Possible spoiler below, if you haven't seen Heroes.
We watch a lot of TV, Mah Girl and I. Preferably in the DVD box form, and we have a bunch of them on our shelves. Today we finished Generation Kill, which we started yesterday. A miniseries of seven episodes about a unit of recon Marines during the second US invasion of Iraq, in 2003.
I like the miniseries format. I like knowing that the writer and producer and director have a set ending in mind while they're working, and that they know the path to that end from day one. I tire quickly of TV shows that go nowhere and seem to have no goal in sight (can you spell Lost?), though shows that just fade before a proper end comes along pisses me off even more. Carnivale is one example of that (though I haven't watched it yet, its on our shelf), Millennium another.
If I'd had my way, Heroes would have been a miniseries too, at least at this point when we've seen season one and two. If the show had ended at Kirby Plaza, with the explosion, I would have been a very happy camper. Few shows, especially American shows, have the guts to end in that way.
Back to Generation Kill. Excellent script, brilliant characters and good actors, including Alexander Skarsgård in top form. The show doesn't make a political statement about the US presence in Iraq, but instead highlights the futility of the actions of American soldiers as well as show the horrors of war. The indifference of most of the recon Marines in the face of death and suffering is horrendous to watch.
I myself actually see the point of war. I'm not saying I condone the invasion of Iraq, but there are times when armed conflict is unavoidable and indeed necessary. History are full of such examples. We might have all been speaking German today if someone hadn't decided to meet violence with violence.
Yes, there are crimes committed and innocents killed in war. That is horrible, and something none of us should accept. However, this should not make us blind to the fact that war is necessary. There are greater wrongs in this world that can only be corrected through the use of force. That is sad, but an undeniable fact.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Law and justice are not always the same. When they aren't, destroying the law may be the first step toward changing it
Our attorney general (I know, I know, it's the American term, but Minister of Justice sounds too much like something out of a totalitarian vision of the future) Beatrice Ask wants to use manacles with positioning capabilities to keep track of underage criminals. The Swedish criminal justice system is already using similar manacles for adult criminals.
Back when I was in college, I had a period when I was living at home and studying over the Internet at a college in Sundsvall. I had a number of get-togethers there with the class, and being a poor student and since the school was 520 kilometers away, I had to be creative in finding travel solutions. There was a local trucking company that had a route from my home town to Sundsvall, and I could ride along free of charge, if only the drivers approved. And they did. It's a lonely job, driving a big-rig during five hours in the middle of the night.
One of the drivers had been convicted of assault, beating up a guy when he was drunk, and since he had no priors he didn't go to prison. Instead he wore a manacle around his ankle that kept track of his movements. He was allowed to be at work and at home and drive his truck to Sundsvall and back. Nothing else.
To me, this is a superior form of punishment/treatment. The guy had an alcohol problem, which was treated with Antabus, he got counseling to deal with anger management issues that it seemed like he really didn't have, and then the manacle to make sure he didn't get into trouble.
And now Ask wants to put manacles on underage criminals too. Right on, I say. A combination of therapy and keeping them away from whatever friends etc that are a bad influence sounds like the right way to go.
Of course, there are people opposing this idea, and not surprisingly from the other end of the political spectrum. Former Attorney General Thomas Bodström said (paraphrased and translated) “Beatrice Ask must realize that a manacle is an alternative to prison, and we don't put children in prison.”
But that there is the point, isn't it? This isn't putting children in prison. They can still go to school or work or whatever. And yes, I realize that treatment is needed too, as well as attention from child protective services or something similar to sort out conditions in the home, but just going with treatment is too soft, to me. Prison can turn into a downward spiral into further criminal activities. Using a manacle may seem like the middle ground, something you go for when the others seem to extreme, to either side. To me, though, it sounds like a real solution to a real problem.
Or, you know, you can just go with an exploding collar.
Back when I was in college, I had a period when I was living at home and studying over the Internet at a college in Sundsvall. I had a number of get-togethers there with the class, and being a poor student and since the school was 520 kilometers away, I had to be creative in finding travel solutions. There was a local trucking company that had a route from my home town to Sundsvall, and I could ride along free of charge, if only the drivers approved. And they did. It's a lonely job, driving a big-rig during five hours in the middle of the night.
One of the drivers had been convicted of assault, beating up a guy when he was drunk, and since he had no priors he didn't go to prison. Instead he wore a manacle around his ankle that kept track of his movements. He was allowed to be at work and at home and drive his truck to Sundsvall and back. Nothing else.
To me, this is a superior form of punishment/treatment. The guy had an alcohol problem, which was treated with Antabus, he got counseling to deal with anger management issues that it seemed like he really didn't have, and then the manacle to make sure he didn't get into trouble.
And now Ask wants to put manacles on underage criminals too. Right on, I say. A combination of therapy and keeping them away from whatever friends etc that are a bad influence sounds like the right way to go.
Of course, there are people opposing this idea, and not surprisingly from the other end of the political spectrum. Former Attorney General Thomas Bodström said (paraphrased and translated) “Beatrice Ask must realize that a manacle is an alternative to prison, and we don't put children in prison.”
But that there is the point, isn't it? This isn't putting children in prison. They can still go to school or work or whatever. And yes, I realize that treatment is needed too, as well as attention from child protective services or something similar to sort out conditions in the home, but just going with treatment is too soft, to me. Prison can turn into a downward spiral into further criminal activities. Using a manacle may seem like the middle ground, something you go for when the others seem to extreme, to either side. To me, though, it sounds like a real solution to a real problem.
Or, you know, you can just go with an exploding collar.
Rutger wasn't sure the collar went with the color of his eyes
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried
They tell me tonight is an important night for Europe. They tell me how we cast our votes decides the future of Europe. This time, there may actually be some truth in that statement. Unfortunately, once again people prove they are morons.
My ambition when casting my vote has always to know where the parties stand on a few key issues, issues that are important to me. There have been times when I have considered myself fairly informed, and other times when I haven't known squat. This time, it was far more important who I didn't vote for than who I voted for.
There are forces at work today in Europe, forces that on many levels are the same as those that cast their shadow across the world in the 1930's and 40's. Right-wing extremism is an issue that makes file sharing look so insignificant it's almost ridiculous. Yes, I agree that there are privacy issues at stake, as well as the perceived freedom of the Internet, but making sure those swastika-toting, bottom-of-the-gene-pool-swimming motherfuckers don't get seats in the EU parliament is far more important.
Sweden seems to have understood that, though the jury is still out. Voters in other countries seem to have left their brains at home, though, when they went a-votin'. Denmark. The Netherlands. Have you learned nothing from history?
Economic difficulties and disenfranchised youth has been the breeding ground for violent fascist groups for a long time, and this time it appears it's no different. I for one despair if the Europe we're a part of will have political extremists and racists influencing our way forward. I can't see how anyone with half a brain would think otherwise.
Of course, I have to say something about them boys with parrots on their shoulders, eye patches and yo ho ho and a bottle of rum, me mateys. They're not my mateys, that's for sure. I agree with them on some issues, but as anyone that has had the time to discuss file sharing with me knows, I think illegal file sharing is a plague that needs to eradicated.
Now I'm watching preliminary results, and the Pirate Party has 7.4 percent. I fully believe that a lot of people voting for them know about the issues they stand for and can argue very well for them, but at the same time I believe a lot of people have voted for them just because they're too cheap to pay for music, movies, books. Thinking those things should be free for everyone and thinking the same amount and quality of said music, movies, books, would still exist, is extremely naïve to me.
Whatever. I've cast my vote and done my part for democracy. If I had some say in the matter, there would have been a lot more info more readily available on where the parties stood on the issues. And oh yeah, politicians wouldn't be two-faced liars either. Not holding my breath for that one.
My ambition when casting my vote has always to know where the parties stand on a few key issues, issues that are important to me. There have been times when I have considered myself fairly informed, and other times when I haven't known squat. This time, it was far more important who I didn't vote for than who I voted for.
There are forces at work today in Europe, forces that on many levels are the same as those that cast their shadow across the world in the 1930's and 40's. Right-wing extremism is an issue that makes file sharing look so insignificant it's almost ridiculous. Yes, I agree that there are privacy issues at stake, as well as the perceived freedom of the Internet, but making sure those swastika-toting, bottom-of-the-gene-pool-swimming motherfuckers don't get seats in the EU parliament is far more important.
Sweden seems to have understood that, though the jury is still out. Voters in other countries seem to have left their brains at home, though, when they went a-votin'. Denmark. The Netherlands. Have you learned nothing from history?
Economic difficulties and disenfranchised youth has been the breeding ground for violent fascist groups for a long time, and this time it appears it's no different. I for one despair if the Europe we're a part of will have political extremists and racists influencing our way forward. I can't see how anyone with half a brain would think otherwise.
Of course, I have to say something about them boys with parrots on their shoulders, eye patches and yo ho ho and a bottle of rum, me mateys. They're not my mateys, that's for sure. I agree with them on some issues, but as anyone that has had the time to discuss file sharing with me knows, I think illegal file sharing is a plague that needs to eradicated.
Now I'm watching preliminary results, and the Pirate Party has 7.4 percent. I fully believe that a lot of people voting for them know about the issues they stand for and can argue very well for them, but at the same time I believe a lot of people have voted for them just because they're too cheap to pay for music, movies, books. Thinking those things should be free for everyone and thinking the same amount and quality of said music, movies, books, would still exist, is extremely naïve to me.
Whatever. I've cast my vote and done my part for democracy. If I had some say in the matter, there would have been a lot more info more readily available on where the parties stood on the issues. And oh yeah, politicians wouldn't be two-faced liars either. Not holding my breath for that one.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
A riot is a spontaneous outburst. A war is subject to advance planning
The last couple of years, Salem to the south of Stockholm has become a battlefield on the weekend closest to December 9th. Right-wing extremists hold a parade to commemorate the death of a 17-year old skinhead who has become something of a martyr to neo-Nazis, and left-wing extremists go there to throw rocks.
I'm not even going to go into a discussion about politics, other than stating that all kinds of extremists are morons. It's a level playing field as far as I'm concerned. Right-wing, left-wing, doesn't matter. Morons, all of them.
Unfortunately, the freedom of assembly gives the neo-Nazis the right to march, regardless of what you think of their politics. However, as Salem politicians pointed out in a column in DN, the march leads to violence and a massive police action which in turn leads to disruptions in the everyday lives of Salem's citizens.
The question: should the safeguarding of freedom for some lead to the infringement on the freedom of others?
My answer is a firm “no”. No ifs or buts. Neither Nazis nor leftist extremists should get permission to march under these circumstances. Under any circumstances where the end result is something close to open war on our streets.
A few years back a leading politician on the left side of the political spectrum (which isn't really a spectrum, but more of a circle where the ends don't quite meet) encouraged the left-wing extremists to stay away from Salem during the weekend of the march, to avoid confrontation with the police and thus giving the march less exposure in the media. He was called a traitor, and people went anyway. Sounded like a good idea to me, but evidently they were too keen on putting on ski masks and throwing rocks at what they perceive as fascist police. Morons.
I'm not even going to go into a discussion about politics, other than stating that all kinds of extremists are morons. It's a level playing field as far as I'm concerned. Right-wing, left-wing, doesn't matter. Morons, all of them.
Unfortunately, the freedom of assembly gives the neo-Nazis the right to march, regardless of what you think of their politics. However, as Salem politicians pointed out in a column in DN, the march leads to violence and a massive police action which in turn leads to disruptions in the everyday lives of Salem's citizens.
The question: should the safeguarding of freedom for some lead to the infringement on the freedom of others?
My answer is a firm “no”. No ifs or buts. Neither Nazis nor leftist extremists should get permission to march under these circumstances. Under any circumstances where the end result is something close to open war on our streets.
A few years back a leading politician on the left side of the political spectrum (which isn't really a spectrum, but more of a circle where the ends don't quite meet) encouraged the left-wing extremists to stay away from Salem during the weekend of the march, to avoid confrontation with the police and thus giving the march less exposure in the media. He was called a traitor, and people went anyway. Sounded like a good idea to me, but evidently they were too keen on putting on ski masks and throwing rocks at what they perceive as fascist police. Morons.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter
ege wrote a killer post the day before the US election, which touched on a lot of thoughts and opinions I've gone through over the years. Consider me inspired.
I don't know a lot about the political process in the US, but I do know that I was hoping Obama would win. Why? For me it was simple. He's at least talking about moving troops out of Iraq (even though some people seem to think he'll just shift the troops around to Afghanistan, keeping up the same level of US military presence in the Middle East), and he didn't have a total nutcase as his Vice President candidate.
The main thing that caught my attention in the post has nothing to do with Obama or the US election in general though. It was one sentence:
“There are stupid people everywhere. Most people, in fact, are pretty fucking dumb.”
Yes. Yes, exactly. Most people, not some people, are fucking dumb. I stand by that. Sometimes I am “most people”. But usually, at least, I know what I don't know.
Like the Euro referendum in 2003. I left a blank vote. Why? Because I didn't consider myself fit to make that decision. I couldn't even make an educated guess as to where a yes or a no would take us, cause I don't know squat about national or international economy. So I voted blank.
Then came the confirmation that most people are stupid. I asked four people about why they voted as they did in the referendum. Only one could tell me why. One! Three out of four could not tell me. The lesson here is that people vote with their gut and hearts, not their brains. This is a mistake.
I believe that in order to vote, on anything, you need information. You need to take the time, and make the effort, to know what the issue at stake is, otherwise you shouldn't vote. Stay at home. Your gut has shit for brains (to quote Rob Gordon from High Fidelity), and should not be allowed near any decision-making process other than when and what your next meal should be. On the same note, your heart should also stay away from political decisions. Way away.
Here's something that usually gets people going: I believe there should be a minimum knowledge level required to vote. You should be able to answer ten, fifteen, maybe twenty questions about the issues at stake in whatever election you're about to vote in, to be allowed to vote.
I know some people think this would not be democracy. I don't care. If the majority don't have the time or the inclination to get some info on the issues they vote for, the majority shouldn't be able to decide. Very simple.
And by the way. The headline of today's post is a quote from Winston Churchill.
I don't know a lot about the political process in the US, but I do know that I was hoping Obama would win. Why? For me it was simple. He's at least talking about moving troops out of Iraq (even though some people seem to think he'll just shift the troops around to Afghanistan, keeping up the same level of US military presence in the Middle East), and he didn't have a total nutcase as his Vice President candidate.
Comedian on the left. Psychopathic hockey mom on the right.
The main thing that caught my attention in the post has nothing to do with Obama or the US election in general though. It was one sentence:
“There are stupid people everywhere. Most people, in fact, are pretty fucking dumb.”
Yes. Yes, exactly. Most people, not some people, are fucking dumb. I stand by that. Sometimes I am “most people”. But usually, at least, I know what I don't know.
Like the Euro referendum in 2003. I left a blank vote. Why? Because I didn't consider myself fit to make that decision. I couldn't even make an educated guess as to where a yes or a no would take us, cause I don't know squat about national or international economy. So I voted blank.
Then came the confirmation that most people are stupid. I asked four people about why they voted as they did in the referendum. Only one could tell me why. One! Three out of four could not tell me. The lesson here is that people vote with their gut and hearts, not their brains. This is a mistake.
I believe that in order to vote, on anything, you need information. You need to take the time, and make the effort, to know what the issue at stake is, otherwise you shouldn't vote. Stay at home. Your gut has shit for brains (to quote Rob Gordon from High Fidelity), and should not be allowed near any decision-making process other than when and what your next meal should be. On the same note, your heart should also stay away from political decisions. Way away.
Here's something that usually gets people going: I believe there should be a minimum knowledge level required to vote. You should be able to answer ten, fifteen, maybe twenty questions about the issues at stake in whatever election you're about to vote in, to be allowed to vote.
I know some people think this would not be democracy. I don't care. If the majority don't have the time or the inclination to get some info on the issues they vote for, the majority shouldn't be able to decide. Very simple.
And by the way. The headline of today's post is a quote from Winston Churchill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)