities being Marx, Lenin, Mao and such. And their writings the doctrines by which all actions are ruled. And wars fought, other beliefs suppressed and people oppressed. No difference really. Only the semantics are different.

But the Marxists do have a point. Only on very rare occasions have conflicts been purely religious. There have always been an element of materialism involved. Wars have been fought for territory, influence, markets, resources and so on. More often than not justified by religion. The two major Abrahamic religions, Christendom and Islam, both have the duty to spread their religion embedded in their scriptures and beliefs. And spread they have. To the point that now half the worlds population are defined as either Christian or Muslim. But the spread has not happened peacefully. Most of it is a result of conquest and the subsequent oppression of the conquered people. Either you convert to our religion or you die. Not much of a choice?

Is it that simple? Just follow the money, and the reasons and motives for a conflict will be easily recognised? I'm afraid it's not. Just think about it. If going to war was just a way of getting to resources you would otherwise not have access to, or have to pay a premium price for. Why then force your religious beliefs and your culture on the conquered? How does this add up to the economic motives? It would have been much easier to let the conquered believe whatever they like as long as they stay conquered. So, is there something more to this?

Afghanistan is a prime example. They have absolutely nothing that anyone might want. Except trouble. No one have ever conquered Afghanistan. Many have tried. Genghis Kahn had moderate success, but mainly because he was just passing through. After him, no invader has managed to gain control. As long as Afghanistan was considered the “Gateway to the Orient” one could understand the attempts. But after the invention of satellite communication and intercontinental flights? Why not leave them alone? Admittedly there might be natural resources that could be exploited. Natural gas for one. And both iron and copper ore. But to get to that you would need the Afghans to stop shooting at you. And that is very unlikely to happen. In fact, the probability of that is virtually nil. Unless you kill every Afghan that is. And that could prove difficult since they seem a persistent lot. So why bother?

The war on terror. After 9/11 there was some evidence indicating that those responsible for the atrocities were hiding in Afghanistan, and that they were protected by the Taliban regime. So operation “Enduring Freedom” was launched to oust the Taliban regime, and to capture Osama Bin Laden and his cronies. Seven years down the road the Taliban might not be in government any more, but is stronger than ever, having expanded into Pakistan and other neighbouring countries. Fighting the coalition forces for every rock. And gaining popular support. And Bin Laden is still at large.

Bringing democracy to Afghanistan. At the barrel of a gun? What kind of democracy would that be? And did the Afghans ask for democracy? The simple fact is that they have no concept of democracy. Afghanistan is a feudal country. Ruled by tribal law and governed by local warlords. The central government has never been strong, and the puppet regime of Hamid Karzai can only remain in office as long as there is a strong, foreign military presence backing him. The moment he's left to fend for himself, he's toast. There is nothing that even remotely looks like democratic institutions in place. The last election was a mockery of a democratic process. And, when the already rigged outcome was threatened, the elections was just cancelled. And the cancellation sanctioned by the UN.

Humanitarian aid to a suffering people. With a country that has been ravaged by war for centuries that could be sorely needed. But when aid comes at the price the Afghans have to pay, I have a feeling they would have politely declined if they had ever been asked. But does the aid help? Are the Afghans better off than before the invasion in 2001? Well, some are. Corruption is part of the fabric of society in Afghanistan. And since the invasion there have been something worth paying for. So enterprising individuals can acquire goods, and make good money, by lubricating the system with a small fee. And the common Afghan in need? He or she must pay more than ever for the bare necessities, while the rich get richer.

And what about the cost? Aside from the obvious humanitarian cost there is also an enormous financial cost. The US alone is estimated to spend more than USD 900 billion on their war efforts in 2010. Almost half of that in Afghanistan. The rest of the coalition forces spends an even sum as well. Divided between a population of about 28 million that is more than fifty times the annual GDP per capita in Afghanistan this year. Slap half of that money on the table and every Afghan would be rich!

So what is it all for? This is where I'm afraid the less rationale aspects of politics and religion comes to play. During the last couple of decades there has been a shift in what used to be the axis of conflict from east-west to north-south. This has brought us, the North, in conflict with them, the South. Or more precisely, the predominantly Christian north has been brought into conflict with the predominantly Muslim south. Again. An age old conflict brought to surface. It all started with the Romans of course. They were an expansive lot, but had no interest in meddling with local religion. So when they occupied Palestine they let the Jews carry on as normal, as long as they kept relatively quiet. When they didn't, they were made to pay for it. The Romans crushed the Bar Kochba revolt and literally banned the Jews from their holiest city. A ban that stayed in effect for almost 600 years. During which time Rome had become Christened, and the seat of power had moved from the heights of Capitol to beautiful Byzantium. It all ended of course when Jerusalem was conquered by the Muslims and included in the Islamic Caliphate. Since the Jews had helped take the city, they again were made to pay when the Crusaders took the city some 300 years later. And massacred every Muslim and Jew they could lay their hands on. Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb, better known to us as just Saladin, took the city back from the Crusaders in 1187, and let both Muslims and Jews resettle in the city. And so the story goes on until modern day, the proclamation of the state of Israel, and the Arab–Israeli War in 1948. And on and on and on...

But what, if anything, you ask, has this to do with Afghanistan? Let us examine this a bit closer. Remember the Marxist thesis that there is an economic motivation behind all conflict? Then you should ask that question in regards to nearly two Millennia of fighting over Jerusalem. What possible economic incentive could justify this? Absolutely none I'm afraid. The cost both economically and in terms of human sacrifice far exceeds any profit made. Sure, the crusaders brought home riches. And the Caliphates controlled trade and made profit from that. But war is the most costly business of all. So there has to be something else. Something more.

Jerusalem is not just a city. Jerusalem is an idea. A symbol. A symbol of belief for all the three Abrahamic religions. Whoever controls Jerusalem has proven that their religion is the strongest. The state of Israel is a thorn in the side of all Muslims. Because the Jews are blocking their access to some of their holiest sites. And the state of Israel would not be possible if not for the support both politically and economically by the US. Strike against the US and you strike against Israel. Hurt the US and you hurt Israel. The motivation for the attacks on 9/11 are deeply rooted in this conflict. And herein lies also the Afghan connection. After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in late 1989, Afghanistan was a mess. The Taliban signalled the return to law and order, and in 1996 took control of the country. A radical Sunni Islamic movement, the Taliban as such is not driven by economic motives, but by faith. They have the strictest interpretation of Sharia law ever seen in the Muslim world. To Muslim extremists all over the world this was signalling a new beginning. A new Caliphate. And they flocked to Kabul in droves. And they were welcomed. And in this atmosphere the expansion of the Caliphate was planned. They realised of course that they could never beat the US on their own. No matter how crazy you are you will understand that the US can not be beaten by a bunch of Jihadists with AKs and the odd RPG. The US can only be beaten if it is isolated to its own territory. And they can only be isolated like that if both their allies and their enemies turn against them. And if the US is isolated, then Jerusalem will fall. Now the logic of terror is applied.

The war is to be fought on two fronts. On the one, take the war to the enemy. Strike him where it hurts most and gets most media coverage. On the second, make your enemy come to you. It will cost him dearly. And the strategy has worked. By attacking civilian targets both in the US and Europe indiscriminately they create an atmosphere of fear and hatred. Since those responsible for the attacks are Muslims, the Muslims are blamed. This in turn results in Muslims in the US and Europe being attacked by extremists. And then we have a spiral effect. Young Muslims are recruited to Jihad. More and more people are suspicious or directly hostile towards Muslims. By luring the enemy to come to them they have them exactly where they want them. Mired down in an endless guerilla warfare that they can never win. And it costs billions! There is no need for sophisticated weaponry to beat the enemy. A few rifles, RPGs and IEDs it all it takes. And time. And with a perspective of eternity, the Jihadists have all the time in the world.

So the fight for Afghanistan is the fight for Jerusalem. Bin Laden is right when he calls the coalition forces the “new crusaders”. And that is also why he and his likes gets popular support for their Jihad.

So is there any end to this madness? Not as long as there are religions I'm afraid. The founder of Marxism, Karl Marx himself may have expressed this best.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

And political and religious leaders, whatever their motives may be, keep feeding their people the drug. And the world is at war. Over and over again.

One flew over the cuckoos nest

In Switzerland, you know the place with cuckoo clocks and cheese with holes in, a somewhat strange political issue has come to surface. The Swiss being a somewhat peculiar lot, this might not strike you as odd. But this is about minarets. Some wants to ban them.

You are probably aware that a minaret is the Muslim equivalent of a bell tower. In stead of bells calling the worshippers to prayer the minaret is used by the muezzin to call out the adhan, calling the faithful to prayer. These days high tech has made its way even to the Mosque, and the muezzin is spared the ardous task of climbing the minaret. He instead does his calling via a microphone and loudspeaker from the comfort of the prayer room. Five times a day.

As a staunch non-believer in anything metaphysic this calling to worship and prayer is the same to me. It is noise. Unwanted noise. It does not matter the persuasion of the callers. Be they Christians or Muslims, Buddhists or Hindi. They make noise.

I do however believe in the freedom of thought. Even those thoughts I strongly disagree with. And since I realize that silencing the bells of the Christian churches would be a violation of their right to worship, the same goes for Muslims and anyone else of course. So I endure the noise.

The Swiss opposition against minaret building argues that they are a symbol of "Islamisation" and has no place in the "Swiss democracy". Yeah right! Remember that "democracy" in Switzerland is strictly limited to "Schweitzerbürger" and that to become one you have to have a well filled purse. And since 22% of the population are "Ausländers" and not included in the "democracy" their "democracy" might not be all that democratic? Did anyone say "bigots"?

As for "Islamisation" of the western society this only means that the world is getting smaller. People are for various reasons becoming more mobile, and they bring their culture and beliefs with them when they move. There is nothing wrong in that. The fear is irrational and rooted in the fear of the unknown. Walk into a Mosque or a Church and you will be welcomed as a friend. Get to know your neighbour. You might even learn something of value.

If they could just keep the noise down. A solution for both Christians and Muslims would be to take the technical revolution one step further. These days everyone has a mobile phone. Text messaging services could be used to remind the worshippers to come to prayer, and the need for bell towers and minarets would seize to exist. And it would have been totally voluntary! Subscribe to the service, you get the reminder. You could even subscribe to several services. Just to be on the safe side in your superstition.

The Swizz would need no ban on particular architectonical structures, and the rest of us would have been spared the incessant chiming and calling.

Have a nice weekend, and may your God go with you!

I prefer to walk alone.

And now, for something completely different...

Or may be not.

I had an appointment with my physician today. The good doctor was very pleased with my progress, both in respect to my weight loss, and the lab results. My glucoses level is doing fine, my blood pressure and cholesterol level is still a bit high but not alarmingly so. Nothing a few more pills can't deal with. I hope.

Actually, my diabetes is not what's bothering me most these days. My left arm is acting up again. Causing me considerable pain and discomfort. To get help with this I see a chiropractor. He has helped me with the same problem before with good result. But when I saw him this time he seemed a bit worried. Obviously not quite sure what to make of the pain and the strange manifestations of near paralysis that his various manipulations resulted in. So today I had an X-ray of my neck. Maybe the pictures will show more of what the heck is going on, and hopefully how to fix this. Because the pain is killing me! Think of it as toothache in half your back and all down to your wrist.

One other thing that bothers me, or more precisely, never seizes to amaze me, is how some people manage to be unable to grasp the simple fact that when you beat them at their own game, they should gracefully accept it and not make a total fool of themselves. Do they have no dignity? What I'm talking about is an exchange of opinions I have had on a discussion forum somewhere else in cyberspace. The person in question first manages to demonstrate to the whole world that he has absolutely no clue whatsoever on the subject. Even so he wants everyone to dance to his tune. Because he is some hotshot. When I gently point out the simple facts to him using his own standard rhetoric from other debates he starts attacking me personally, obviously out of arguments. Then, when he gets no support, he tells everybody he feels "unwanted" and will leave the forum. Just to return to get the last word. And this is a grown man and trusted official in a worldwide sports organisation? Pathetic!

Pathetic is not be the right word to describe the unbelievable events in the Philippines this weekend. Appalling, disgusting, despicable and frightening might be more precise. What is the world coming to? I can understand, but not necessarily condone, those who fight, and subsequently kills, for a belief. Religious or political does not matter. At least they have a cause that can be identified. But this? This is beyond comprehension.

Small update

Some of the links had gone dead since I last checked them. I think they are all live and well now, but if you find any that does not work, please let me know.