Ulf Erlingsson's Blog

Honduras - not a coup but a mutiny

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:53:14 EDT

What seemed at first as a military coup in Honduras on June 28 has now turned out to be something quite different. The expatriated former president, Zelaya, had violated the constitution and accepted help from a foreign nation to work against his own country. That makes him a traitor in my book, and according to article 239 second paragraph in the Honduran constitution, his advocacy for creating a totally new constitution automatically made him loose the presidency. When the U.S. refused to participate in pressuring him to resign voluntarily only legal action remained. However, the military pre-empted the process by putting him on a plane to Costa Rica. The rest is history.

The correct action for the U.S. to take now is NOT to call for his return, but to call for peace, for the legal processes to work, for the planned elections to continue, and for foreign powers (read: Chavez' Venezuela) to stay the hell away from Honduras.

Time to denounce anti-Semitism in USA

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 08:54:37 EDT

Anti-Semitic crimes are being committed as we speak, in the US, without mainstream media reporting on it.

Here is an example from Ohio: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/28/203016/697/536/613742

Tell every politician to raise their voice in DISGUST!

The game is over

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:31:29 EDT

The neo-Cons (con-men in the finances and enablers in Congress) have finished their game. The looting was successful. When their game now finally gets exposed all we can do is to put out the fire they created.

For almost 30 years this scheme was allowed to continue, the American people blind-sided by demagoguery, voting for the neo-Con-men. Amazing. But what a relief that it is finally over now.

Because it IS over. Game, set and match. Neo-Conservatism is dead.

Who's to blame for the financial crisis

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:54:24 EDT

Some want Congress not to invest the $700B. They are fools. Not doing so would likely create a worse depression than the Great Depression. But who's to blame?

In the Great Depression a giant bubble of borrowing and lending was created by Ivar Kreuger. In fact his empire's net worth was exaggerated. When he understood it, he shot himself. As that mess was cleaned out the depression bottomed out. Afterwards, regulations on banking was put in place to prevent a repetition.

The neo-Cons from Reagan and on removed those regulations. This opened the door for a new Kreuger bubble, which is what we now see bursting. However, this time the actors are in all likelihood deceiving deliberately, not in good faith as Ivar Kreuger. They lend money one way, borrow money the other, but unlike Kreuger they sold the bad papers before the collapse. The loans with no payment during 5 years, except for a symbolic interest, were, IMHO, created solely for the purpose of this scam. It is beyond belief for me that the regulators didd not understand the nature of this fraud 5 years ago, when I, a home owner who was offered such a loan and turned it down, could understand that it was not based on a sound financial strategy on the part of the lender.

There are only two explanations:

Either the neo-Cons are con-men who have been part of this fraud, or

The neo-Cons are extremely naive to think that there are no white-collar criminals who will try to commit crime in an un-regulated market.

In either case this is the death of neo-Conservatism, and on the grave stone it will say R.I.P, dead September 19, 2008.

Why we need change

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:45:59 EDT

It's not just that neo-Conservatism = legalized robbing of the American people. Apart from their immorality, it's also the illegal stuff. Not just an illegal war but also in-your-face links between US government agencies and drug smuggling. See http://madcowprod.com/04092008.html In Russia and other countries journalists report crimes by the government - and get murdered. In the US they don't. Is that because the crimes don't exist, or because American journalists are less willing to risk their lives for their country? You be the judge. But do visit http://madcowprod.com/ and ask yourself, who is telling the truth here?

Don't let 2008 become 1984!

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:42:12 EDT

Action alert, the TRUTH is threatened in this election, HELP SAFEGUARD THE TRUTH!
1. Opponents of Barack Obama are calling his methods Brownshirt tactics as a smear, while in reality they are the exact opposite: Using legal avenues instead of terror and fear
2. Opponents of Barack Obama are themselves using Brownshirt tactics, as with distributing the DVD Obsession - Radical Islam's War Against the West (a biased and anti-Semitic movie, but unlike the Nazis this time it is anti-Arab, not anti-Jews, but equally anti-Semitic)
3. There is no entry for Brownshirt tactics in en.wikipedia.org
4. By erasing objective information about what constitutes Brownshirt tactics, they are trying to re-write Nazi history in true 1984 manner
Therefore, please help keeping the TRUTH available on wikipedia until the election on Nov 4th!
PS. Brownshirt tactics is of course the usage of fear, terror, images of fear etc to make people vote for a specific party, the populist demagoguery party that promises to be tough on terror (while in reality being the ones creating the fear in the first place). The name comes from the color of the uniforms of the Nazi thugs in SA.

Revitalizing Democracy

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 10:47:13 EDT

Perhaps the most important issue for winning independents and republicans is to revitalize democracy, in my experience. That's where everyone can agree, even if we differ on health care, gun control, abortion, etc. But on preserving the Constitution from a domestic takeover of power, there is no disagreement.

So perhaps we should re-focus on the issue of saving Democracy.

McCain the war hero IMO

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 10:39:58 EDT

As an immigrant from a peaceful country perhaps my view of what constitutes a hero is not mainstream, but here goes:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=71970749544916490&hl=en

The Bush doctrine and Impeachment

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:08:49 EDT

Sarah Palin did not know the Bush doctrine. Well here it is: It says that the US does not have to obey International Law (the laws of war, Geneva conventions, the UN Charter etc) but can strike first in a war of aggression to pre-empt their anticipated strike. To do so is a Crime Against Peace, the supreme crime known to mankind. The Bush doctrine, and the fact that he used it to attack Iraq, makes Bush a criminal of the same kind as the Nazi leaders who were prosecuted and executed after WWII. They were not executed for the Holocaust, they were executed for following the Bush doctrine (although at that time I suppose it would rather have been called the Hitler doctrine, or the Stalin doctrine, since both of them attacked other countries who were no threat to them at the time).

It is self-evident that for the US to restore its honor, Bush & Co must be prosecuted in a fair trial. The method by which to do so while they are still in office is Impeachment. 2 million Americans have already signed the petition for the House to adopt articles of impeachment for this crime. Also the Bush doctrine must be resoundedly rejected, and whoever becomes president must commit to following International Law. A country that does not follow International Law is, by definition, a rogue nation. That makes the US of 2008 the supreme Rouge Nation in the world.

Enough is enough. Get a spine and stand up for honor and justice, Congress!

Free trade YES, exploitation NO

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:20:16 EDT

Free trade is excellent, but it must be fair. The problem is that many so-called free trade agreements entered into by the US recently are joined with countries having completely different socio-economic conditions. Take Honduras as an example. According to the Swedish foreign ministry the other year, it was the country with the second largest difference between rich and poor in the world (Guatemala was number one). Taxes are low, the government is so under-funded that it cannot live up to its mandate, crime is rampant with kidnappings being a daily feature and drug smuggling increasingly being the easiest way to get ahead, public utilities don't have the cars they need to carry out their work, but the rich live in such luxury that all of this is of no concern to them. In other words, Honduras is the Republican paradise - that's how the US will be too if we have a few more years of neo-Cons.

Honduras did not end up like that by its own accord. Rather, it was there that the neo-Cons developed their strategy and methods. Hundreds of labor leaders were murdered. The funding for the government was removed (by Ronald Reagan and his ilk). The country has been subjected to strong US pressure to become what it is today, a banana republic that can produce dirt cheap goods for Wal-Mart like operations. That manufacturing has little impact on the Honduras economy since it is done in free trade zones.

If free trade shall really be free, then the trading partners must operate under similar economic conditions. As long as the Honduran government does not have reasonable access to credit, and is not free to improve conditions for its workers, all the benefits will go to the capitalists, and the workers in all countries will only suffer negative consequences.

Neo-conservatism is a root cause of this problem, and before that it was neo-colonialism, and before that traditional colonialism, and slavery. It just goes on and on and on. The fight for freedom and democracy is never won, it has to be re-joined every day.

Now it is our time. Stand up and fight for Freedom and Democracy for America!

Focus on Science and Technology needed!

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:01:47 EDT

Many years ago the EU made a deliberate choice to invest heavily in science and technology R&D (research and development) in order to acquire a leadership position in the world. We all know that simple tasks and jobs migrate away from the core of the economic geography (with New York, London, and Tokyo as the centers) to the periphery, ultimately leaving the first world and ending up being produced in low-cost third world "maquilas". The place leading in R&D will have the highest paying jobs + the service that goes with it.

However, while the EU took up the race with the US, the US under the Republicans is essentially leaving walk-over. Remarkably, in an attitude of "sour grapes" the religious extremists who have come to dominate the other party, the one that is not the Democratic one, increasingly are at war with science itself.

Enough with this BS, if they want to live in the dark ages plowing the soil with oxen, let them, but don't let them destroy the country for the rest of us.

There is a reason why the Democrats are called progressives, and it is that we are for progress - while they are not. Enough of the dark ages, bring on the future, let's invest again in R&D and let's re-join the race for leading in science and technology! That's how we can get more good paying jobs to this country.

Enough!

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:43:30 EDT

"Enough!" is enough as a bumper sticker. That's better than Change, and a change for the better, because while Change captures the solution, Enough addresses the reason why change is needed, the problem.

McCain surrogate wants to RAISE TAXES!

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:54:02 EDT

Just now I heard an Obama basher and McCain advocate on CNN, Glen Beck, say straight out in the interview of Chuck Norris that only half of Americans are paying taxes, and that the tax code ought to be changed so that these people who don't pay taxes also have to pay taxes. In other words, he wants to raise taxes for the poor! He even brought up the worker in a fast food drive through as an example of whom he was talking about.

Remarkable.

Lipstick, a laughable matter

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:15:33 EDT

I think Barack Obama has just the right attitude to this "Oh my God" attitude from the McCain campaign: To laugh at his own statement, the statement that McCain raises the fuzz about. We all say things that can be deliberately misinterpreted, and Barack knows that John will do that if he can, so what else can he do than laugh at himself for giving John the opening he so desperately wants - because that kind of politics is hte only way John and Sarah and Karl can win and they know it.

So go ahead and laugh at yourself, that's the best way of disarming Rove and Co.

Vote for the Republican!

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:58:03 EDT

Why? Their best argument is this: Because THIS time it will be different. Why should you trust them? Because you have their word for it.

What was that definition of idiot again? Something with voting for the same party over and over again thinking that each time they will change? Maybe I'm mistaken...

Reclaiming Morality, Saving America

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 10:29:05 EDT

The Nordic religion tells the tale of how the gods saved the world by using a lie. However, it continues, nothing that is built on a lie can persist, and therefore this world must go under - it is inevitable. The moral lesson is clear: Not even the gods can rise above the inevitable moral consequences of their actions, so man shouldn't even contemplate trying.

George W. Bush took the US to war against Iraq based on a lie. Therefore it was a Crime Against Peace, which of course is the supreme crime, the worst crime known to man. We can pretend all is well, but it doesn't change the fact that we are just trying to escape the moral consequences of our actions. The Republicans are in fact trying to do something that not even the gods can: Ignore morality.

The implication of the Nordic religion is that the US must go under (unless, see below). A Christian point of view could instead be that God will punish the US. A non-religious analysis will likely come to a similar conclusion: By loosing the moral high ground, the US image and brand is so badly damaged that this country will suffer diplomatically, economically, militarily, you name it, until it repents either voluntarily or by desperate necessity - or goes under. The religious ways of expressing this is nothing but a shorthand version to express this age-old wisdom. In the Nordic religion there is some inevitability at play, in Christianity (and related religions) this inevitability has been personalized as God.

So how can the US avoid this inevitable disaster, or punishment by God? Again religion offers an age-old shorthand version: By repenting. By recognizing the sin, assuming responsibility for it, prosecuting and punishing those who committed the crime, and ask forgiveness from those who became the victims of it.

Impeachment is the only way available while they are still in office, but after they have left office prosecution for war crimes can be used, and must be used if this country shall be saved.

It has been predicted by a student of empires that the US will collapse by 2015 (he was correct about the Soviet Union so there is reason to take him seriously). I predict, though, that if the US rights this wrong, and changes its course on the domestic agenda back to the one it steered before the assassinations of the Kennedys in the 60's, then this disaster can be avoided. We must return to the union of nations in the United Nations, because nobody can stand alone against both the world and God.

W as president is like eating omelet with a silver spoon

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:39:52 EDT

If you haven't tried it, you have no idea. But once you have tried it (if you don't know immediately what I mean, TRY IT!) you will NEVER want to repeat that mistake.

And McCain is just another silver spoon in the omelet.

On Rich and Poor

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:17:31 EDT

Rich is the one who has all that he needs.

Poor is the one who does not.

It's very simple.

At least 47 million Americans are poor because they don't have access to health care when they fall seriously ill.

Also John McCain is poor because he obviously is lacking empathy.

"John McCain has Sold his Soul to Satan"

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:57:16 EDT

In the rhetoric of the old Lutheran people where I grew up, they would have said that "John McCain has sold his soul to Satan". With that they mean that he is not a bad person, but that in order to get something he wants - the presidency - he has given up his principles.

Stop Blaming the Oil Companies!

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:49:38 EDT

I just read that gas station TV refused an Obama ad that blamed the high gas prices on the oil companies.

Say again?

I mean, get real. This is not kindergarten. Let's have a look around to see where the real culprits are.

Consider supply and demand. Capitalism is based on the notion that supply and demand will balance through the price if the price is set by the market. Is the price set by the market? No, not in India, Indonesia, Venezuela and other countries that subsidize petroleum products heavily. That leads to consumption above the normal market demand in those countries, which leads to supply problems, which leads to higher prices in the entire world.

In other countries, such as Europe, the governments instead tax gasoline heavily, by about 100%. That presses the demand and thus prices down. (The tax on the gas is then used to pay for government spending that otherwise would be paid for by taxes on income or property.) But India and Indonesia and China between them have the majority of the world's population, so what they do has a bigger impact.

Barack Obama should encourage all nations to stop subsidizing the exploitation of limited, non-renewable resources. As a first step, to become credible, he should start by removing such subsidies here, and follow the example of Europe to raise the fuel tax, and to compensate so nobody gets hurt financially, lower or remove other taxes and fees. This is known as TAX SHIFT.

The Energy Policy of McCain is Insane

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:52:20 EDT

The biggest problem facing civilization today is that we are sawing off the branch we are sitting on. We are totally dependent on petroleum, but we are wasting it at a much higher rate than its re-generation rate. What we MUST do is to (1) decrease the oil burning rate, and (2) find alternatives.

To do as John McCain suggests, to increase the burning of oil (and of uranium, another limited natural resource) is like putting up more sails when the storm is already blowing us towards the cliffs. It's beyond disbelief that a US senator can suggest something so suicidal.

Sustainable Development through Tax Shift

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 09:30:29 EDT

The energy policy is THE most important issue for the long-term survival of our civilization, since energy is our limiting resource.

The way to achieve sustainability is to make un-sustainable consumption proportionally more expensive, through taxation. Non-renewable energy such as oil and coal and uranium should be taxed according to the degree of un-sustainability in our exploitation of them.

To balance the budget, income taxes can be removed for most people, and property taxes can be lowered or removed, too.

This is TAX SHIFT.

Energy Policy proposal: TAX SHIFT

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:19:26 EDT

Now that McCain is focusing attention on the energy, maybe Obama needs to make a move that maintains his control over the chess board. I suggest

TAX SHIFT as an Energy Policy tool

By shifting taxes AWAY from income and property, TOWARDS non-renewable resources such as oil and nuclear, one will automatically stimulate the development of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar (and make existing renewable energy such as hydropower more competitive).

As regards the long-term (century scale) supply of energy for vehicles, one should contemplate differentiating so that instead of only gasoline, we would have also diesel and natural gas as options (as in Europe). There are many more sources of renewable energy that can be used in diesel and gas cars, than in gasoline (petrol) cars. There is also a non-renewable alternative not exploited yet: Methane hydrate. We have much more of that than of oil, but the technology to extract it does not yet exist.

There are many benefits with a TAX SHIFT, but the most important one is that it stimulates society to become more sustainable by itself, without the need for subsidies and other regulations.

When should Obama admit the surge worked?

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:34:32 EDT

I have two criteria:

1) When McCain admits the war was illegal and unjustified and criminal and plain stupid

2) When the surge actually has worked, which is never, given point (1)

McCain did not learn from Hitler

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:26:40 EDT

Adolf Hitler's biggest crime was to start a war. That was the reason for the executions of his staffers. In spite of this, John McCain does not rule out starting a war.

When will sanity return to America?

My VP pick for Obama

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:17:52 EDT

My advice to Obama would be to pick a VP that is a gray, dull, meticulous Public Servant; someone like UN WMD inspector Hans Blix.

The reason is this: A public servant like that is safe since he knows how not to say the wrong thing at the wrong time; he is dull enough not to take the attention away from Obama; plus he gives gravitas and an aura of knowledge to the ticket.

Who that person would be? I don't know (I just know he has to be American which Blix is not).

A platform meeting report

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:07:05 EDT

We gathered in Miami, a few persons from different backgrounds, to discuss issues for the platform. It was an experiment, any and all issues could be brought up. Interestingly, it turned out that the strongest concern for all was Democracy, saving it / winning it back / improving it, depending on how you feel. Two of 11 topics that we settled on dealt with Democracy.

The final document is available at http://erlingsson.com/obama/topics.pdf

Feel free to comment on it, borrow ideas, criticize it, etc. That's the point of a free debate.

PS. Free higher education could start with the education of civil servants, as a way to improve the operation of the federal government.

Republican Strategy Revealed

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:31:52 EDT

Bush's decision to open a representation in Iran together with attacks on Obama of being the true successor of Bush makes it clear:

Bush is going to implement Obama's policies the next months, so that McCane can claim that Obama is the real successor to Bush.

Wanna bet?

:-)

Why don't they import fuel-efficient cars?

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:13:56 EDT

In Europe they have hordes of cars that are more fuel-efficient and environmental-friendly than the best in the US. The leanest cars are diesels. So why aren't they imported?

An example: Although far from the leanest car in Europe, VW will introduce a Jetta with 140 hp diesel in September that uses about 5.0 L/100 km on highways according to the EU method of measurement (where the model name is Golf). The Toyota and Honda hybrids use 4.2 and 4.3 L, respectively. However, VW has another engine option in Europe called BlueMountain, an especially environmental-friendly 105 hp diesel that only uses 3.0 L/100 km on highways. That's over 60 mpg (although EPA calculates MPG in a different way, and now includes A/C use, so it's not comparable to US values).

Consider also that while diesel engines are known for their long life, batteries (an essential component of a hybrid) are known for having a limited life. Taking all aspects into account, including material and energy for manufacturing, and recycling the car once its service life is over, there is little doubt which is the more environmental-friendly alternative.

Open letter to my bank

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 08:32:27 EDT

What do I need to do to be able to make an electronic transfers? My service requirements are as follows, since that is what I am used to during 10 years with my other bank:
-Must be able to initiate the payment via the internet since I need to run my business wherever I am in the world,
-Must be same day to accounts in the same bank,
-Must not take more than 1 business day to another domestic bank,
-Must not take more than 3 business days for international transfers,
-Must not be more than one day, the day of transfer, when none of the accounts is credited interest,
-Must be able to receive electronic transfers under same terms,
-Must not cost more than using checks.
This is what every European has access to. Is it too much to ask for that also in America, the 'New' World?

Thou shalt not murder

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 16:51:13 EDT

It seems many so-called Christians have forgotten one of the most important commandments, the ban on killing people.

It is impossible for a true Christian to be for capital punishment, because the death penalty is nothing but institutionalized murder. Killing by the government.

When the rest of the world is moving away from killing people, some Americans just can't get enough of it. Sadly, those lunatics are often the ones running the asylum.

God save America from herself!

Thank You to right-wing bloggers

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 16:38:06 EDT

Since I'm very concerned that Senator Barack Obama is taking a pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian position that will perpetuate the bloody war in Palestine, and make any peace in the Middle East impossible as long as he is president, I have and will continue to post blogs here that highlight the real nature of the conflict, as opposed to the propaganda image that US media is feeding to the American public.

In that endeavor I last weekend got unexpected help from right-wing bloggers, including freepers at the freerepublic website. They helped spread the posts over the blogosphere. For the first time since I wrote those posts, "We are all Palestinians" and "Jesus was Palestinian" in April, people actually read them.

They were taken down by the campaign in short order, since Obama does not agree with the positions. However, I want to point out how useful and democratic I think it is by the campaign to allow an open debate to take place like this on their website. Isn't that the whole purpose of democracy?

If I would suggest something for the campaign, it would be the following: Instead of taking down the posts, you would have served democracy and your campaign better by simply marking them as "this post does not agree with Barack Obama's position". It would be more intellectually honest, in my opinion, than simply to remove what you don't agree with.

Peace goes through Justice

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 16:13:53 EDT

Justice must come first, only then is peace possible. Legitimate grievances of an oppressed group lead to conflicts. There can be no peace without some degree of justice first, or as part of the peace deal.

The Palestinians have legitimate grievances. Their land and property has been stolen, they have been exiled in acts of ethnic cleansing and genocide-like military campaigns.

The oppression continues in an asymmetric conflict, with one side having access to the weapons of a superpower, and the other side manufacturing their weapons in sheds and basements. If you consider the Palestinians terrorists, then ask yourself, what would you do in their place? They use the only means to fight that they have, and so does their enemy. To paint them as terrorists is part of the propaganda warfare. There is no doubt that Israel has better access to media in the west than the Palestinian do, so it is no wonder that the Israeli angle can get some penetration.

To be an honest broker, one must see both sides. We all know the Israeli side, it does not need to be repeated. The side that many does not know is the Palestinian, so that's the side that needs to be told. It does not mean that we ignore the Israeli side.

The basic premise for peace is that the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is followed. It means Freedom, Democracy, Justice. It requires a secular state (since otherwise there is no religious freedom for the minority), and equal rights for all legitimate residents. It is not acceptable to discriminate against the Palestinians in the way that Israel does. We must never again accept apartheid, in Israel no more than in the south (whether south US or South Africa). Whatever justification is used for apartheid, whatever claim of racial inferiority, lack of democratic spirit, propensity for terrorism, etc., it must be rejected.

Every Palestinian, Jew, Christian, or Moslem, must have a right to live in peace and freedom in Palestine.

Worse than Climate Change?

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 21:41:25 EDT

A scientific paper that recently was published undermines one of the lines of argument behind Global Warming. That's the good news. The bad news is that it opens up the possibility of a disaster that would be much worse: Coastal flooding from one day to the next, and an ice age from one year to the next. These are still very far-fetched possibilities with low probability, but maybe we finally have an explanation for the dramatic climatic shifts that make ice ages come and go. And maybe ice ages really come from one year to the next. These doomsday scenarios are not in the paper but follow if one extrapolates it to Greenland at the present time. You can read the abstract and find links to the full text at this environmental company that sponsored the research.

Blaming the victims

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 10:49:42 EDT

Why do right wing-nuts go through the roof whenever you express sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people?

I believe the answer is that they associate "Palestinian" with "suicide-bombing rocket-launching terrorist" but most of all with "someone who wants to deny the Jews the right to live in their own country, Israel."

The truth - if they cared to do some investigation and not just absorb the propaganda they are fed with - is of course the exact opposite. Let me try to make it so clear and simple that even a right wing-nut can understand:

Palestinian is a person born in Palestine (or by Palestinian parents forcibly exiled from Palestine)

She can have any religion, including Jewish and Christian, Orthodox and Lutheran, Moslem or even atheist

She can be from any ethnic group, including Jewish, Arab, European, Black, Asian, and speak any language

100 years ago most Palestinians were Moslems and spoke arabic, but there was also a large proportion of Christians and a smaller proportion of Jews

When the UN created Israel they gave a large chunk of the land to the smallest of the three religious groups, the Jews. The ethnic cleansing based on religion carried out in these areas forced many Palestinians into exile.

When we speak of Palestinians, we are talking about a people who asks only to be allowed to live in peace in their own land.

Please make sure you never, NEVER, fall in the trap of racism, and equate "Palestinian" with "terrorist". That would be every bit as bad as associating "Negro" with "criminal".

Racism has no place in politics, period, full stop.

Brief Intro

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 00:22:48 EDT

Since some right-wing bloggers have linked to my blog lately, I'll help their googling on my person by providing a few starting points:

In 1990 I got a PhD in Physical Geography from Uppsala University, Sweden

After a couple of years as post-doc in Denmark I worked in a satellite-TV university course about the Baltic Sea environment for a dozen countries spanning the old iron curtain

I also worked with environmental consulting projects in Central America and Scandinavia

In 2002 I moved my office to the US, to be closer to Central America, and have now moved all business to the US

In the 2004 election I was in the Dennis Kucinich campaign

You can read more at these websites: www.erlingsson.com | www.atlantisinireland.com | www.lindorm.com | www.sedimeter.com | www.hydroconsult.se

And finally, I have no position in the Obama campaign, zero, nada, which suits me just fine since I think Barack is too far to the right. But I am trying to influence the policy, that's why I post things here that are important for people to hear, albeit sometimes impopular.

Why USA is a million times slower than Europe

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:27:05 EDT

If I transfer money to another account in the same European bank, it takes a split second.

If I do the same thing in my US bank, it takes 8 to 10 days.

The single biggest frustration when trying to conduct business in the US is the total lack of modern bank services.

USA desperately needs a law forcing banks to provide service

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 10:48:28 EDT

If I transfer money from my account to somebody else's account in the same bank in my home country, the money is available in the other account in a split second. If I do the same thin with my US bank, WaMu, it takes 8 to 10 days for that electronic transfer. That's one million times slower than in Europe.

There is only one way to give US clients access to the same banking service as in Europe, and that is by legislation. Congress has to force them to behave. If Congress does not do this, people like me who try to conduct business in the US will be at a big competitive disadvantage compared to the rest of the developed world.

This is a very serious issue, why doesn't anybody bring it up in media?

Defeating the couch

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:22:24 EDT

The failing strategy of many Democrats has been to try to take votes from the right, in the center. The result is (1) that we are left with two parties that both are to the right of the right-wing in Europe in many policy issues (such as social responsibility), and (2) the lowest participation in elections of the westerns world. Its related; if working men and women have no choice, they choose not to vote.

The winning strategy is to get people energized to vote, not to compromise. Compromising is what one shall do in Congress after the election, so that the work does not get shut down by filibusters. Not before the election, that's like telling the opponent what concessions you plan to make before the negotiations start.

So stay positive, there is Hope, but we have to Believe in it. Yes We Can!

Distinguish CIVIL from CRIMINAL

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:31:56 EDT

As I understand the FISA law the immunity was only from civil lawsuits (and how likely are they, really; how can you prove that you have suffered from activities that are so secret that you cannot know about them?).

Apparently there is nothing that prevents CRIMINAL PROSECUTION of the telecoms. And that is really the important part of this, IMHO.

McCain is not the enemy

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:09:36 EDT

The real enemy of this movement is not John McCain, but the corporate forces who corrupt the government in order to serve their bottom line, regardless of the suffering of the American people that it leads to.

To defeat them we must understand their game plan. Like all good strategists they have more than one plan.

Plan A is to get John McCain into the White House, and to influence his policies to their liking. They have done well on that plan so far. But there is also a...

Plan B is to corrupt Barack Obama, to force him to make compromises with what the American people want just to get elected. Everyone has to take a stance on that. Many say that it is OK because winning is the main goal.

I say winning is not the goal, changing America is. If the salt looses its salinity, with what shall you then salten?

The fifth colon is those who try to saw seeds of conflict between various constituents; who try to break down rather than build up the public debate; the trolls; the name-callers; because they are serving the purpose of the enemy: Those who don't care if Obama wins or looses as long as whoever wins is beholden to the corporate power complex (i.e., international corporations: insurance companies, military companies, media companies, etc.)

So to help us win, be respectful, and try to work towards creating understanding in your comments!

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:08:48 EDT

This important document tends to be forgotten, so I shall publish it here in its entirety. Read it, and contemplate in how many ways the Bush regime has violated it...

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Why we are all Palestinians

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:34:22 EDT

Matt 25: 'The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."'

When Israel was created by the UN resolution 181, a part of Palestine was set aside for Israel. It was no problem for the Jewish Palestinians in the area of the future state of Israel, but some non-Jewish Palestinians were driven into exile, sometimes using methods that may have amounted to genocide, but at any rate ethnic cleansing. That big group of refugees are still, after more than 50 years, not able to return home.

Barack Obama has said that he does not support the right of those refugees to return to the homeland of their ancestors. The only US president who seems to understand what a tremendous crime against humanity is taking place in Palestine, is Jimmy Carter.

As Jesus taught us, himself born in Palestine, a Jewish Palestinian no less, whatever is done to some is done to us all. That is why we are all Palestinians - the entire world is suffering from this crime. There can be no peace in the Middle East until there is Justice. That is why we are all Palestinians. We are all victims.

Next time you fill your car, remember that the high price of gas is partly because of the crime against the Palestinians. It's all related, economy, foreign policy, justice, freedom, democracy.

Jesus is a Jewish Palestinian

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:08:59 EDT

...or was, if you don't believe in his resurrection. I previously posted under the subject "Jesus was Palestinian", but it got removed by the campaign, after some users apparently misunderstood the whole point of the post. So let me make myself as clear as I possibly can this time.

Those who misunderstood it believed that I was saying that "Jesus was not a Jew". However, that was all in their heads. I never wrote that, and it does not follow from what I wrote. When people assume they "make an ass out of u and me", so to say.

The fact is that Jesus was (or is) Palestinian, since he was born in Palestine, and Jewish, by ethnicity and religion. There is no contradiction in that whatsoever. You who read this may be a Jewish American. Would it be wrong to call you American if you are born in the geographical region known as America? Of course not. Would it be wrong to call Montezuma American? Of course not.

So why is this relevant? It is relevant because just like Jesus was Palestinian by virtue of being born in Palestine (the geographical region so called at least since Herodotos), so do the present day Palestinians derive their status of Palestinians simply by virtue of being born in that region, or by parents who are Palestinians if they are born in foreign exile for instance. Furthermore, according to International Law, Christian values, and other moral belief systems, people have a right to live in their home country.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union it has been widely accepted that although Russians in the Baltic States came there during an occupation, the second generation cannot be blamed. Applied to Palestine, this means that we cannot say (1) that people who came there thousands of years ago cannot stay, and (2) that people who came there one generation ago cannot stay. But if point (1) would be valid, then not even the Jews could be allowed to stay, because they themselves are immigrants who came there only some 3200 years ago. It becomes completely absurd if one starts making that kind of arguments, yet, they are the staple of arguments for Israel and against the right of the Palestinian people to live in their own land.

Every Palestinian has a right to live in Palestine, whether he speaks Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, or whatever, and whether his religion is Islam, Christianity, Jewish, Buddhism, Atheism, or whatever. This is such a simple concept, and it is fundamental for peace to be possible to acknowledge this basic justice. Why does that have to be so hard? Is it because it takes more than 5 words to say it? Then here is my answer:

Jesus was a Jewish Palestinian

Comment on the MISSING POST on Dr. Sami Al-Arian

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:21:10 EDT

One post with many comments was removed from this blog, surely after catching the attention of right-wing bloggers the last couple of days. The topic was the treatment given to a Palestinian prisoner in the US, convicted of helping a terrorist organization. The comments about the post alleged that by calling for humane treatment of prisoners, and that this country follows its own laws, one somehow sympathizes with terrorists.

That is exactly the kind of fear-mongering that has brought us to the edge of the abyss. The economical crisis now cannot be seen in isolation from the war of terror - they are intimately related. We are wasting money, borrowing like there is no tomorrow, destroying goodwill, and at the same time not helping the business at home. The only relief is that as the dollar is falling our exporting companies will become more competitive, but the price is a dramatic fall in standard of living.

Update: Dr. Sami Al-Arian has been detained for over a year beyond his scheduled release. Rather than letting him free and deport him (part of the deal) they keep him hoping that they can get some information from him. His lawyer says that he has cooperated fully according to the deal.

How can we argue for the rule of law in other countries, if we do not practice it at home? This is a matter of credibility. We cannot get peace (i.e., what the right-wingers call "winning the war on terror") if we don't get respect, and we can't get respect if we say one thing and do another.

USA needs an Electronic Payment System type Giro

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:26:48 EDT

US companies and individuals are at a disadvantage compared to Europe. Consider this: Have you ever seen a drive-in bank in Europe? I sure haven't. Is that because they are retarded? No, it's because there is no need to go to the bank!

The problem in the US is that we use paper checks, while in Europe they use electronic giro.

The giro method works like this: You log onto your internet bank, you tell them to transfer $X to recipient Y, and the next day at the latest the transaction is completed.

In the US, you have to write a check, buy an envelope, buy a stamp, mail it, the recipient has to retrieve his mail (kind of hard if you are on vacation!), sign the check, write a deposit slip, physically travel to the bank(!), hand over the paperwork, and then wait, wait, wait for the check to clear (up to 11 days my bank, WaMu, told me). The total time it takes can thus be over 2 weeks (not counting the time to return from vacation).

The US banking system is simply Stone Age compared to the rest of the world. The only way to get a functioning payment system here is if Congress orders it. Let's face it, it's not in the banks' interest. Only Congress can create it. Do your part, tell your politicians to create a modern electronic payment system in the US (like the EU did).

USA needs a Bank Law for Electronic Transactions

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:16:01 EDT

The problem: Payment transactions in the US take several days. Checks are EXTREMELY slow, plus they require going (read: driving) to the bank. However, there is no universal electronic payment alternative.

Compare Europe: You can initiate a payment from any normal bank account to any other normal bank account in Europe from your own home (Internet), and the money arrives the next business day _at the latest_. The cost is limited to law (equivalent to a few $). However, most domestic transactions in most countries are free, and in many cases they can be made immediately.

US banks are robbing their customers. The reason things are better in Europe for the consumer (including businesses) is legislation. But in the free market approach of the US the banks have only one interest: Maximizing their profits. Unfortunately, the method they choose is to rob their clients money for a few days at every transaction. The only way to stop this bank robbery is to introduce legislation similar to that of the European Union. There is no reason whatsoever why a payment should have to take more than 24 hours, or why one should have to go to the bank, or why one should have to send papers (checks) by mail. It's just Stone Age.

Force the banks of this country join the 21st Century!

Wrong-headed idea of Democracy

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:16:11 EDT

Since I came to America a few years ago I have gradually noticed a that the view of democracy is different here, at least as presented by the media. They seem to equate democracy with free and fair elections.

Democracy is much more than free and fair elections.

Democracy is a decision-making process, a method for how to ensure that everyone has a fair say, that everyones opinion is heard, that everyone has a chance to be informed on the issue, and that everyones opinion when finally cast as a vote counts equally much.

Elections are just one tiny little tool in the process of democracy, specifically in the subtype called representative democracy. To say that free and fair elections is indicative of democracy is, at best, disingenuous.

What ails the US is the democratic process, more than the free and fair elections.

I could write a book about this but let me just mention one fact that strikes me: The fact that the president alone takes decisions, has real power, and cannot be fired. That makes him a dictator, elected on 4-year terms. In modern monarchies the king or queen has no power, but the president does. In many countries the cabinet takes decisions democratically, but the US president alone makes the decision. In parliamentarian monarchies the parliament can fire the cabinet if they don't like their decisions, but Congress cannot fire the president.

All of this together means that the US president is in every way comparable to a Medieval Scandinavian elected king, back when the terms were time limited, a bit after the Viking Age when the king could not be fired by the people. Scandinavia has come a very long way from that form of government. It is time for the US too to learn from experience, and adopt a more democratic form of government.

Jimmy Carter's energy policy worked

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:11:14 EDT

Jimmy Carter, a Great president by the way, raised energy taxes during the oil crisis in the 70's. It obviously helped, because the economy turned around, and the dollar started rising again in value. So when McCain was comparing Obama's policy to Carter's today he was being disingenuous. The problem is that Democrats have failed to defend Carter's record, and now it is turning around to bite us.

Jimmy Carter was a God Damn Good President, darn it. Reagan on the other hand was a first rate disaster. Anybody who tells you otherwise is either misinformed or disingenuous.

Bet'ya Hillary is watching the coverage...

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 12:21:20 EDT

...on MSNBC, CNN etc, and picking up good lines and angles for her speech. That's why she's late ;-)

Economic Policy Proposal

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 10:27:45 EDT

Problem Analysis

The following factors are interrelated and some lead to a downward spiral if not controlled:

Large foreign debt

Trade deficit

Investments drying up

Falling dollar (see graph at end)

Rising oil prices (partly due to weak dollar)

Increasing unemployment, especially in construction

Falling house prices

Health care crisis

Foreclosures and bankrupcies

Financial crisis

Education cost too high compared to competitors'

Aging infrastructure

Policy Objectives, prioritized

Increase employment

Decrease energy demand

Eliminate link from sickness to bankrupcy

Make higher education more affordable

Tax shift from income and property tax to energy and non-renewable resources

Point 4 is necessary to enable those educated in the US, having paid high tuition, to compete for jobs with foreigners, many of whom have had their entire education paid for by the government, which means that they have much smaller student loans to pay off. Point 3 requires some kind of health insurance that covers everyone who resides in the country legally, regardless of income.

Suggested Action NOW

Create an RIE program

What is it?

RIE = Renovate, Improve, Expand private houses

How does it work?

The government establishes building codes that include energy saving features, for instance a maximum calculated energy budget for the entire house under standardized usage (temperature, water use, etc.)

A significant tax incentive is given to those who carry out an RIE project on an existing house and primary residence, but only for that part of the costs which go to licenced contractors (not if they do the work themselves; the purpose is to put contractors in work as well as improviing the energy efficiency and thus the country's long term need to import oil)

What is the effect?

The government looses some money in tax from the house owner, but gets it back from the contractors when they pay their taxes, so it should approximately break even

In the long term everybody wins since the lowered energy usage decreases the demand for foreign oil, which dampens the prices on oil and decreases the inflation pressure on the dollar.

Long Term Actions

Create a health insurance solution for everyone thus decreasing the cost and significantly decreasing the risk cost

Create a system for free higher education thus decreasing the cost for individuals, so that US college graduates become more competitive compared to foreigners, and the loss of jobs overseas can be mitigated

This graph of the falling US dollar since Bush Jr took office illustrates the problem we are facing (click for full resolution):

When the choice is between Evil and Lesser Evil...

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Thu, 29 May 2008 04:50:10 EDT

...perhaps the best choice is Revolution. I just read an email from Rep. Robert Wexler about the state of the impeachment hearings of VP Dick Cheney, brought to the House by Rep. Dennis Kucinich. As we know, the Democratic leadership in the house believes it would hurt the party to carry out their Constitutional duty and impeach those who commit high crimes. Their reasoning can only be, "Since the American people only has two choices, the Republicans--which are evil--and us, all we have to do to win is to be one ounce less evil than the Republicans."

The only way to hold their feet to the fire is to not accept that logic, but to vote for anybody but a Republican or Democrat. My choice would be Green, but Libertarian, Communist, or a clown running for the House of Representatives, is better than a party that has no higher ambition than to be "somewhat less evil"--because the DEMs are destroying our democracy.

We need to get people in the House with a spine. If they also have a brain it would of course be an advantage. And best of all, if they have enough heart to recognize that the Palestinian people has a right to live in Palestine. Cause until we do, there will be no peace in the Middle East. Therefore this is key to ending the illegal occupation of Iraq, and bring the US out of the quagmire that threatens to destroy the nation for a generation or more. If you have a spine, brain, and heart, run for office. We must have someone to vote for, to be able to vote against the bad ones.

Are Barack Obama and Robert Wexler out of their minds?

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Tue, 13 May 2008 08:49:01 EDT

I just heard Robert Wexler - whom I have admired until today - say that Barack Obama unequivocally denounced the Palestinians' right to return. Are they both crazy? Do they both support ethnic cleansing and genocide? Do they want the war in the Middle East to rage on indefinitely?

Palestine is the land of the Palestinians, and International Law prohibits the stealing of land through ethnic cleansing. So how can anybody - short of a war criminal - be against letting the Palestinians return to their OWN land?

I'm sorry but when I hear such galloping stupidity it drives me angry. It is so outrageous, so immoral, so antithetical to everything America stands for. It is not only un-American, it is criminal to steal a country and drive the people into exile. Whatever is done to one group of people on Earth, is done to all of us, to paraphrase Jesus. We are all Palestinians!

Please help me educate whoever becomes the president because we will not get peace on Earth as long as this kind of crimes are allowed to continue sponsored by the world's only superpower, USA.

No property tax, no income tax...

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Fri, 09 May 2008 10:52:14 EDT

...would be ideal, and instead all revenues would come from taxing depletion of non-renewable resources. In such a society gas might cost $16 a gallon, or double of what it costs in most countries of the world, but since we would use much less of it, it would last longer. Our way of life would be more sustainable.

Tell Barack Obama: We need TAX SHIFT now!

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Fri, 09 May 2008 07:51:25 EDT

A crucial issue for the survival of the USA is that we solve the energy crisis. Taxes is the main tool for steering consumption. We need to shift away from taxing things we want more of, such as jobs and housing, and towards things we want less of, such as depleting non-renewable resources.

In short, we need TAX SHIFT: High tax on gasoline, low or no tax on income or property.

Everyone who studies the subject seems to agree that this is necessary. What you and me need to do is to talk to normal people to warm them up to the idea, because if we don't, no politician will touch it for fear of being labeled a tax-raising Democrat. (OK, Republicans can touch it, like someone did in Congress yesterday, but why leave this crucial issue up to the GOP???)

We are at peak oil. Oil prices are just going up from here. Europe has paid $8 a gallon for gas for a long time. But their income tax is lower (they don't have our military expenses, you know). We too need to get the gas price so high that people start conserving gas. That will mean less import of oil, less loss of dollars from the country, which is the patriotic thing to do. To balance the budget we should lower taxes on other things, such as property taxes (what is the justification for them anyway?) and income tax (same thing, don't we want people to work?).

We should have done this 2001, but better late than never. If we don't start soon, we will run out of energy before alternatives come on the market.

The unjust never-ending war

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Wed, 07 May 2008 14:47:03 EDT

Here's my take on it. OK, it's from Oct 2003, but what has changed since then? (it's a 1 minute video)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4843350519029866392

...and the war rages on...

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Wed, 07 May 2008 13:06:26 EDT

I just found an old video I made in 2003, "I have been to Baghdad". Nothing has changed. So I uploaded it, copy and paste this to view the 1 minute home video:

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=4843350519029866392&hl=en

Fuel Efficiency Standards are BAD

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Thu, 01 May 2008 10:42:41 EDT

In Barack's latest ads he speaks about strengthening the fuel efficiency standards. That's a BAD move. They are bad for US car manufacturers, they make US cars develop in a way that is different from the rest of the world, and as a result US cars become impossible to export. Who in their right mind in Europe buys a US car? Nobody. Without export the US economy dies, so why shoot ourselves in the foot?

The second reasons they are bad is because they don't work. They don't lead to more fuel efficient cars. Partly because they are formulated the wrong way (an equation rather than empirical measurements), and partly because as with all regulations there are loopholes. Regulations simply are NOT A GOOD WAY OF GOVERNING.

What we MUST do instead is to tax gas heavily, so that people out of economical self-interest buy fuel-efficient cars. That will stimulate technological development, not hamper it as standards do. This is the method used in the rest of the world, and it works. We MUST do the same thing or our car industry will become obsolete, our economy will go under, and so will our leading position in the world. Europe has for a long time payd $8 to $10 per gallon, so the only reason people are complaining for $4 per gallon is because they have bought a gas-guzzler and live in a home tens of miles away from work. They brought it on themselves and now they want the government to bail them out.

However, to lower gas taxes would be like peeing in bed; it warms in the beginning, but after a while it gets awfully unpleasant. What we HAVE to do for the survival of our economy is to increase the tax on fossil fuel (not reneawable) to between 100% and 200%. Some $8 to $10 per gallon, gradually increased over several years.

At the same time we must lower other taxes, such as property tax and income tax. This is called a TAX SHIFT and that's what we abslutely must do, there is no escaping it if we are to be able to overcome the energy crisis.

Honor and integrity in a political campaign

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:22:14 EDT

The saga recounts how in Viking age Norway a king was being hunted by another king, and as the hunted king was alone except for his slave, he had to hide to survive. However, when the soldiers came close the slave gave up their position, and the king was taken. The slave naturally hoped that he would be spared since he had helped the enemy. As it turned out, though, his conqueror considered the slave's betrayal of his master a mortal sin, and executed him.

Barack Obama said on FOX News that he supposed it was fair game to attack Jeremiah Wright since he had been Obama's pastor. Wrong. Wright did not run for president, and he is not part of the campaign. Obama should have declared as much from day one, and demanded that "innocent civilians" not be made the target of mudslinging. He should have said, "Attack me as much as you want, I put myself in this position by entering the race, but do not smear the honor of someone who has nothing to do with this election campaign."

He should have said it, but he didn't. Hopefully he will come to, realize that it is more important to fight well than to win, and stand up for honor and integrity again. As the Viking time slave in Norway learned just before he died, giving up on principles will not earn you any favors, and far less save you.

This fight is biased against Barack Obama, because he is damned if he does [condemn Wright] and damned if he does not [condemn Wright]. So the only way out is to do the RIGHT thing and hope that the American people will see the light in time. Unfortunately, so far he has done the wrong thing, but it is not too late to mend fences and make peace.

The false race debate

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:46:18 EDT

I think I'm getting it now. Why white Americans take offense at reverend Wright's preaching. They see it as anti-white, as reversed racism. I'm white too, but Scandinavian, and I think Wright is completely non-controversial. So why do white Americans see him as controversial, and not a white European?

Apparently it is not inverse racism. So what is it?

It is criticism of the policy that the US has stood for. It is his exposing of the hypocrisy, of the slave-owner mentality that says that the wealth of the rich is more important than the lives of the poor (incidentally it is this immoral view that is used to defend private health insurance), and of crimes committed against foreign countries.

There is something wrong in this country, and it is the inability to take legitimate criticism of the country, at the same time as having far too much display of patriotic symbols. If someone would behave like that in my country, he would be seen as odd and asocial. It leads people to think of Nazism. To say that there must be no criticism etc, forgot who said that but surely someone can post a comment with the correct quote.

That's where the shoe is tight. It's not race, it's inability to take legitimate criticism of the country's past politics—even though that policy has often been covert, and unknown to the American public. Why does this public feel it has to defend such often illegal conduct? Odd, isn't it.

It's not about race. It's about policy, and the debate HAS to be taken.

$8 gas

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:28:31 EDT

In Europe the gas price is around $8 per gallon, and has been for quite some time. We need $8 gas, too.

Why?, ye ask. Because we are running out of oil, and the only effective way to decrease consumption is to tax it heavily. They have done that for a long time in Europe, with the result that consumption is about half compared to here. Cars are more fuel efficient (without fuel efficiency standards!), and the very organization of geographical space is more fuel efficient.

What we need is tax shift. Decrease or remove taxes on renewable things like property and work, and tax non-renewable resources. This would automatically lead to favoring renewable energy, without need for subsidies. This is what smart governing is about: do away with mandates and subsidies, and steer with taxes—since we need to tax something for the operation of government, anyway.

Obama must heal the relationship with Wright

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:38:17 EDT

The first mistake was Barack Obama's when he criticized Wright's words in his first speech. He disrespected Wright (I would have been too since Obama was painting with a far to wide brush), and as a letter in the mail, it came back to haunt him when Wright returned the favor these past few days. Now it has escalated to disastrous levels.

How can Obama be a uniter when he cannot even stay friends to the man who was like a father for him?

On the other hand, everyone who has grown up with a real rather has probably had a run-in and disagreement of exactly this kind. And got over it, healed the relationship.

Barack Obama is young and his reaction can be seen as youthful why it must be forgiven. However, to be seen as a statesman to whom the reigns of the empire can be entrusted he must show that he can heal this breach.

I am sure that Wright's and Obama's views are not all that different if some misunderstandings and jumping to conclusions are cleared out in an open and respectful conversation, without bombastic statements. Let me tell you, I mostly fault Obama, not Wright, for this mess, because Wright is the innocent victim in this. He never ran for office, Obama did.

As someone who has written a seriously meant book about Atlantis and experienced first hand how many educated people are prepared to condemn it without having read it, based on snippets, I fully understand where Wright is coming from. God bless him.

Obama misrepresents Wright

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:14:34 EDT

I finally heard Obama on Countdown, he said about Wright "when he somehow equates United States' war efforts with terrorism" but I never heard Wright say that. What he said was that the US has been involved in terrorism, not that it was in the context of war. And Wright is absolutely right about that. The US is the only country effectively convicted of state terrorism in an international court (THE International Court, BTW).

Obama also said that Wright had suggested that the US was involved in AIDS. Wrong again. What he said was just that it was not outlandish to suspect that they may have been, which is again correct, given how may absolutely outrageous things the government either has done or has planned to do (such as flying passenger airplanes into buildings as an excuse for starting war on Cuba in the '60s).

Many may see the distinction as minor, but it is important, because if we cartoon other people we cannot bridge over differences, and unite, compromise. I understand fully Obama's actions from a political perspective, necessary (he thinks) for to win, but winning at any price is not in my moral. I'd rather fight well and loose than fight ugly and win. Which is why I was in the Dennis Kucinich's campaign in 2004, BTW.

How to WIN next week

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:01:13 EDT

Strategy:

1. Propagate this idea if you think it is good.

2. Obama should take the initiative back with an economical proposal, now. As follows:

a. Lower some tax (or give a tax credit) that helps low-income families, and people who have to use large amounts of fuels in their business, such as truckers

b. Don't lower but raise the tax on gasoline and other fossil fuel, so that pressure is put on society to lower the use of foreign oil.

c. Put unemployed people in work with increasing maintenance of reads and bridges, and speeding up planned infrastructure investments.

There are many benefits to this plan:

i. It will start turning us away from our dependance on foreign oil,

ii. It will make the market turn to renewable energy without the need for government subsidies,

iii. It will make fuel efficiency standards superfluous (as it has in Europe, where gas is about $8 a gallon),

iv. If we compensate for the raised fuel tax by lowering or removing property taxes, it will greatly benefit retired people who don't need to drive so much,

v. It will benefit those who travel by collective transportation,

vi. It will start that necessary transformation of the American society, infrastructure and geography that all expert know is inevitable if the country shall survive, but that politicians are too coward to speak about.

The fact is, we can't afford NOT to do this. The question is just if there is enough awareness among the people to accept the medicine. It is up to YOU, the Obama supporters, to say if the American public is ready for it, and if you are ready to speak out for it forcefully.

I have spoken.

Don't judge reverend Wright if you haven't walked for a day in his shoes

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:30:34 EDT

It is so easy to judge, and I see many blog posts here judging reverend Wright. Yet, Jesus taught us that we shall not judged so that we shall not be judged. Wright was attacked and not for himself, but as a way of getting to Obama. Wright had done nothing to deserve that attack. What FOX News did was evil, vicious, devious, un-American, and even a bit objectionable:)

Until you have been in Wright's position you should not judge him for defending himself. It has nothing to do with Barack Obama or the presidency or the United States of America - it is much more important, it is about the HONOR of a man. As Havamal says, "People die, cattle die, even you will die one day; but one thing I know that never dies, the verdict over a dead man." He has to defend his honor while he still is able to.

God bless reverend Wright, and God bless his work. As for this campaign I think we should leave him alone if we cannot give him support against the vicious attacks from people without conscience.

...and Obama shot the prophet...

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:41:19 EDT

In all cultures there are people who speak truth to power, whatever they may be called. They speak the truth that is non PC for normal people to speak. If we don't allow them to exist and do their job, there will be nobody who speaks the ugly truth. They are necessary for society not to loose contact with reality. Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and many like him, belong to that tradition.

By distancing himself from the perfectly acceptable things that Wright said the last few days Barack Obama has in effect shot the messenger who brings bad tidings.

Wright does not offend people. It is his message that offends, because people are so brainwashed by poor education and corporate media (and lack of public service media) in this country that they do not know the most elementary facts about the world. Many children overseas know more about social conditions inside the US than what American children know of their peers of other skin color.

But we cannot give up on Barack Obama. We have to try to educate him.

Obama, don't shoot yourself in the foot!

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:47:47 EDT

IMHO it would be a big mistake for Barack Obama to distance himself more from Rev. Wright. Doing so would make him seem jealous of the attention, and either hypocritical or oblivious to the racism in this country. As a recent immigrant from Scandinavia the full extent of the lack of solidarity between people of different backgrounds in this country (specifically in Miami) was a shock to me. It seems to me that Barack in distancing himself from Wright seems to appeal to the whites, while ignoring the blacks. The black will vote for him anyway, so it may seem smart, but while doing so it seems like he's turning the coat to the wind, which is bad for credibility.

My advice is to stay out of it, and let Rev. Wright debate the race issue and what he was attacked for without any intervention whatsoever from the Obama campaign. If the GOP attacks, other groups can stand up for defending Rev. Wright. Remember, only if people have a bad impression of Wright can it reflect negatively on Obama. If people instead get a positive view of Wright, it can help Obama -- provided he has not thrown him under the bus! So steer clear and let Jeremiah Wright defend himself, something that he seems perfectly capable of. God bless him.

Rev Jeremiah Write is doing this country a great favor

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:09:22 EDT

...by ceasing the day and addressing tho core problem of the US: The fact that the American people is not one people, not one group that stands up for each other, but a mix of different peoples that do not have solidarity for each others.

-Why is there no national health insurance? -Because of a lack of solidarity.

As long as this divisiveness persists, as long as some people stick to their slave-owner mentality that one person's money is more important than another person's life, there will be no solidarity, not "one people" but just "people".

And this slave-owner mentality which makes some people think it is moral and Christian to argue that "the rich white guy's right to wealth trumps the poor black man's right to health care" is fundamentally a moral problem, and as such something that ios appropriately addressed by religion.

I'm a member of a Scandinavian Lutheran church, and they preach sin. This far, until I heard Jeremiah Wright, I had not heard any church in the US talk about sin. Just success and happiness, the kind of message you would want to give to people to make them feel good ("You'll get pie in the sky when you die" as my countryman sang long ago), to ignore the problems in the country, and BTW to donate money to the church.

I've decided to visit a local black church, because in spite of the difference in how the message is delivered, it seems that their theology may be the one most like the Scandinavian mentality of solidarity. Furthermore, we need to start breaching the divide somehow, and every one of us can visit a black church as a small step.

No American left to die

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:36:28 EDT

Sometimes it strikes me that the good causes in this country seem inept in formulate their positions in easy to understand ways. Take health care.

-Are we prepared to leave Americans to die?

-Are we willing to not give sick people access to doctors or medicine just because they can't pay?

That would be immoral and uncivilized, yet that is exactly what a private health insurance solution leads to. Any private health insurance solution, including that proposed by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

If you subscribe to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or Christianity, or any other compassionate moral belief system, then it is unacceptable to let people die just to save a few dollars. From this follows that every single person living in a nation shall be taken reasonable care of when getting sick, which is another way of saying that everyone's health is insured.

Since universal insurance is most cost-effective when there is a single system, and since a single system cannot be private since it would create a monopoly, it has to be a public system run by the people, whose executive branch the government is. This kind of health insurance solution, present in all developed nations except the US, is the only possible solution that is morally defensible in a compassionate belief system.

The US system, also present in many third world countries, is only morally defensible if the wealth of the rich is considered more important than the lives of the poor; the same kind of "morality" that once was used to justify slavery.

We have got rid of slavery. Isn't it time to also get rich of the moral ideas that justified slavery in the minds of its perpetrators?

Let us leave no American to die!

God bless Reverend Wright

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:58:38 EDT

Let me tell you, coming from a country where God's name is not invoked lightly, for me to write "God bless REverend Wright" is a very strong statement of approval, after having seen Bill Moyer's interview of him on PBS.

It's a moral duty to impeach Bush

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:21:43 EDT

America has prosecuted foreign leaders for war crimes, such as the Nazis, Milosevich, and Saddam Hussein.

The law is equal for all. Also the US president must be prosecuted when he commits the same acts as those were prosecuted for in the past.

A failure on the part of Congress to impeach, or for courts to prosecute them after leaving office, will invariably bee seen as hypocritical by the rest of the world. This country will have no standing to ever again speak for human rights if Bush is not impeached and/or prosecuted to the fullest extent possible under law, seeking the same penalty sought for other leaders in his position. The whole world knows that Saddam Hussein was hung by the Quisling regime in Baghdad.

Of course there has to be a trial, but the question is not if he is guilty, there is prima fascie evidence for Crime Against Peace, and as regards torture he has already admitted to approving waterboarding, a well-known form of torture.

Why Obama will not become USA's 1st black president

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:48:35 EDT

This is why:
1. The Supreme Court has declared that everyone who has a single drop of black blood is black, no matter how small the fraction (refering of course to African origin).
2. Science has determined that mankind developed in Africa and spread from there.
3. Consequently, every person alive is black, so every president has been and is black.

Personally I think the Supreme Court was out of their their mind, but that's just my opinion. It would be much better to forget and ignore such differences altogether. In some countries it is actually illegal to ask a person for his/her race. Perhaps something also for the US?

Tax shift from property tax to fossil fuel tax

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:20:19 EDT

USA is in deep trouble now that the oil is over $110 a barrel. The reason is that we have kept fuel taxes low compared to other countries, which has prevented fuel efficiency, which has led to us being very much more vulnerable to high fuel prices. Our competitiveness will fall even more due to the high oil prices. This is not a small recession, we are facing a major systemic crisis.

The problem cannot be solved by just exchanging the SUVs with fuel-efficient diesels that get 55 mpg. A much larger problem is how we have organized geographical space in cities. Simplistically, Europe has affluent neighbourhoods near the city core, and working class neighbourhoods further out connected by trains - the most fuel-efficient means of transportation. USA has poor neighbourhoods near the city core, often connected by buses, while affluent neighbourhoods are far away, connected by expressways bridging over the poor neighbourhoods, and the vehicles on the expressways are gas-guzzling SUVs with one person in each - often. Chaning car will only decrease the energy demand by so much -- to get really big savings the organisation of space itself has to be adjusted so that the need for car travelling decreases. This will take maybe 50 years. However, we have to start NOW, because in a few decades it will be too late, the disaster will be unavoidable.

That is why we HAVE TO RAISE FUEL TAXES on fossil fuel. To offset this raise, I prefer lowering the property tax, since that is the most illogical and unfair tax in my opinion. Even if you don't earn a dime you still have to pay property tax. It would be more fair to let everyone pay according to ability, as in a percent of income or capital gain. But property tax is a tax on wealth itself.

It is imperative to realize that this is NOT a tax increase; it is a tax SHIFT.

If you care for this country, do advocate this policy, because it is absolutely necessary.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:33:23 EDT

I wasn't sure that Barack Obama's health care plan was a significant improvement, but after yesterday's attacks by the ABC stand-ins for the insurance industry complex, I must say that I have more faith in the plan. Anything that the so-called health care industry is opposed to MUST be good.

;-)

Tax shift mitigates depression AND global warming

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:47:45 EDT

There is a simple medicin for both the US economy and against global warming: Tax shifting away from taxes on work and property, towards drastically increased taxes on energy.

This will decrease energy use by both leading to more fuel efficient products, and to a more energy efficient geographical space. Europe is a good example, using much less energy per capita than the US for a comparable standard of living.

Of course this has to be phased in gradually, since it takes time to adjust infrastructure and vehicles to the new reality. Also, to the extent the tax shift moves tax burden from rich to poor, comensation has to be implemented. One possibility is to pay a child contribution if $100 to $200 per child, since the years with children are the most difficult economically in most families. And it does require a lot of driving.

When doing this tax shift the whole tax system must be overhauled and simplified by about a factor 100. It is totally insane the way it is now, that average people feel they need to use accountants. Is it intended as another way to disenfranchise the poor who cannot afford an accountant to help them minimize their taxes? What other reason could there be?

Tax shift as part of a complete tax overhaul is URGENTLY needed.

Raise Fuel Taxes NOW

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:02:53 EDT

Raising fuel taxes on gasoline and diesel is an obvious solution to a range of systemic problems in the US. The fact that media almost invariably portray it as anti-American should be an alarm bell to those in doubt: What are they hiding?

The US has fuel economy standards. Europe does not. European cars are fuel-efficient. American are not. Europe has a significant fuel tax, unlike the US.

The fact is that consumption can be effectively managed by using a compination of carrot and stick as in Europe, but it can not be controlled effectively with the US government regulation policies. It is time to stop being stubborn and start being smart.

By introducing a significant tax on fuel, something like 100% phased in over 5 to 10 years, every consumer is motivated to buy a fuel-efficient car (which means that the fuel efficiency standards can be tossed from the law book). Instead of the government telling Americans what to do, they will get a free choice. Isn't that what Americans want?

This will decrease the oil import, which is good for the economy, and it will decrease the CO2 emissions, which will decrease the greenhouse effect.

Naturally, the increased taxation of fossil energy has to be offset by decreasing or removing some other tax. Candidates that come to mind are tax on labor (i.e., income tax), and property tax. As a geographer I cannot help but reflecting on how this would affect the economical zoning in cities. It would become relatively less attractive to live in suburbs that required car commuting, and relatively more attractive to live near the center of the city, in spite of higher land prices there (if the property tax was significantly reduced). Is it a coincidence that European cities have upscale neighbourhoods near the center, surrounded by low-income suburbs connected by mass transportatino methods? Perhaps not; perhaps it is an effect of higher fuel taxes and lower property taxes. So which is better? From a fuel efficiency perspective there is no doubt: Europe uses much less fuel per capita than the US.

We need to look into such drastic re-organizations of society if we are to be able to improve our energy efficiency by the amount required, whether we use fossil fuel or renewable fuel.

Hammer in Crisis Awareness!

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:06:56 EDT

Crisis equals opportunity.

To bring about political change, the population first must have a feeling of crisis.

The US _is_ in a crisis, although some media try to deny and conceal it since thye understand that if people understand the full extent of the crisis, they will bring changes that those media owners are opposed to.

Learning from successful political campaiogns abroad, the key to success in our endeavor is to make teh CRISIS mainstream. The recession (which we are in, it is no longer a maybe) and the potential for a depression, and even a complete economical meltdown if we don't act to save the working and middle class.

Those who want Reaganomics can have it today if they wish: Just move to Honduras. Or Guatemala. Or any in a long line of "underdeveloped" countries where the poor are extremely poor, the rich are extremely rich, the middle class would fit on a football field, and the taxes are super low. That's what you get with Reaganomics. It's no secret, it already exists.

WE ARE HEADED THERE. If we don't change course, that will be USA in a handfull of years. Go to Central America to see the future! No disrespect for Central America, it's to a large part not their fault, they are also victims of Reagonamics and other overt and covert policies from the US.

We sure are in the 11th hour, and the crisis with health care, education, foreign debt, insane miitary spending etc is very real.

When the majority feel the crisis, then change is possible. Not before.

McCain makes USA look weak and cowardly

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:23:58 EDT

John McCain is, in my opinion, a coward for the following reasons:

1. He was a bomb plane pilot. To kill from afar is cowardly, as stated already by Homer who did not have much sympathy for archers. Real men met their enemy face to face in the Iliad. A gun signals cowardice. and bombing has long been seen as the ultimate cowardly way of carrying out war. But I suppose Reagans space weapons would be even more cowardly, of course.

2. He was for the attack on Iraq. Starting a war of aggression is a tremendous sign of weakness. The strong waits for the attack knowing that if anybody attacks him, he will prevail. The weak strikes first.

3. He wants to stay in Iraq, which again is a tremendous sign of weakness and cowardice. The brave dares to trust others, the coward trusts nobody but himself.

If John McCain would become president the opinion of the US in the world will sink even lower. It will be even harder to support the Quisling regime in Iraq. The dollar will keep falling, the oil will keep going up, the debt will keep increasing, and a full-scale economic collapse will happen within a few years. Not a depression, a collapse. As in the Soviet Union. But that's not my prediction, it is the prediciton of the same man who accurately predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Can McCain win? Yes. He has one key constituency that is big enough for him to win: The idiots. Tongue in cheek, of course, but there is a grain of truth in it. The word idiot comes from the Athenian democracy. It is derived from the word for "house owner", and refers to a person who is only concerned with his own house, and ignores the politics of the state. Those "idiots" can give McCain the presidency if they are not educated about the graveness of the situation.

It has for years been impolite to talk politics in the US. With my European background, where politics is talked everywhere freely, many have told me to shut up on politics in the US. But what is the result? The status quo. We MUST talk politics also in this country, because democracy does not work without it.

If people occasionally gets offended, so what? We can always agree to disagree, and continue talking about something else without ryuining any friendship. Americans just have to learn to agree to disagree without becoming disagreable.

In peace,

UE

The Judicial System in the US is Broken

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:16:11 EDT

It needs to be fixed, because the Law is at the heart of society. Peace is built with law. Personally I don't have any trust in the US legal system because it is obviously disfunctional. Just one illustration is the case with the Monsanto growth hormone given to cows in the US (while in other countries it is banned for being dangerous for humans, see http://youtube.com/watch?v=trWcqxrQgcc).

One of the things that needs to be addressed is the cost. It must be affordable to sue. Anything under $100 in court cost is reasonable. The legal cost of the winner should be paid by the looser, whithin reasonable limits (if corporations spend millions they have to foot the bill themselves, but if a corporation sues a smaller business the small business should be able to hire a top lawer if they know they are right, and the court shall order the plaintiff to pay the legal costs of the defendant if the latter wins).

A large problem in the US today is that a big corporation can bully by virtue of having more money to waste on court cases. That's why it is imperative to change the structure so that the winner does not have to risk anything financially. Even a poor mother of three on social welfare must be able to sue a large corporation if she has a case, otherwise the law is not equal for all.

I want a primary election campaign in Florida

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:45:20 EDT

There was a vote in Florida, but no election campaign. After the election I asked some people in Miami what they thought about Barack Obama, but the extent of their knowledge was that he was "black" ('negro'), which was reason enough to vote for Hillary Clinton given what their prejudice against blacks were (they said it, I'm just the messenger).

This gives McCain a huge advantage in the general election. I believe it would be very helpful for Barack Obama to campaign in Florida, and that he could get a lot of votes here if he only campaigned here - both in a primary and in the general election. But if there is no primary, chances are McCain will win the general.

Media pundits have said that Obama does not want a re-vote in Florida because Clinton won. That's BS. There was no election campaign, so the results are useless, null and void. I'm glad that South Dakota and other late states finally get a chance to make a difference, and I'm sure it's good for the party, but when all that is done and over, in June, I wish that Michigan and Florida would get a little election campaign too, so that democrats also in these states can get warmed up to the idea of voting for Barack Obama in the general election.

One 9/11 per month - caused by our own government

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:02:38 EDT

One 9/11 per month. That's how many people die unnecessarily because our impotent government has not created a universal health insurance system, you know, everyone is covered equally and everyone pay according to ability.

Background on the data: a study (see previous post) shows that 6 adults die per day in Florida alone, for this reason. That's one 9/11 per 15 months in Florida, which has about 1/20 of the US population. By extrapolation that makes about one 9/11 per month in the entire US.

6 adult Floridians per day die for lack of sick insurance

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:47:45 EDT

According to Naples Daily News (http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2008/mar/26/report-lack-medical-insurance-spells-doom-6-florid/?partner=yahoo_headlines) 6 adult Floridians die per day for lack of "health" insurance (which I prefer to call "sick insurance" as in many other countries, since it is an insurance for when you get sick, not for when you remain healthy).

This is of course a violation of what we all know is a human right: The Right to Life.

One typical case heppened to a friend of us...

America's "original sin" was not slavery, but ethnic cleansing

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:32:13 EDT

As the pseudo-debate rages on in media I think we have to take a deep breath and acknowledge that America's original sin was no slavery, but ethnic cleansing of the Indians, the natives.

Why is the historic fact of ethnic cleansing of the Indians ignored in the debate?

Why is there a "black" history month but no "red" history month?

In 1830 the Indian Removal Act was passed, an ethnic cleansing law that led to tremendous human suffering and loss of life, not to mention three wars. The president at the time was a Democrat, and the policy was a Democratic platform. The goal was to remove all Indians east of the Mississippi who led their traditional life.

This is but one case in a long history of ethnic cleansing, that has not stopped to this day. As we speak, treaties entered into by the United States of America are being dishonored.

As inexcusable as slavery was, the ethnic cleansing of Indians is and remains also inexcusable.

To ignore this ethnic cleansing in the public debate on race is also inexcusable.

I call on all Americans to talk about this issue, to debate it honestly and truthfully without passing blame, so that we can regain a sense of honor, and replace teh false pride of jingoism and flag-waving with the true pride of being part of a nation that stands by its word and its principles even when it goes against her own interests occasionally.

FYI, I am not Indian, but my reason to advance this issue is that I believe that it is an essential topic to be brought out in the open. For international relations it does matter that we are seen to take pride in honoring our treaties out of principle, and not because of a threat from some military force. And as for us as a nation, no person can be completely free who suppresses part of history or refuses to talk about certain issues because they trigger unpleasant feelings.

Open letter to senator Barack Obama

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:32:54 EDT

US Honor Needs to be Restored

Dear Senator,

Yesterday the Florida legislature formally apologized for the state's history of slavery. In a New York Times article you were quoted as recently calling slavery America's "original sin". But don't forget the Indians (i.e., the Native Americans, the First People, or whatever the PC term is this time of day).

Before there was slavery this whole country was inhabited by Indians of many different ethnicities and languages. Their history goes back a long time. As an illustration, at this moment I have a paper in press that links the Lakota myth of Unktehi to an ice age event 14,600 years ago, which coincidentally would make that myth the oldest confirmed folk memory of any people on earth. Equally old flood myths can be found along the southern stretch of the Mississippi. The history of the Indians comprises by far the longest history of this country--but how much does the average American know about it?

Every year my son has to do some project for a black history month, but never has he had to do not even a single day's project about Indian history. Yet, African Americans have only existed since the 16th century, while the Indians arrived during the ice age. Why is there no Indian history month?

As you know, the United States of America is founded on land that was taken from the original inhabitants. While the crime continues, one of the worst instances was an ethnic cleansing law passed in 1830. It was Democrats who advocated it, and the so-called Indian Removal Act was signed into law, and implemented, by President Andrew Jackson, a Democrat. Therefore, it would be very appropriate for the Democratic nominee for president to apologize for these acts committed by past party members, acts that at least today, if not then, would be considered war crimes in the eyes of the law.

Every one of us who came to this continent voluntarily, and settled in countries stolen from the Indians, are illegal occupants morally speaking, since we benefit from a heinous crime. Aunque tu, Barack. This creates a moral dilemma, since there is no way for an individual to become absolved from the crime, to get katharsis. The mental defense mechanism is denial. This denial leads to other issues, such as anger towards those who will not let the past be forgotten--and foremost of those is of course the Indians themselves, by their mere existence.

Similar to the affirmative action in relation to some ethnic minorities of foreign origin, Indians (the territorial ethnic minority) have been allowed to conduct gambling, an activity that traditionally is considered totally immoral by Lutherans. And just as affirmative action has created resentment among "whites", conducting immoral business was predestined to create resentment, too. It reminds me of H.C. Andersen's story of Cinderella, in which the antagonist thought that a princess must desire the opposite of what Cinderella desires; since Indians are uncivilized pagans, they must like to do the most immoral things, right?

You spoke eloquently of the plight of the African Americans, the affirmative action, and resentments that have grown in different communities. However, you did not mention with one word the other ethnic issue that is tearing this country apart, that is preventing us from working together as one, from taking care of each other as brothers and sisters: The Indians.

You have a unique opportunity to address this issue. Since, if I am not mistaken, you do not have Indian blood, you are in a position to speak about it without being self-serving. As a potential nominee of the Democratic party you have the platform from which to apologize for the party's past sins.

This is not only an issue of psychology and reconciliation. There are also legal aspects to this, issues of respect for International Law, treaties, and conventions. Although the US played a leading role in creating the international system of peace, including the UN and the International Court, the US is today much less integrated in the international community than most countries. There is a very long laundry list of treaties that the US is not party to, from legal ones like the treaty on treaties, to practical ones such as treaties on road and ferry traffic. Speaking of the latter, the absence of these conventions makes it economically impossible to run car ferries in the Caribbean, which explains a little bit of the economical disparity between the US and Latin America, which in turn explains the illegal immigration pressure.

There are two competing mechanisms for globalization, the UN system, and the WTO system. There is a strong bias in US media against the UN system, evidenced the last couple of days by the blatant lies presented by Lou Dobbs at CNN and Glen Back at CNN Headline News as regards the Supreme Court case saying that Texas does not have to obey a treaty entered into by the United States of America. Contrary to what they claim, the decision does not mean that the US is sovereign; on the contrary, it means that the US is not a sovereign nation. The Congress does not have the authority to enter into treaties on behalf of the member states. This is obviously a fundamental problem for the survival of the union, but that aside, the vocabulary of Dobbs and Beck revealed that they intended to distribute anti-UN propaganda.

The UN system is one intended for international peace and cooperation based on democracy. The competing system is the WTO free trade system, which is fundamentally un-democratic, a kind of world government. What we see happening is that the US preference for free trade and hostility to UN-based international conventions is hurting America. And when I say America I mean all America, from Canada to Chile.

You have a formidable task ahead of you, if elected president. One of your most important tasks, perhaps the most important, is to restore international credibility for this country. Others must know that we honor our word, that when we sign a treaty it is not just a crooked line on a piece of old paper. Unfortunately, there are too many treaties that this country has signed that are not worth the paper they are written on. There are many treaties signed with Indians that have been dishonored, but also treaties signed with other countries, and international treaties. The Supreme Court decision two days ago was just the last case of blatantly dishonoring our word.

We must work hard to regain the trust of others, and the first people we should approach with restored honor is the First People. If our own countrymen and brothers cannot trust us, then who can?

Once that is done, there is a long list of treaties to review. Also all those we have signed and ratified must be reviewed, because oftentimes Congress made exceptions that render the US ratification almost meaningless. Case in point, the ratification of the International Court, as Nicaragua discovered when they sued the US for placing mines in their harbors etc., and the US refused to recognize the court's jurisdiction (the US lost the case).

This is an economical issue, since many of the treaties do help with trade and in establishing comparable conditions for work forces of different countries. It should therefore be in the interest of workers, the unions, and the middle class to strengthen the UN system, rather than free trade agreements that lead to exploitation of workers and nature in Latin America and elsewhere. Until media start reporting on this, it is up to politicians to carry the torch in election campaigns.

Needless to say, it is also a security issue. Unless we are prepared to permanently subdue the entire world militarily in a kind of global occupation, our security depends on the respect we get from others. If we are seen as dishonest we will get no respect, and if anyone tells you otherwise, that we will get respect because of our military might, then he is confusing fear for respect. Security does not come from being feared; quite the opposite is the case.

We are now very close to the reefs, and a landward storm is building, so it is urgent to change our course back to open water. We are all in the same boat, so it is futile to dispense blame at this time; we have to make peace and start working as one crew to save the ship called USA.
Although this letter is poorly edited for lack of time, I hope that I have managed to connect the dots, and show how reconciliation with the Indians and respect for our treaties with them is crucial for our prosperity in the future as a nation.

Sincerely,
Ulf Erlingsson

USA a rogue outlaw nation like Taliban Afghanistan

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:34:34 EDT

A decision by the Supreme Court today disqualified the United States of America as a soverign nation. It instead qualified USA as a rogue nation, an international outlaw, a nation that does not have control of its territory - just like Taliban Afghanistan when Osama bin Laden was operating form there.

The case dealt with whether Texas is obligated to obey an International Treaty that the US Congress has ratified. The Supreme Court decided that Texas is NOT obligated to obey treaties entered into by the United States of America.

What this means is that the United States of America does not control Texas. In other words, the US government does not have control over the territory of Texas. Nor over any other of the 50 states, for that matter. The logical consequence of this is that the United States of America is not a nation that other nations can deal with. Since the 50 states are no nations either, it places the US as an outlaw country, a rogue nation. Logically.

We must remember that what matters is not how we see our position and standing in the world, but how others see us. What I am writing here is how others may analyse this decision - what is said in the US by people like Lou Dobbs and others is totally irrelevant and, frankly, very detrimental to a sane debate. This is far too important an issue to use in race bating.

The case in question is related to the fact that a court case against a foreign national whose consulate was not informed is null and void under a treaty entered into by the USA. However, the US routinely violate that convention with increasing sanctions being imposed each time. Most of the time, like this time, it is Mexico that drags the US to court - and wins every time, because the US is in the wrong.

Although populists like Lou Dobbs try to obfuscate and call it a "world court", the fact of the matter is that the US has ratified the court, and thus agreed to obey it, and furthermore this court, called the "International Court", is part of the United Nations, it was inherited from the League of Nations, and the country that played the biggest role in creating it was - the United States of America.

It looks very bad for us to insist on the rule of law internationally and then refuse to obey the laws ourselves, when we disrespect them.

The case behind this matter was a murder case. A Mexican citizen was sentenced to death without the US adhering to the Vienna convention on consular relations. In the past both Mexicans and Germans have been executed after being prosecuted in violation of that convention. Since in most of the world the death penalty does not exist, a US execution can understandably be seen as murder.

Let us turn the roles around and see what this - logically - could lead to. Take Osama bin Laden. He conspired to murder a number of people in 9/11, according to the official account of the events. He had his base in Afghanistan. If the US asked for his extradition, presenting sufficient evidence, and the Afghanistan government answered that they could not extradite him because they did not have control over that part of the territory where he was at the time, then what was the US to do? In such a case when a nation does not have control over its territory, and that territory is used for murdering citizens of another nation, then it could be argued - as the US and many other countries did - that it is acceptable to use military force to go into that outlaw area.

Turn this around now. For Mexico and many other nations it will seem that Texas is about to murder a Mexican citizen, and that Texas is not under the control of the central government of USA. The parallel is obvious, why the conclusion is clear: It would be justifiable in the eyes of the international community for Mexico to send in the military to extradite the citizen from the Texan jail.

Does it sound ridicolous? Of course Mexico does not have the military capability to do it, but that is the one and only reason why it sounds ridicolous. On the merits, they would have the right to defend themselves against what is, in effect, an attack against one of their citizens. It is irrelevant for the question of right and wrong if the citizen committed murder or not in Texas - what matters is just that his conviction was illegal under a convention that the US has signed on to, and therefore he is to be presumed innocent since he has not yet been proven guilty in a valid court of law.

The larger picture of this is that the United States of America has gone from being a champion of law and peace in the world (most famously at the Nuremberg trials) to becoming an outlaw itself. It is appalling to see media portray the institutions created largely by the US as enemies of the US. The truth is that it is the US that has changed, and Ronald Reagan started this change.

It is imperative that we get back to honoring the American values that once made this country great, and in so doing make a clear break with Ronald Reagan and his ilk. It is time to throw out the new-speak that has infiltrated our language since 1984 or so. War is not peace, torture is not patriotism, executions are not pro-life.

Someone said on radio that Barack Obama stands for change in these matters, but when I listened to what that change was, it appeared to me that the only thing he was saying is that we should obey the law that already exists. What a novelty. What a revolutionary thought. Unfortunately, as we have seen today, the matter is a bit tricky. There are some flaws in the Constitution that renders this union imperfect - a flawed state in which the government is not in control. It is clear that the distribution of responsibilities must be made clearer. It is unacceptable that states can ignore conventions that the country has sworn to obey.

I don't know how to do it, but it must be done. Perhaps the states should be given an ultimatum: Obey international treaties duly ratified by Congress, or leave the union. I'm sure Texas would love to be reunited with Mexico ;-)

State Dept.: "Anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism"

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:56:10 EDT

According to AP a new State Department report claims that Anti-Zionism is the new Anti-Semitism, and that any criticism of Israel is therefore racist.

I call on all presidential candidates (and candidates to the House and Senate) to denounce this New-Speak.

A little background in case you are not familiar with the subject:

Anti-Semitic
Semites is a population group that includes Arabs and Jews - Arabian and Hebrew are both Semitic languages. Therefore it is factually wrong to call someone who critizes something done in the name of Jews, and that hurts Arabs, "Anti-Semitic".

Anti-Zionism
Zionism is a political ideology like Marxism, Nazims, Capitalism, and not an ethnic or religious term. To say that criticism of Zionism is racist is therefore disingenuous, and a violation of the basic premise of democracy, freedom of speech.

Furthermore, The General Assembly of the UN has declared in resolution 3379 that Zionism is rasist. To then say, as the State Department does, that Anti-Zionism is racist is more than disingenuous - it is New-Speak, a la Orwell's "1984". You know, War is Peace, Peace is War, and so on.

Where I grew up it was an unacceptable racial slur to call someone Zionist. The State Department now wants to turn that 180º around. Shame on them. Shame on them.

We must get past racial division, and to do so we must be able to say the truth.

Barack Obama: I've got news for you

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:49:45 EDT

Finally I got the full text of your speech. Two things are critical - one that you said, and one that you did not say.

You said: "a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."

And in spite of talking about racial conflicts in the US, you did not mention that this nation is founded on the ethnic cleansing of the natives, now living as a territorial minority in reservations.

Don't you see the similarity between the ethnic cleansing of American Indians by the hands of European immigrants, and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by the Zionists, European immigrants to Palestine?

This is the core issue, Barack. The priests in my church would speak about the sins of our ancestors, and how those sins follow us for generations. We cannot get past the past if we do not recognize those sins. You, Barack, cannot understand the conflict in Palestine if you do not recognize that sin. Your speech reveals your lack of understanding, blaming a legitimate grievance on "radical islam".

Just as the grievances of African Americans are legitimate, the grievances of American Indians are also legitimate, and so are the grievances of the Palestinians. If you aim to make peace with the past, you have to take ALL relevant aspects into consideration.

Until this can be dabeted openly there will be no katharsis. Until we recognize the rights of the Indians and teh Palestinians, we will have peace neither at home nor abroad.

Sorry Barack, but you blew it IMHO

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:55:51 EDT

In his speach, senator Obama revealed a deep understanding of racial issues in the US. As a recent immigrant all of that is strange to me - the strong racism in the US surprised me when I came here, and I think Obama can make a difference in finally getting past the past.

However, when it comes to international relations he blew it. From the eyes of a foreigner he seems like just another US presidential candidate, not substantially different from Reagan or Bush or Clinton or McCain. That kind of patriotism is unbecoming, as it is reminiscent of the Nazis and other less than democratic regimes.

Self-aggrandising, excessive flag waving, pompous speach, and refusal to admit errors or apologize for mistakes is a sign of low self esteem and weakness. It is weird to see that kind of behaviour from the leaders - or potential leaders - of the United States of America. Frankly, I always get embarrased on their behalf when I see it. I wish there was more guts and display of honor from that direction.

So all in all, the speach was entirely domestic, and the best one can say is that Obama tried to divert attention from the foreign policy issue by focusing attention on the race issue. However, by apparently clearly stating that he doesn't agree with Wright's foreign policy views, he has closed the door to progress on that front. He can't now turn around and change his mind. The hope is gone in this election cycle for an end of the status quo in the Middle East - which is of course the root of most conflicts in the world at present. The conflict will continue, the war, the terrorism, the suffering. I can only pity America for being so blind.

What I would say if I was in Obama's shoes today

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:06:27 EDT

I would start with

"Pennsylvanians,
Americans,
Citizens of the world"

to mark that this speach is not an election speach, but that it is much more important than that: It is a major foreign policy speach, and it is directed to people of all nations, knowing that people of all nations are going to watch it and analyze it. Then I would go on to say:

"The predecessor of the United Nations, the League of Nations, was founded on the initiative of the President of the United States. The purpose was to replace war with the rule of law between nations, just like the law of the jungle within nations has been replaced by the rule of law since ancient times - in fact, for over 5,000 years in the region that is today Iraq.

"Just like the national law is upheld by a court, an International Court was established to pass verdict on International Law - or as we also may call it, the Law of Nations, because just as domestic law applies to Persons, International Law applies to Nations. This system for creating Peace was created with the United States of America playing a very active role, and it is one of the proudest accomplishments of this country.

"Unfortunately, before the system was fully operational some countries left it, determined to rely more on their own armaments than on peaceful international cooperation and trade, and we got WWII. Those countries were defeated in a costly war. One of the most brilliant acts by the US was to prosecute those who started the war in a court of law. This set the stage for a new era, in which a Crime against Peace - to start a war of aggression - became seen as the worst crime any person could do.

"To replace war with law is a very important step towards peace and prosperity. War is the ultimate racket, as we all know. A few get very rich, at the price of unspeakable suffering, deaths, and a completely unacceptable destruction of values, both economical and moral. Let there be no mistake about it: To start a war of aggression is the ultimate crime, according to the principle established by American prosecutors and judges in the Nuremberg trials.

"What is war? For one nation to kill a person who is on another nation's territory is an act of war. Does this mean that it was wrong to go after Osama bin Laden? No, that is not what it means. We were attacked, and since he was protected by the state in the nation in which he was, it was justifiable under International Law.

"After WWII the League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations. Important principles were laid down, such as the International Declaration of Human Rights - which says that everyone everywhere always has the right to defend himself in court, by the way. The core feature of the UN, though, is the mutually guaranteed security system. Every country is allowed to defend itself if attacked, but no country is allowed to attack.

"Nobody is saying that the US does not have a right to defend herself against attacks. Nobody, not even our adversaries. You see, the law is blind. It has to be blind. It has to apply equal to all. If anyone would say that we cannot defend ourselves if attacked, then what they are also saying is that they are not allowed to defend themselves if attacked. Not even our worst enemy would therefore deny us the right to defend ourselves.

"In fact, the only country that could even think the thought of not applying the law equally is the one that is so strong that it feels that she doesn't need the consent of the others. Such as a country that spends as much money on the military as all other nations combined. You all know which country I am talking about.

"But if she was to do that, to go it alone, she would loose the goodwill of the world - the goodwill built up by almost a century of sacrifices, of helping the defeated, of replacing the rule of the victor with the rule of international law.

"The law must apply equal to all. If we do not obey by our own laws, then we become outlaws in the world.

"There is no international police, there is only a court. However, while many countries of the world has signed on to the system of international law, this country is to a significant degree standing outside that system. And when we have been dragged to the International Court in Haague and lost, we have refused to acknowledge the court's decision. I'm thinking of the case Nicaragua vs. the United States of America, after the Reagan administration had supported the contras and mined the commercial harbors of Nicaragua in clear violation of international treaties that we are bound to uphold.

"This is not just a matter of honor. It's a matter of prosperity. No country can go it alone. We depend on trade, and for that we depend on goodwill overseas. Illegal covert - or even worse, overt - operations abroad hurt us in many ways, including in the pocket book. It is not a matter of 'a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do', it is a matter of honor. Covert illegal operations will come home to hurt us one day, and when that happens, some may say that the chicken has come home to roost.

"This is not a matter of speculation. We have it from the source: Osama bin Laden himself has given our operations overseas as teh reason for the attacks on 9/11. To say that they attacked us because they hate our freedom or democracy is disingenuous, and, frankly, un-American. It is something you would expect to hear from the propaganda of a dictator, not from an American political party.

"It is also racist to say so, because it suggests that some people love freedom and others do not. In reality, as we know, all people are created free and equal, and all people value freedom. We have no right to take the freedom away from other people, not even in words, by claiming that they hate freedom. It is a despicable thing to say.

"President Ahmedinejab of Iran asked a question when he was visiting the US last, and nobody seems to have answered yet. His question was why the Palestinians should have to pay the price for WWII. The question is of course both rhetorical and inflammatory, but let's see what he really meant and not get stuck on rhetoric. What he refers to is that Israel is occupying Palestine, and thus denying the Palestinians that freedom which we all cherish so much, and that we all have a right to.

"Now some might say that it's the Palestinians' fault for being terrorists. Think about it, would we turn off water and electricity and bomb houses in, let's say, Cleveland, just because there were terrorists hiding in that city? Of course not. International Law clearly says that it is the task of the occupying force to uphold law and order, and that means policing. What Israel is doing is more akin to war. If they cannot abide by their obligation according to International Law, they should end their occupation - which is of course what some are trying to do.

"To do what Israel did in Hebron in the summer of 2001 is not a solution. To safeguard a few hundred Jews in the city, they issued a curfew for the tens of thousands of Palestinians who lived there - Cristians and Moslems - allowing them to leave their homes for only 3 hours per week. Three hours per week! That is not a curfew, that is house arrest.

"Israel was founded by a decision by the United Nations. Those in favor were countries far away, in Europe and elsewhere. Those opposed were all the countries in the region, plus Greece and Cuba. Most of those in favor probably did not realize that Palestine at the time was populated largely by Palestinians. Most may have heard of the refugees that left Palestine as a result of the war that followed, but Palestinians report that even before the decision and the war there was ethnic cleansing in order to create a Jewish homeland. Millions of Palestinians now live as refugees, driven away from the land that their ancestors have cultivated for thousands of years.

"Two wrongs don't make one right. The wrong done to the Jews in WWII does not justify the wrongs done to the Palestinians today. The Palestinians must be given their freedom and rights back. At the same time, we must not commit another injustice to the Jews presently in Israel.

"Pastor Wright said once that we are supporting state terrorism against Israel. State terrorism is not a legal term, and the reason for that is that the US and Israel are opposed to establishing it as a legal term. It may, however, be used as a scholarly term, meaning terrorism committed by a nation state. In that usage, the Reagan mining of the Nicaraguan harbors in the 80's would qualify as state terrorism, since we were not in war with Nicaragua. From this follows, that the US is the only country ever convicted of 'state terrorism' in the International Court.

"It is time that we start facing up to the realities that the rest of the world already knows. At present we are like the suspect in the police interrogation who claims he is innocent, while the police themselves saw him committing the act. We are not fooling anybody but ourselves.

"So this is your choice: If you want to keep fooling yourself, vote for someone else. But if you want to restore America's honor and greatness, vote for me."

This speech would guarantee immortality for Barack Obama. But it would not guarantee him the presidency. Is America ready? I don't know, but I see only one viable option: Attack.

This is El Alamein for Barack Obama

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:54:15 EDT

Tomorrow the senator will speak about the comments made by pastor Wright. It is the El Alamein of the campaign, the Stalingrad, the Waterloo. At some point this battle would come, the time when he has to confess colour - as in bridge the card game, not as in race. But there is a race element to it.

He has already addressed the race issue, and done so eloquently. The question now is, will he stick to addressing only the race issue, thus avoiding to face the enemy forces head on, or will he join the battle at the location chosen by the opponent?

The real issue is of course the one about truth and consequence. Is it true that the US terror bombarded Beirut in 1982 (if I'm not mistaken), and is 9/11 a consequence of that? A person I know well was in te US fleet at the time and told me shortly after that the bompardment of apartment buildings with 45 cm guns from a WWII era battle ship was deliberate: the navy used those poor precision high impact projectiles precisly to cause maximum terror, and they deliberately avoided using the high precision weapons they also had access to. Osama bin Laden said in a recorded message that that terror bombardment was the act that motivated him to send the airplanes into the WTC on 9/11. Thus, it seems that pastor Wright was completely right in his intuitive analysis immediately after 9/11.

A second statement was the one with bless America versus damn America. That is if course quite inflammatory, but disregarding his style and focusing on the substance, he was talking about the innocent that the US has and is killing. As we all know, it is PC in this country to murder innocent people - as long as they are not American, and as long as there is (or might be) a suspect terrorist among them. Case in point: the US has killed suspects in foreign countries, and innocent people too, even though - according to the laws of war - it is a war crime doing so. So once again pastor Wright was right, although many may disagree strongly with his choice of words. However, we do have freedom of speech, after all, so it is te responsibility of all of us to defend his right to say what he wants to say, even if we don't like to hear it.

The third statement that I have seen repeated over and over, over at FOX "News", is the one where he says that we are supporting state terrorism against the Palestinians. Sigh. I feel pity for everyone who is so poorly served by his news media that (s)he doesn't know already that that particular statement is true. If you belong to that group, then I would suggest that you look up research done by independent peace and conflict research centers, such as SIPRI to mention but one in a country that is neutral in that conflict. Horrible crimes against International Law are being committed daily, using American-made weapons paid for by American taxpayers. Since the US is a democracy it is done IN YOUR NAME, or at least that is how it is seen in the world.

I'm sure that many in the Middle East see Israel as nothing but a Crusader state acting on behalf of the US, now that the US has taken over after Europe. As long as the US only operated in the Middle East via its proxy Israel it was hard for them to cause American casualties, but since Bush unwisely committed troops in an occupation of Iraq (in clear violation of International Law), the enemies of America have a smorgasbord made for them.

This simple analysis of what is really going on in the world is what senator Obama needs to serve to the American people in his speech. To speak the truth like this is to charge in the battle. To do anything less is to turn and run from the battle, thus decreasing the forces and bravery for the next battle - whichc inevitably will come one day.

Like all great commanders Obama now must contemplate, are we ready for this fight? Do we have enough momentum? Is there a sufficient number of bloggers and others who understand that this is the truth, and who expects nothing less than for Barack to lead them in this battle against the lies?

I don't have the answer, but if he does decide to attack, I'm with him all the way.

The pastor and his statements, e.g. on Palestine

Dr. Ulf Erlingsson — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:39:43 EDT

It seems some right-wing media has decided to make an issue of the pastor, what's his name. MSNBC just showed some allegedly controversial clips from his cermons, including one where he said that we have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians. Why did they show that as an example of controversial statement? Everybody who has cared to look into the subject knows it is true, don't they? I still haven't heard any researcher in the peace and conflict community express any other view. Well, except that "state terrorism" is not a legally defined term, but as a research term it is perfectly acceptable.

So what should an aspiring presidential candidate do in this situation? It is clear that there are powerful lobbyists behind a campaign of mud slinging. They attack by spreading confusion and guilt by association. However, if the candidate would cave in and apologize or similar, they win.

We have to keep in mind what they fear.

What they want least of all is a debate on these issues. That is their worst nightmare - because it will inevitably expose them as the bad guys. So their strategy is "attack is the best defense".

The counter strategy I would recommend is as follows:
1. If asked to repudiate the person in general
-Respond that all persons have equal value, and you cannot repudiate a person, only statements by that person. "Please be specific and tell me just what statement it is that you want me to repudiate."
2. If asked to repudiate a specific statement
-Analyze the statement. Break it down into facts, logic, and conclusion. If it is TRUE, say that "I would not put it that way, but I cannot find any logical or factual error in it." (That will push them into the factual debate that they don't want.)

For instance, the statement that we have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians: Who are "we"? The US of A. What is state terrorism? For instance, murdering civilians in another country, or an occupied country. Who, if any, has done that against the Palestinians? Israel, using US made helicopters. Has the US supported Israel? Of course. So the statement is TRUE in the logical sense. If it politically correct is quite another cup of tea, but one cannot repudiate a logically TRUE statement just because it is non-PC - that would spell disaster for credibility, that would be like using a prosititute after promising to get rid of prostitution.

A very large part of the world population who is actively following politics, and close to 100% of the arab world, would not think that president honest who would repudiate such a true statement. They would see him/her as nothing but a pawn in the hands of the Israeli-friendly lobby. That would continue the present situation in which sometimes Israel alone sides with the US, against the rest of the world, e.g. in the issue with the embargo on Cuba (which everyone else consider illegal).

I have read that this lobby uses law suits to scare media into submission. It would be good to have those facts accessible just in case.