To Vote or Not to Vote

The Swedish election is still far away, but the news bombardment about the Presidential election in the United States has got me thinking about democracy and the act of voting. In the newspaper the other day, two American women were asked which candidate they supported and why. One of the women said that personality wise, she thought that Obama was the best, but although she didn't agree with Romney and the Republican party on many issues, she still believed that she shared more common ground with the Republican party than with the Democratic party, so she had decided to vote Republican in this election. This makes sense, and most rational people would look at the arguments of both parties, weigh them against each other and vote for the party whose values and ideas best fit their own.

Many state that to refrain from voting is being lazy, not caring about one's future and to deny oneself of the opportunity to make a difference because, as they say, “every vote counts”. Politicians seem very concerned when only a small proportion of the population hit the ballot-box. They hire good-looking actors to convince people to vote, “to make a difference”.

But is it really so? Is it not possible that sometimes choosing not to vote is a completely rational choice based on one's values and beliefs or on an understanding that one's vote really doesn't make a difference?

I have reflected over this issue for some time now and I have found that I have been able to think of many arguments against voting.

Going back to the lady who said that she would vote for Romney even though she didn't agree with him on many issues. What this exemplifies is the fact that a politician or a political party can never represent anyone. There will always be issues were the voter will disagree and be forced to compromise. Even politicians within a political party cannot just do as they wish; they have to follow the party line. So even a politician can't really represent a party. Yet, we are being asked to sign on to the idea that “we” are being represented, and that our personal values, are represented by politicians. I and only I represent myself. Period.

Furthermore, in an age where politics was based on clear ideologies, it was easy to pick sides. Nowadays, in an attempt to attract as many voters as possible, political parties have all moved towards the centre, where ideologies have become extinct and where politicians say whatever they think the average voter would like to hear. So the voter tries to figure out who to vote for by listening to the politicians debating, and the politicians base what they are saying on what they think the voter wants to hear. Politicians can't win votes by standing up for what they believe in, even if it would be in the interest of society as a whole. 

Finally, the people cast their votes and a party wins and get to rule the country for a number of years. People realize that the party doesn't live up to their promises and when it is time for a new election, the people want change.So they decide to cast their votes on the other party. Well, you know what, the opposite is not better. The new party can't keep their promises, and so it continues.

Big government also leads to inefficiency and corruption.Where there is government, there are people who want special advantages that only the government can give to them. In a free society, with free competition, all companies have to compete under the same conditions, but with a government, companies can bribe the government to give them special advantages at the expense of other companies and consumers. When people think they are protesting against capitalism what they are really against is most likely fascist corporatism, the merger of state and corporate power. Big government inevitably leads to corporatism, which is corrupt and inefficient, since it denies consumers the right to get the best quality of goods to a competitive price.

http://www.geke.us/Corporatism.html

In conclusion, I deem it to be a rational choice not to vote for a system one does not have faith in. If I find that a party is willing to stand up and protect my personal liberty and fight big government (that is paradoxically it's own power) I will vote. If not, I choose to do something better with my Sunday afternoon, like going to the mall. Because as a consumer, I can have a greater influence on the development on the country and economy than I can ever have by voting for something I do not believe in. 

Global Warming Video

If global warming was as serious as politicians, such as Al Gore, would have us believe, how come they are not putting any effort into finding ways to combat it? Cutting carbon dioxide emissions will not have a noticeable effect on climate change for generations. If we urgently need to fix the "problem", we must find alternatives.

I don't believe that we need to get into geo-engineering to save the earth from frying up; what I want to show with this video is simply that the suggestions they have for stopping or slowing down global warming does nothing to change the course but will greatly affect the world's economies negatively. If they really believe in global warming, they should also be aware of that cutting carbon dioxide emissions wouldn't be anywhere near enough.

In the end, the global warming fear-mongers enjoy the control they get by manipulating the population into thinking that global warming is real and that everybody bears a responsibility simply by breathing; we are all the enemies. Is there a better way to create a perpetual war?

I made this video to illustrate my point.

Julian Assange smear campaign?

Don't get me wrong. I believe that men who rape or sexually assault women are the lowest of creatures and should be treated as such. Women should also not fear to tell the truth when they have been raped and should be treated with decency when telling their story.

However, in rare cases, the man being accused is innocent, and one cannot, therefore, assume that all allegations are true.

In the case of the rape allegations against Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, a few things should make one suspicious. It seems like he did have sex with the two women, and although perhaps morally questionable, there is nothing illegal about "not phoning them back".

According to an article in The Daily Mail:

One source close to the investigation said the woman had insisted he wear a condom, but the following morning he made love to her without one.

This was the basis for the rape charge. But after the event she seemed unruffled enough to go out to buy food for his breakfast.

Her only concern was about leaving him alone in her flat. ‘I didn’t feel I knew him very well,’ she explained.

They ate in an atmosphere that was tense, though she said in her statement that she tried to lighten the mood by joking about the possibility that she might be pregnant.

They parted on friendly terms and she bought his train ticket back to Stockholm. When she asked if he would call, he said: ‘Yes, I will.’

But he did not and neither did he answer her calls.

Note that "they parted on friendly terms". it did not turn ugly until the woman got into contact with the second woman that Assange had been seeing.

The drama took a bizarre and ultimately sensational turn after she called the office of Woman A, whom she had briefly met at the seminar.

The two women talked and realised to their horror and anger that they had both been victims of his charm.

The issue of unprotected sex left a fear of disease. It is believed that they both asked him to take a test for STDs and he refused.

Woman B was especially anxious about the possibility of HIV and pregnancy.

And it was in this febrile state that the women, who barely knew each other, walked into a police station and began to tell their stories.

If this is true, pressing charges against Assange for "breaking their hearts" is hardly the right way to go, and if they were worried about STDs or being pregnant, there is health care services one can turn to. Why the need to go to the police to find out how to force him to be tested?

Woman A said afterwards that she had not wanted to press charges but had gone to support the younger woman, who wanted police advice on how to get Assange to take a medical test.

Wow, seriously, is this it? The definition of rape is "sexual intercourse with a woman by a man without her consent and chiefly by force or deception." Well, as far as I can see, there was no force and she was in consent.

However, the women's lawyer stated that the women were upset by how the case had been handled.

This case is a regressive sign for women that it’s not worth reporting when something like this happens,’ she said.

Well, yeah, why should women report that they've been raped when they have not?

According to some, however, men bear a collective guilt against women, and ironically enough, one of these extremist feminist is Claes Borgström: the two women's complainer. He once stated that men have a collective guilt for violence against women. (Wikipedia)

Furthermore, one of the women, as well as Claes Borgström, are politically active in the Social Democratic party, which makes one question their neutrality in the matter.

In the end, the allegations do not really seem to be true, but it is efficient smear campaigning against Assange. Very convenient...

Quantitative Easing Explained

Are we in the Twilight zone?

Enjoy.

Helen Thomas' "retirement"

89 year old journalist Helen Thomas was forced to quit her job as a columnist for The Hearst newspapers after having made controversial remarks on Israel's occupation of Palestine. White house press secretary Robert Gibbs condemned the commentaries and called them offensive.

What she said was "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine. Remember that these people are occupied, and it is their land, not Germany, not Poland...they should go home, [to] Germany, Poland, and America and everywhere else. Why push people out who have lived there for centuries."



Thomas has always been one of the few who has dared to ask the tough question and speak up even when her opinions were not politically correct. According to many, she took it a step too far this time, but it is actually quite irrelevant. What is interesting is how, in the wake of the Ship to Gaza massacre, her comments can cause so much outrage while Israel's killing of civilians trying to help out fellow men go relatively uncovered by media in America. We should be outraged by murder, not by people speaking up for what they believe in. And how come every time anyone dares to criticize Israel, they are called anti-semantic? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Those who speak up for the Palestinians, a semantic people, should be labelled pro-semantic? Of course, it is all a play with words, and while we focus on putting labels on people, there are real wars out there and real people dying.

If it´s not broken, don´t fix it!

...and don´t replace it with something that is a whole lot worse.

It's been a year now since I first wrote on this blog about energy saving light bulbs and their potential danger to the environment and to our health.

Now, a new Swiss study has found that energy saving light bulbs emit dangerous radiation, which may lead to acute nerve and muscle damage. It is now recommended that one avoids being closer than 30 cm to these types of light bulbs for any longer period of time.

To sum it up, energy efficient light bulbs are good because they lower your electricity bill by a few dollars per year, but they destroy the environment if they are handled the wrong way and thrown in the trash, if they happen to break, you may get poisoned, and you have to give up reading in bed as you may suffer cardiac arrhythmia from the radiation they emit.

Also, energy efficient light bulbs don't emit any heat like a good old fashion light bulb does, so if you live in a cold country like Sweden, you might not even save money on your electricity bill as you will have to compensate for the lack of heat from the light bulbs by turning up the heat on your radiator instead. It´s also pretty annoying to have to wait several seconds for the light to go on every time you turn on the switch.

Instead of reinventing the wheel, perhaps we should focus on inventions that actually bring real environmental benefit.

Source: Swissinfo.ch

Who is Herman van Rompuy?

Nigel Farage provides us with a colourful and slightly shocking description, and...well...bravo Mr. Farage.