Well, that’s a pretty standard tack which most countries have followed at some point or another. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
It’s why the US backed the Bolsheviks/Soviets. It’s why the US justified helping to arm Hussein and the mujahadeen (sp?). It was adventageous at the time. It was helping the enemy of our enemy. Did it turn out so well? Not in every case that can be made. And whoever we’re assisting right now may turn around and want to fight us in the near future. The only option in that case? Isolationism and a stance of being ready to fight every single other nation in the world.
Nobody is ever going to get this right. No matter what ideology someone wants to follow. There will always be someone that is against what other people want. Until there are no people that want what someone else does, there will be war. We all hope for this to be false. But it hasn’t changed in centuries. Best to just assume it will happen for a few more centuries.
Captain Amazing and BrainGlutton, your discourse is fighting my ignorance. I thank you.
After my experience in Paris, I’m wondering if they have much to complain about. I fell and injured my eye. An ambulance was called and I was taken to a hospital. I waited in the emergency room for about one or two minutes. I don’t remember seeing any other patients. I saw a doctor who examined me and asked me questions. She cleaned and bandaged the eye and gave me a tetanus shot. Then I was released. The total cost to me for the ambulance, the hospital and the doctor was about $30 US dollars.
I don’t know what system of health care the French have, but they were wonderful to me, an American.
Basically, yes. And porn. And there’s been experimentation with ‘tolerance’ zones, where soliciting is permitted. (Something which I think Germany has used during the world cup?)
The initial Danish defense was laughable, due mostly to a policy of continuous appeasement and disarmament of the 30s. But perhaps more unfortunate, is that the Danish resistance, despite a national myth to the contrary, was only weak and ineffectual at best. And it was not until fairly late in the war (when it became clear that the Germans would lose) that it was anything but symbolic. On the other hand, Denmark shipped immense amounts of much needed farm products to Germany throughout the war, as well as supplied workers to the German factories. If all nations opposing Germany had acted as Denmark, there would have been no allied victory. The volunteer units Captain Amazing talks of, I consider of less importance. All occupied (as well as a number of non-occupied - I think you’ll find even a smattering of Americans in the German Wehrmacht. Ironically a very multicultarist organisation) nations had them. The only saving grace Denmark can be proud of is the saving of the Jews. On the other hand, the magnanimous spirit that saved the Jews didn’t extend to protecting German refugees. Whereof thousands desperately fleeing Prussia after it was being overrun by the Huns, were let go to waste and die of starvation, thirst and easily preventable diseases. Mostly babies, very young, unaccompanied and helpless children and women. How loathsome is a people that, when they’re the underdog acts like bootlicking sycophants, but when the table is turned by the immense sacrifice of others suddenly turns self righteous and vicious on their former masters.
Actually The Russians wanted to have counted Denmark as an Axis country, it was only be lucky chance and the help of the English, that they avoided such a fate.
The arch-Hitler-apologist Winston Churchill, was a politician first and foremost, and in the post WWII Europe he knew perfectly well that it was of no use to belittle a country he could need in his new struggle against communism. And for Sweden’s position in WWII could be said the same as for Denmark’s. If everybody had done as them, there would have been nobody to oppose Nazism.
Yes. With admirable chutzpas, the Danish government, which had just the day before stopped actively cooperating with the Nazis in trying to destroy the resistance, pointed to the resistance as Denmark’s pride. It was thesmall figleaf that was used and much mythlogised in the decades after the war. Suddenly everybody and his uncle Bob had been in the resistance. Recent studies however otherwise.
Many countries have outlawed prostitution in one form or other, Sweden has gone a step further by also punishing those whom seek out the whores. Anyway, I only mentioned it as one example of the excesses of state intervention. And before Charlie Tan gets his knickers more twisted that they already are, let me hasten to say that it’s worse in Denmark (I just read, it’s against the law to own an office chair with less that five wheels).
No. One was the minister of the Swedish government. The other, the former but still very influcensial leader, of a comming government backing party.
Sweden has not been at war for close to 200 years, mostly due to a supreme ability to be opportunistic, without getting caught in flagrante delicto. Not only did we supply Germany with iron ore and let troups transit, using our railroads and trains, since Sweden was untouched by the war we supplied the raw material to re-build Europe, getting a fairly large share of the Marshall money. This paid for our Keynesian experiment with our welfare state. Not our finest hour.
I’m not saying I think this is a good law. It’s been going on for a couple of years and soo far it seems prostitution has become a lot more hidden, thus negating the good effect that was supposed to come out of it.
The idea is to not punish the women, many of whom lead truly miserable lives, but trying to get to the root of the problem - cutting off demand, while stigmatizing men who buy sex.
As I said, it doesn’t seem to be working, and men in my part oof the country go to Denmark, Germany or Poland to find hookers. Maybe it will change the attitude of the boys growing up, maybe the law was stupid because it didn’t work (putting laws in effect that no one cares about will eventually undermine the respect for the legal system), but the effort was done with the best intentions.
No, not also. Only. Being a prostitute is not illegal. It’s the most sensible way to criminalize any part of the business, in my opinion.
If it isn’t typical of Sweden, it’s not relevant to the thread. You portrayed it as an example of why the government in Sweden in particular is too intrusive in people’s personal lives. If this is simply a matter of you thinking that the governments of most developed countries are too intrusive in people’s personal lives, it was an irrelevant statement.
I haven’t seen the cite.
She’s not influential, she’s a nutcase, and the Left Party probably won’t be involved in the government after the election.
Of course the whole idea of a state controlled media is at its core deeply suspect and rife with potential abuse. (During the 80s, when the Danish state saw its control over the information being accessible to its citizens being challenged by the availability of parabolas, actually decided on a law that made private ownership of parabolas against the law, subject to fines, imprisonment and confiscation. A law worthy of North Korea or Iran. Fortunately the Danes did, what they’re wont to do in such situations, what the heck they wanted and told the state to bugger off. So after a while the law was thrown out on grounds of unenforceability.)
Here’s another case:
A secret (which was accidentally released) internal policy document from the management of Swedish state Radio (and Television) before the election in 2002, declared how journalists were to use certain specific words when describing certain subjects. For instance the party Swedish Democrats which was running for parliament against the Social Democrats was always to be described with the words “främlingfientligt” (enemy of foreigners) and must no longer be described with the previous preferred words: “högerpopulistiskt, högerextremistiskt, invandringskritiskt, eller någon liknande förskönande omskrivning" (right populist, far right extremist, opposed to immigration or any like prettying up paraphrasing). The guidelines further stipulated that the same party should be toned out and made to seem less influential than what it is. Whatever you think of the party, then it is a perfectly legal Swedish political party, which the Swedish state media thereby decided to try to do its best not to have elected. I don’t care if it’s communists or Nazis or evil Social Democrats, I find the whole idea of the state trying to have certain parties elected and others not elected outrageously unacceptable and undemocratically. The Swedish state media further affirms that its journalists are not to be objective, but on the contrary, to be biased when reporting on organisations which “threaten the ideals of the democratic society.” - dunno. The devil is in the details, and who gets to decide what is threatening to the democracy. I for one would rather that decision was not up to the state.
Let’s just be clear on one thing - Sveriges Radio (Radio Sweden) and Television is not state owned or controlled. They’re a “Public Service” company, modelled after the BBC. It’s owned by a trust and need to negotiate an agreement with the state to be allowed to broadcast. This whole process is open, but the politicians have no access to decision making in the company.
They are, of course, allowed to set their own editorial policy, within the rules o theagement with the state. One of those rules is to “actively promote democratic values.”
The political party Rune mentions is anti-demodratic, with convicted felons, neo-nazis.
First of all, you’re inflating the importance of that party. They are and were and hopefully will always be a fringe party. They were never a serious threat to the Social Democrats or any other party. “Running for parliament against the Social Democrats” is technically correct of course, but makes them sound a lot more important than they are or were. We also have the Galago Party running every year against the Social Democrats. I believe they got fifty votes last time.
Secondly, every single newspaper, TV channel or radio station has these kinds of guidelines. They have preferred terms, orders about how to refer to certain entities, and so forth. The Swedish Democrats are xenophobic, so why not call them precisely that?
Now, you say that it’s worse when the order comes from the government. Fair enough. Show that the order did in fact come from the government, and I’ll agree with you.
That’s not what your link says. Every quote comes from the management of Ekot, a media entity. Surely they must have the power to decide that they wish to support democratic ideals?
The confusion seems to lie in you not knowing that the state-owned media is independent of the government. If, as you seem to think, the state-owned media’s content is in fact controlled by the government, why didn’t it change when the other bloc was in charge 1991-1994? Why wasn’t everyone fired and replaced by people loyal to that government?
Money speaks. The budget and method of financing of Swedish Television (SVT) and Swedish Radio (SR) are being set by the Swedish parliment and collected through an indirect and for all practically purposes mandatory license tax. Further SVT had a complete monopoly on news until quite recently and still sits on the majority of the market and has an annual tax funded budget larger that the combined budget of all private actors on the market. SVT enjoys economic conditions that none of the other companies can even dream of. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you. Also the government directly appoint the chairman of the board that controls SVT and its managing director. (In Denmark, the government appoints the whole board). I have no cite, but much expect that you’ll also find a great overlap in the people being employed by SVT and in the extended Social Democratic network.
SVT could do what the heck it wanted – if it was a private entity with no links to the state or government. It is not. And it makes not difference if the we call the Swedish Democrats full fledged Nazi scum baby eating devils or commie child raping bastards. It’s still wrong for a state to actively through its semi independent cells to try to influence an election.
Yes, but you still haven’t shown that it’s the state doing it.
Do you really believe that if SVT started referring to the Swedish Democrats as “rightists” instead of “xenophobes”, the chairman of the board would be fired? That SVT’s budget would be decreased?
We talked about this extensively in journalism school. Everyone agreed for example that the Bonniers corporation had enormous influence on the hearts and minds of Swedes as they controlled so much of our media, but when queried how exactly they did it, no-one could answer, because no-one actually believed that someone from Bonniers phoned up the editors of their newspapers to tell them what to print. Our teacher even showed us a few instances of Bonniers-hostile stories in Bonniers-run papers. The same things happen with the government; SVT criticizes the government just like the privately owned TV channels.
Well I think I have. At the very least, that the state is paying for having it done. And when it comes to state and meddling in elections, it’s like with Caesar and his wife. The state must be above suspicion in any manipulation of election.
No. Everybody is much more professional that being caught with that on their hands (except for the few cases, where politicians show the true extend of their media arrogance, and close down Internet sites publishing dislikable material). I imagine it works much more circumspect than that. Something with old boys network, old party comrades helping each other on, having the party book in order, appointing those with the same ideas and views as yourself, etc. I don’t think Murdoch or Berlusconi would necessarily call up and fire anybody saying something they don’t like either. But I still think they have a big influence on the media.
That the state is paying for it is not in question. That the state unduly influences the content is.
As for the budget issue, I’m still not convinced and the Wikipedia entry is unsupported. I will look for a cite. However, even if the Wikipedia entry is correct, your statement was still wrong. TV3, TV4 and Kanal 5 are not “all private actors on the market”.
My emphasis. This is where I’m certain you have a point, but for the rest of it, I’m going to need evidence.
I think they would, except that it never comes to that. People know what would happen if they put a foot out of place.
Define “duress”. It was done because the guys in charge believed/realized (depending on your point of view; I’m of the latter opinion) that Germany would invade if they didn’t do it.
The thing is, Rune, your first post in this thread was highly hyperbolic and not very substantiated with facts. Let’s take a look at that post again:
It’s not massive or hidden, but the Socialdemocrat government juggles with statistics to make thing look better than they are - they claim a little over 4 %, in reality it’s just over 8. This is not strange with election coming up in two months. The numbers are there, only not in the rethorics coming from politicians. It seems to me that politicians in any country will try to make the numbers look good.
GDP has grown 3.8 percent the last year. While not booming, certainly a healthy number.
This is not only happening in Sweden, but yes, there’s reason for concern.
We’ve already addressed this. I just want to say that there’s a myth among Danes that “anything not forbidden is mandatory” in Sweden. This is largely due to our very much stricter laws concerning the sale of alcohol. Only in goverment owned stores, open M-Sat, 9-7. Alcohol is more expensive than in Denmark, and the legal age to buy (20) is higher, but not as high as (most states?) in the US. Isn’t there a state with alcohol monopoly as well? Ohio?
Slightly so. The rate of “all crimes reported” is up 8 percent over the last ten years, There were 180 murders and manslaughters in 1995, 243 in 2005, a steep curve, but still quite a low rate (3 per 100k population, the U.S. has about 5/100k).
This has been covered and is patently false.
The tax rate is ther highest in the world, about 52 % of the GDP goes through the tax system in one way or the other (49 % for Denmark) - how this compares to the former USSR, I have no idea.
Who is keeping them out? Why?
True enough. See my above post about the Marshall aid.
I’ll get back to this later.
I disagree. The racism is mostly directed against people from MENA and former Yugoslavia.
I totally agree and find it shameful.
Hyperbolic, but true to a extent. The Social Democrats have been in power since the 30’s, except for '76 -'82 and '91-'94. They have a strong support with a large part of the population. The power corruption charge is sadly true.
To the extent that what you claim is true, I concur that there are large similarities between the Nordic countries.
Now, for what you said about the media that would make Pravda proud. What we have is the national public broadcasting company, with two tv channels and four radio channels. I get 15 channels in my apartment, and I don’t pay for cable. Should I do that, the basic package will add another 15 channels, and premium cable will get me another 10 or so. If I get a satelite dish… well, then really, the sky’s the limit.
The state owns no other news outlets, apart from the obvious (official websites ASF).
Well yes, the same system is in place in (among tohers): the UK, Iceland, Denmark, Italy, Norway, Germany, France, Ireland and Finland.
You probably didn’t mean this, but this reads as if there are no other news sources but TV and radio. We’ve had freedom of press as long as any other Western European country. The monopoly was broken in the late 80’s, as you noted with that quote from Wikipedia.
As for the part about “sits on the majority of the market” - well nobody’s forcing anyone to watch their programming. If they get the majority of the viewers it’s probably because the majority want to see what they offer. Breaking in down to certain demographics will show that their large share of the mostly is due to the senior citizens not watching the newer channels.
The other companies are privately held and I will have to ask you for a reliable cite that the National BRoadcasting Company has a larger budget than all the private actors of the market combined. Be careful Canal Plus is awfully big.
Maybe true. Let’s see when you find that cite.
Well, no. The board is appointed by the goverment, after consulting the minority. The members come from all the parties represented in the parliament, making the board about half leftist and half right wing.
Well, no. Or yes. If you’re saying that journalists tend to be liberals (in the US sense), then maybe you’re right. IF you’re saying that editors and reporters are handpicked for their political leanings, then you’re wrong. There are too many check points in place for this to happen.
(and on preview - damn you Priceguy for typing faster)