I am normally not a big fan of Berlusconi but this one time I think he might be onto something :D

Ronald comes running into the living room and shouts:

- Mommy, mommy grandma gave Harold a new baseball bat and I didn't get one.
* But Ronald, Harald got it for spending all weekend helping her clean out her basement. You didn't want to help.
- It is boring! I wanted to play the Wii and not drag dirty, ugly stuff around.
* Well grandma gave Harld the baseball bat because he worked hard all weekend. You can't expect to get one too when you don't help. I am
sure though that Ronald will let you play with it too.
- That is unfair! I want one too. If I don't get one, he shouldn't have one either! Take it away from him, take it away from him!!

Childish huh? Or is it unfair that Ronald didn't get one?

I had written a long entry about how left winged American polititcs are actually to the right of Norwegian right winged politics when looking at the political landscape as a whole. I had added in some harsh words and judgements about certain parties but I have become so horribly politically polite that I don't feel like posting it.

I need to go and work on my political impoliteness but until then I just want to say one thing as tonight's Democratic election could decide who will be their candidate.

"Go Hillary"!

It is becoming clearer and clearer to me that being a politician is not an easy job. Think about it! They have the difficult task of trying to do what is the best for their country as a whole and in the long run while at the same time they need to maintain people's confidence. How do you keep people's confidence? By being populist and acting to their whims. In other words, these two things often clash.



Next time you react to a case in the media, ask yourself few questions and keep few things in mind:

• What is the big picture here? Does solving it one way cause bigger problems later? What kind of effects will this have later?
• Everything costs money and money doesn't grow on trees. Would you be willing to pay double tax few years down the road to get this sorted out? Would you be willing to have no pension when you are old because the consequences of this cost a lot of money? Or will you just complain about that too?
• Do you feel good about yourself because of the opinions you have? Could it be that you are polishing your own ego by thinking that you are a better person than the politician? Remember that sitting and judging is always easier than actually running a country.

I have fallen into all these traps many times. I just sit there and judge thinking I am much better than the rest. From now on I am gonna try to ignore the media cases or at least always think about the underlying problem before starting to shout.

Last entry I wrote might have been misunderstood by some people and in a way I deliberately left it a bit open ended to get people thinking.

I would first like to clarify that I am making no assumptions about the accuracy of the statement the little boy made. I just brought it up because it was the case that got me thinking about this, and I decided to make it a hypothetical example since I had it at hand.

The point I am trying to make is that it should not be a complete taboo to point out problems even if it might involve something sensitive such as a minority of some sort. Keep in mind though that with this comes responsibility! We shouldn't just make inaccurate statements to try to blacken and spread hatred about other people. It should, however, be possible to say that maybe something is a problem and start an investigation to verify its truth. If you are wrong, then you should apologize and make sure it is known that you were wrong.

Lets make an example case here. What if we had a group of immigrant kids from Iceland which were causing a lot trouble in a Norwegian school. They are repeatedly beating up the other kids and harassing them. One of the Norwegian parents becomes aware of the situation and goes to the school authorities and says is straight out that the Icelandic kids are beating and harassing the other kids. The school authorities investigate and find out that this is true. There is really a gang of Icelandic kids which are terrorizing their school mates.

Would it be prejudiced to say that the Icelandic immigrants kids are causing problems? In my opinion no, but I can imagine that there might be people that start shouting out that this is prejudiced or even racist. Ignoring the problem will only spread more hatred towards the Icelandic kids. A hatred that could potentially last generations. I see the solution being open about the problem and addressing it as soon as possible.

Why am I writing about this? Because I feel like I live in a society where people constantly get called prejudiced or racists because of the wrong reasons and it is only causing more problems. Those two words are extremely powerful and some people have learned to use them as weapons to defend themselves from taking responsibility for their actions or to make themselves look superior. The only thing that it accomplishes is hatred, and something that is more serious, hidden hatred which is much more difficult to uproot from society.

This is not to say that you can openly go out and say whatever. Looking back at my example, it would for example be wrong to say that “All Icelandic kids beat up and harass their school mates”. It should however be perfectly fine to say that “The Icelandic kids at that school beat up and harass their school mates”. In that case it would be the truth and when did it become wrong to tell the truth?

Few of the blogs I read regularly have brought up the subject of prejudice lately in one form or another. That combined with a continuous discussion in the media got me thinking. It is a difficult subject and has many aspects to it which are going to be impossible to cover in one blog entry. Let me try to make one point here that I have thought about a lot. Here is a little thinking exercise.



Try to imagine:

It is Norway's national day. A parent is watching their kid in a parade and a TV reporter walks up to the parent and starts asking few questions. One of the questions is the following: “Almost half of the kids in you kid's school are immigrants. Do you see it having any cultural effects on your kid's school”. The parent answers: "Yes, there is a lot of fighting because of that".



If you were watching this on TV, what would your reaction be? Shocked? Would you say that the parent was prejudiced against foreigners? Maybe even a racist?



Now lets imagine something else:

Lets say it was not the parent that got asked but a little boy in his school's parade. He answers the same way. "Yes, there is a lot of fighting because of that".



What is your reaction to that? Still maybe a little shocked by the boys bluntness? I doubt that you would call a little innocent boy a racist. After all kids are just being honest and don't have the filter we start imposing on ourselves as we grow older? Or?



The latter case with the little boy is actually the true case and was shown on national TV on Norway's national day. My reaction was a little surprise and then I just brushed it off as a little boy being innocent and honest. Only later did I realize that I would have reacted differently if this had been the parent.



Whether what the little boy said is true or not I have no knowledge of and don't wish to make any guesses. That is not the issue I am trying to point out here but rather how differently we tend to react. Lets just make this an hypothetical example and say that the little boy was telling the truth. Why would it all of a sudden be such a bad, prejudiced thing to say if said by a grown-up? Shouldn't you still be able to state a fact even if it doesn't necessarily paint the prettiest picture of something.



Can anyone tell me how we are ever going to solve any problems if we aren't even allowed to say out loud that something is a problem?

Let me tell you a little story.



One day when Jennifer Smith, a 14 year old girl, was on her way to school she was hit in the head and abducted. She was brought to a brothel, kept there as a prisoner, and forced to sell her body. Jennifer put up a fight to try to protect her dignity but it only resulted in the owner of the brothel beating her, sexually torturing her, and drugging her so her body could be sold and used by the customers of the brothel. She was a prisoner in the brothel for six year and was beaten every single day.



Thankfully, miracles can happen and when Jennifer is 20 years old a man named John Wilson visits the brothel. John answers Jennifer's pleas to rescue her and after getting her out of the brothel they end up falling in love with each other and get married. Finally, Jennifer is free and life is looking bright for her...



I want to give you a little thinking exercise (and feel free to use the comment section if you want). Try to put yourself into the shoes of the following people. How would you have reacted when meeting Jennifer first time after her escape?

• If you were Jennifer Smith's parent?
• If you were the police/court?
• If you were John Wilson's family?

A follow-up to this post will be posted in the next few days.

My feeling that the world is in reverse gear is intensifying every day. After seeing few cartoons causing a major uproar in the world I am becoming more and more aware how we are moving backward. It is scaring me!



Few cases I have picked up or been told about in the last two days.



Higher Ground Academy (kindergarten) in Minnesota has been forced into banning drawings of living creatures. So no more stick figure drawings of the family on the refrigerator?



South Dakota has passed law which bans abortion (also including in the cases of incest and rape).



40% of UK Muslims' want Sharia Law laws.



Added to this is the entire controversy surrounding the cartoons and how we are being pressed into making laws against criticizing or mocking Islam (or religion in general). We have the whole conflict in USA schools where people don't want evolution to be thought but rather something that fits better with the Bible. We have seen the Catholic church go out and lie that condoms have holes and that is why they shouldn't be used to protect against AIDS.



These few cases are obviously just the tip of the iceberg. What I do have a hard time understanding is how can we be this ignorant in a world that is getting increasingly more open and educated? Especially because these cases are all from the supposedly educated Western world. This is not the same as the Malawi widow cleansing practice where the people simply don't know any better since they live in a harsh world with limited opportunities.

There is one character trait that I truly despise. I am not talking about the obvious ones that would make you a criminal but something that many people don't seem to mind. I am talking about hypocrisy. This is something that I notice all the time in people and it always makes me loose respect for them.



As Wikipedia describes it, hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practice. In other words having double standards. I really strive to not be a hypocrite myself but when I see how often people tend to say one thing and then do another I sometimes get afraid that maybe I do this myself without noticing. I hereby beg you to point out to me if you catch me having double standards!



One of the most common form of hypocrisy is people that bitch about people that are bitching about other people but are at the same time doing exactly the same. How about admitting the fact that we all do it at least occasionally and stop worrying about it (and claiming that we never do)?



I am usually pretty quick to catch on when people contradict themselves (unfortunately, it is rarely possible to say anything). I however wasn't very quick to catch on to all the hypocrisy surrounding the Mohammad cartoons. It seems like most people that are heavily involved have one set of rules for themselves and another set for others. An example: The Norwegian, Christian newspaper that posted the cartoons had previously been fighting for blasphemy rules in Norway to protect their own religion. As pointed out in my comment section the Danish newspaper would not have posted cartoons of Jews. There are reports that some newspapers in the Muslims countries post cartoon to mock Jews and then condemn the posting of the Mohammad cartoons.



The latest was a Norwegian political party (FRP) that had previously fought for the blasphemy rules all of a sudden wanted to remove it after the cartoon incident. So it is fine to use blasphemy at other religions than Christianity? This drives me nuts! I myself do criticize religions, but I think I am pretty fair and criticize most of them.



Wouldn't it be nice if everyone in the world could follow the same rules themselves that they make for others?

The situation caused by the famous cartoons only seems to be getting worse. Embassies are being burned down, there are riots, threats are being made, and people have started dying. Thankfully, there have been some really good developments such as some Muslim leaders here in Norway are volunteering to help calming down the situation. While I think most Norwegians and Danes are feeling a bit puzzled by the whole situation there are unfortunately some idiotic Neo Nazist that have started making threats and participating in riots. I truly hope the police throws them all in jail! What is it about extremists? Why is the only way they can express themselves by making threats? Reminds me of the bullies back in school.



All of this has made me think a lot about freedom of expression. Not whether we really have it in Norway or not but rather what it is all about and where the line between what is acceptable or not is. I have always taken it for granted and never really thought much about it before.



My first thought was that as long as I don't hurt anyone with what I say I am fine. I quickly realized that it doesn't take much more for me than opening my mouth to offend somebody. No matter where you are, there is always someone that get offended by something you say or they will read something negative into what you are saying. So to avoid me having to glue my mouth and tape my fingers together I have come to the conclusion that everyone has to accept some noise that they don't agree with. Sure, I would like everyone to be at the same opinion as me, but I am more than willing to let others state their opinions in return for me being able to state mine.



The problem is where to draw the line? What is acceptable and what isn't? The only clear line I can put down is that threats are completely unacceptable. That one doesn't fall under any form of freedom of expression nor is it acceptable to threat people that have different opinions than you. I think the basis of freedom of expressions is to questioning views, opinions, and actions of people, or groups of people. There are however lines where it become wrong to do this. Let me give you one example of that.



There was recently a serious case in Iceland where a newspaper went way too far. A man accused of raping some young boys was put on the front page of the second biggest newspaper in Iceland under the headline "One handed man said to be raping young boys". Nothing had been proved so far and hanging out a man living in a small Icelandic village pretty much meant that his life was ruined. The man committed suicide the day after. People were of course in shock. In few days more than 10% of the Icelandic population signed a petition that they didn't think this was acceptable, and many boycotted the newspaper (buyers and advertisers). The result was that the editors resigned and the there was a major revision of the ethical rules for the media in Iceland.



In that case the editors made a big mistake and ended up having to pay for that with their jobs. People reacted in a civilized way and managed to force change. What is sad here is that a person lost their life because of this and nothing will ever make that right. The brutal truth of it is that the only thing that can be done since it cannot be taken back is to learn from it and not make that mistake again. At least freedom of expression made it possible for people to voice their opinion that they thought what the newspaper did was wrong and peacefully force a change.



The fact that you can make mistakes like this one scares me a lot. Not that I am afraid I will do something as serious as the newspaper but rather that I will do something more borderline. I really would like to see more rules or at least guidelines about that is acceptable and what is not. Lets take the cartoons as an example. Raise you hand if you didn't know that it was not allowed to draw pictures of prophet Mohammad. I am raising my hand now and I am sure many of you are. Maybe I am ignorant for not knowing but I have never been taught that and I have never happened to come across that fact anywhere. I don't think I would ever have actually posted a picture of him and especially one of those cartoons since I think they are in poor taste, but it makes me wonder what else is not acceptable.



I think ultimately this is why freedom of expression is so important. To protect us if we make silly mistakes like saying or posting something inappropriate. Please note, that I am not trying to excuse the initial posting of the cartoons as I am sure the newspapers were well aware what they were doing.



I am curious to hear from my readers where they think the lines are? What is acceptable and what is not? Should we be punished if we overstep lines or should we have the chance to apologize and promise never to do it again? Should there exist strict rules or guidelines as to what is allowed and what isn't?