We will never forget, but I don't want to understand

Last Monday I changed the mode on my alarm clock from "radio" to "bird chitter".

During the course of the morning I unfollowed on Facebook every source that used to update me on breaking news.

When I walked to work, I deliberately looked away from the newspaper stands outside of the shops I passed.

All of these actions were grounded in the same basic motivation: enough is enough.

Though in reality, it isn't enough. It's just getting started.


It seems we've become a country of reluctant news junkies here in Norway. It's been nine months, but the memories of the horrors of the events on the 22nd of July last year are as strong as ever. We've been through stages of shock, sorrow and anger, and now it is - perhaps - the time for comprehension. At least I think that is the reason why even those of us who rather would close our eyes to the whole thing still feel obliged to pay some attention to the circus that started last week: the trial.

It's absurd, of course, to even try to comprehend the - in lack of a better word - evil that lies behind the killing of 77 people in two coordinated attacks. One bomb. Several hundred gun shots.

I'm not sure, though, that it is beneficial to comprehend too much. It lies in our nature, perhaps, to try to figure things out, to understand, to explain. But in reality, I don't want to have to spend my time or energy on this man. I don't even want to hate him - what purpose would that serve? Reading about what he says or has written makes me feel ill. His picture too. That face I don't even want to know, but which has been etched in so that I will never forget the pudgy, pale, wax-like skin; the narrow, close-set eyes; the much-talked-about post-surgery nose.  The other day I made the mistake of watching a video clip of him to hear his voice - and I found myself thinking it was feminine and cold and disgusting. Objectively speaking, I am sure he looks and sounds no worse than the next guy, but I cannot be objective. And it bothers me, immensely, that I don't want to be. I want to feel physically ill from looking at him or hearing his voice, and consequently, I am letting him affect me more than he deserves.

The focus on him - the terrorist whose name I don't even want to say or write - annoys me. Obviously it's difficult to avoid, the attack having been a one-man-job. I get how this character fascinates people. The combination of a delusional self-image and extremist political ideas, plus the will and ability to go through with his [insert ten minutes worth of thoughts to try to come up with an adjective that accurately describes this. "Gruesome", "cold-blooded" or "morbid" didn't quite do the trick] plan. As a mental case, he is doubtlessly interesting. But I'm not a psychiatrist. I'm a regular person wondering whether it's really necessary to spend so much time, ink and words on a man who already hurt us all so much.

Ironically, here I am spending both time, words and the electronic equivalent of ink on him.

In reality, though, what ought to be the focus isn't him, or his wacked ideology. Rather, his actions should be. He will be prosecuted for what he did, not what he believes in. It seems the media forgot this detail.

I have faith in the system. I trust that the court will pass a fair judgment, under the available laws. I trust that this will mean that he will never again set his foot outside a prison as a free man. And that will be that. Until then, I don't need the details. I don't want to spend more time than necessary on this. I don't want to give him that.

Delusional Anagram Thursday

Delusional.

Ledusional.

Sudinoalle.

Unload isle.

Allies undo.

Ail nodules.

A duels loin.

Lone laid us.

Dial ole sun.

Use land oil.

Sun aloe lid.

El slain duo.

La nude silo.

An oil duel.

Denial soul.


(Now sing it to the tune of "Old MacDonald"...)

Mandsikjhfeuidfgyireifgsdfgwrgfwrifgi

I swear, the title of this post is extremely accurate. It reflects *exactly* what is going on in my head at the moment. What went on in my head yesterday, when I was supposed to post this. Topical Tuesday. I even had a topic (St. Lucy's Day), or exams (very topical for me, since I am going through them at the moment, albeit in a very different way than I've ever done before because I'm not taking them this year, but rather grading them... I swear, I'd rather take them!), or even the weather (we're having spring, I'm sure - all our lovely snow seems to be melting! Drat!)

But no. Before I had the chance to transfer my ideas to paper (or, more accurately, screen), they ended up in fhegiakfiutygihbhjgilwdjafgyg and *poof* I forgot the whole post. Until now. When I write it, it will still be up for an hour and a half before the next one (and much better one, I'm sure) ticks in. Not that it is a huge loss. I'm sure today's actual post will be much more thought-through and well-written than this one, not to mention the topic will not be lkhjefiudshfjkhfuiryifkdghfshdgfj.

In the meantime, though, let me muse a little over cbnsdjkghdgcsdcuhjasdgj:

Papers that need to be graded, need to be graded.

Jobs that need to be done, need to be done.

In English, you cannot write "they claims" and expect to get away with it. It are annoying!

Sometimes you have to make sacrifices. Sometimes they suck.

Friends are essential.

Suck it up!

Can you have your cake and eat it too? Won't we always try?

What's in a smile? When a person lights up when seeing you, should you draw hasty conclusions?

We want what we can't have, we hold on to what we don't need, and sometimes it's impossible to see the difference.

It doesn't matter what you believe in. Believe.

Yoga and boxing.

Wsdofhudgfiuweyjkcfjdyfuweudpqwuiryfwyfuvjgai.

Facebook's New Face

"Facebook is like one of those people who keeps getting plastic surgery to 'look better' but gets the 'WTF just happened' reaction instead" ~ @Evil_Dumbledore

You think you hate the new Facebook update? It’s messy, and difficult to navigate, and not to mention – it’s driving you up the wall that all your Facebook friends hate it and are complaining loudly about it in YOUR feed?

Well, you’re wrong. You don’t hate it yet. But you might once you read this.

Let’s face(book) it – Facebook has been watching us for a long time. They know what you like – or what the target group they think you belong in like – just take a look at the ads in your sidebar. If you’re divorced they’ll advertize dating agencies. If you’re a woman, they’ll advertize menstrual aids or hairspray. And if you’re old they’ll advertize gravestones. Or something.

Despite this we’ve been led to believe for a while now that at least you have reasonable control over what you share on Facebook. Well, friends, that is what has *really* changed this time around.

Remember in the past, when you could post something on your friend Brad’s wall about your other friend, Jennifer, and then be fairly sure Jennifer would never find out,because she and Brad weren’t friends, and she thus did not have access to his wall? (A theory that nevertheless was not foolproof, because a) Jennifer and Brad could become friends, and then she could go back and read it; or b) Jennifer could have other friends (better friends than you) who were also friends with Brad, and thus told her; or c)some internet SNAFU or other could reveal your indiscretion.)

Still. Now you’ll have to be very very very careful with what you write about the Jennifers out there on the walls of the Brads. Because it now is “easier to control what you share”, meaning it’s a whole lot easier to share more than what you intended.

Say Brad is friends with Angelina, that neither Jennifer nor I know. Well. Whenever Brad comments on Angelina’s photos, her status, writes on her wall or does anything else related to her that isn’t any of my business, I am now being informed about it through the “ticker”. The ticker – the feed within the feed (go take a look in your top right corner if you haven’t already seen it) – reveals all your (and others’) secrets unless you’re being careful. The regular feed has in reality become obsolete – or at least nothing like we used to know it. It is now disorganized, split in “top stories” and recent (but without the old option of manually shifting between the two), and it is Facebook that determines what constitutes a top story (with some limited options of feedback from you, through categorizing people in various groups. I’ll get back to that in a bit). So, your old feed now shows only things Facebook thinks you’ll find interesting, while the new ticker shows this and everything else.

And by “everything else” I mean everything. Because if Angelina or Brad don’t take careful steps to control who they share whatever information they are posting to each other with, it’s wide open for anyone to read. For instance, Brad could post a comment on Angelina’s photo. That automatically gives me access to the photo and all the comments on it, unless Angelina has specifically restricted access to her photos to anyone but her friends. Brad, poor sod, has no say in the matter. (By the way, if you're worried, there's an excellent article about this that can be found here, explaining how you can restrict who sees what when.)

This isn’t new, though, it’s been there for a while. But, now this also applies to other things. If Angelina posts a status update, say, mentioning that she is hanging out with her new boyfriend, Brad, and her new boyfriend, Brad, answers with a ♥, then I can see this, and report back to, say, Jennifer. (Not that it is any of Angelina’s business,anyway, to write something like that unless she is prepared for the world to know, but whatever.)

Thus, in a way, Facebook has made it easier to stalk others.

However, it has also limited our stalking options. First of all, you can control a lot easier who sees what if you’re careful. Whenever you share something, whether it is a picture, a status update or a link, you can choose whether you want it to be public (note: public means public. Ergo even people who are not your friends can see it), for friends of friends (which is a silly option, really, since it’s basically the same as public), for your friends only, for certain friends (you can target some people specifically, or exclude others specifically), or maybe just yourself (but what’s the point in that?). It takes a little more awareness in the moment of posting, but it is easier to control that those pictures of you in the frat party don’t befall the eyes of your mother (why would anyone want their mother as their Facebook friend anyway?).

Secondly,by making the newsfeed all wonky, the restrictions on who you actually are realistically able to follow up on limits itself. If you’re a compulsive Facebook-user (like yours truly), this might be a problem, because you really do want to know what every single one of your 789 “friends” are up to at any given point. The ticker is useful in this respect, but since it’s so tiny and still a little meh to navigate, it’s not likely to be where you spend your days scrolling down to know the latest on every person you know.

The key to effective Facebook stalking post the 9/21-change, then, is to categorize your peeps. You may not like putting people into boxes, but Facebook wants you to.There’s a box for people you know well (close friends), a box for people you know not-so-well (acquaintances), and there are generated boxes automatically for people you went to school with or work with. You can freely choose to add or remove people from these boxes, but be aware of one thing: they might get notified. The last few days you may have gotten some strange requests to confirm that you indeed worked on the set of “Interview with a vampire” in 1994. It’s not Facebook getting smarter, suddenly being able to read your mind (or, maybe it is. It seems to steal brainwaves from its users, actually), but people you know who worked with you that put you into one of those boxes. And all of a sudden, Facebook knows your resume, even if you never shared it.

You can also make your own lists, but before you create your “hunks I stalk on Facebook”-list, be a little careful. Remember the previous paragraph, where people got notified of when they were being put in a list? Yeah… So far this doesn’t apply to custom lists. So far.

In the end, Facebook hasn’t changed. Yes, our privacy has been further compromised, but then again, the change is more that we are now aware of it being compromised. The trick is, as it always has been, to share on Facebook only what you are comfortable sharing with everyone in the world. In theory, every picture, every quote,every everything you post on Facebook, is public. If you don’t want everyone to know about it, it probably isn’t a great idea to post it in the first place.

Topical Tuesday: The United Nations' International Day of Peace

Tomorrow is a special holiday. I hope some of you have heard about it, but I suspect many have not. It’s the International Peace Day. It’s funny, really, that it’s a relatively unknown date for most of us, while in reality it should be the most important of all. They make cards for Groundhog Day, after all, but I have yet to see one for the day in celebration of world peace.

Anyway. I wrote about this last year, and if you want an inspirational tale about how the UN peace day originated in the ideas of one man, you should go read that post. Here, though, I’d like to talk a little about the concept of peace.

You see, I’ve forced myself to spend some time contemplating this the last few years. I’ve written papers about peace – or rather, the lack of peace. The Middle East is positively a smorgasbord for the latter. It depends, though, on how you define peace. Is it lack of war? If so, what is war? A technical definition – more than 1000 people killed in a conflict – isn’t always sufficient to cover the human aspect. I think most of us would agree that a conflict killing 999 people is also a war, and that the number of people killed isn’t necessarily what makes the situations in Libya or Afghanistan or Iraq wars.

Peace can also be considered the lack of other vital things, such as food, human rights, or safety. But again it’s difficult to draw the lines. Is the ongoing famine in Somalia a war? Not really. But decades of wars and conflicts and lack of a proper authority in the country are important causes for the disaster. And the flow of refugees, trying to escape the barren lands to find food, is a potential new source of conflict. Horrible stories of people being shot to death at attempts of crossing military check points to seek help are showing what a complex and terrible situation this really is. The soldiers, often from various clans in the malfunctioning state, are there to oversee the distribution of emergency aid. Instead, many of them kill or rape the very people they are supposed to help. Definitely not peace, even if it’s also not war.

This week – today, even – world leaders are gathering in New York to hold a high-level meeting in the United Nations. One of the major topics is the possible membership of a Palestinian state. As mentioned, the Middle East has seen many wars the past century, and the Israel/Palestine conflict is at the very heart of the problem. Sadly, there appears to be no solution in immediate sight, and even the case for membership for Palestine is slim, if not non-existent. Still, the fact that the Palestinian authority is now trying to use the United Nations – an organization created to preserve peace – as a means to reach the goal of establishment of a Palestinian state is in itself a positive sign, in my opinion. Also, the focus on the economy of such a state, necessary reforms and the creation of institutions is perhaps a more constructive and realistic approach than the chance of achieving recognition ever was. Principles are important, but sometimes actions speak louder than words. Hopefully a two-state solution where Palestine has been consolidated into an actual, functioning state can help provide some stability and structure also for the peace process. At least we’re allowed to hope.

Many of my thoughts about peace are coloured by the “official” Norwegian attitude, which among other things is coloured by the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded in Oslo each autumn. Last year, an outspoken human rights activist from China won the award. Former laureates include other human rights and democracy-activists, environmentalist,and people working for poverty reduction. In addition to the more traditional concept of peace, these new areas contribute to an understanding that peace is more than just lack of war. In my master’s thesis I concluded that during the period 1956 to 1967 there were few (if any) attempts by the United States to perform tradition peace initiatives. There were, however, a number of initiatives directed at specific conflict areas, such as refugees, to try to limit the tension in the overall conflict. Already in the 1950s and 60s, then,there was an acknowledgement that peace is more than just lack of war. In the21^st century, this should not be controversial at all.

Thus I wish the world leaders the best of luck in their attempts to work towards peace, whether it is in the Middle East, in other troublesome regions, or in a more general “world peace” perspective. They will not be able to fix it today, tomorrow, or next week. But hopefully the steps taken today, tomorrow, next week and for the years to come, will be steps in the right direction. We should never give up hope. And we should always celebrate the international peace day.

Summer summary

It’s been a strange summer. Weather-wise, it’s been crappy. Any Norwegian will tell you so. Then again, any Norwegian would tell you that any summer, pretty much, and for the most part we are right. We do have a lot of weather in this country, and most of it isn’t of the nice kind. But even if we’d had a warm, sunny summer (not that we did, mind you), we wouldn’t call it a nice summer. We forget easily, in this country. And one rainy day easily translates to “three weeks straight”. If the weather is one of your main conversation topics (and in Norway, it definitely is), it is, after all, much more interesting to speak of bad weather than sunshine.

But I’m not here to talk about the weather.

The summer has been especially strange for me, I guess. I went from a busy life in Tokyo to the slow-as-ever sleepy small town life in Norway. I went from an exciting, interesting and challenging job where I felt I made a difference, to unemployment and application writing. From feeling useful to completely useless. From being a social butterfly to spending most my time on Facebook (which is not the same thing, no matter how you try to justify it for yourself). I went from having too many plans to handle, to having none at all. As of now, I have vacation for the rest of my life – in theory, at least.

But I’m not here to talk about my unemployment.

Norway in general had a strange summer. On July 22^nd the unthinkable happened. Terrorism. In Norway. 77 people brutally slaughtered down, by one man and his hate. A hate that took us all by surprise, and that we’ve been struggling to understand ever since. Maybe we’re not supposed to understand; maybe we don’t even want to. The debate that surfaced after this ranged from “we need to analyze his manifest to make sure others like him cannot go unnoticed” to “we need to give his ideas less attention to avoid copycats”. Principles of freedom of speech have been discussed. We all agree we need to protect this right, now more than ever, but there are different opinions and interpretations what this right should entail. How much can we allow? How far should anonymous online debates be allowed to go before the danger signals flare?

What made the strongest impression on me in the middle of this, however, wasn’t the stories of the horrors at Utøya. Not the controversy about whether someone like this culprit (whose name I don’t like mentioning, despite Harry Potteresque wisdom of not letting him become another “You-Know-Who”) could have been stopped, and what measures would be an appropriate punishment (nothing, clearly. Nothing is appropriate. So we have to stick to the options already provided in our laws).

No, none of that. What made the strongest impression was how people came together after this. How it suddenly didn’t matter where you were from, what you did, how much money you made. We were all one. We stood by one another and acted a little nicer, spread a little love. The rose sea, spreading across the country. In Oslo there are still roses everywhere, a sad and yet encouraging reminder of what happened. Terrorism and hate was met with democracy and love.

But I’m definitely not here to talk about terrorism.

In current events it’s been a summer mercifully free of cucumbers. (An old expression in Norway – “cucumber news” was when the newspapers during the summer did not have anything real to report on, so they wrote about the cucumber prices.) I suppose there were some cucumbers with the e.coli breakout in Europe early this summer. But apart from that we’ve had nice, proper news. Prime ministers have left their jobs (the Japanese, for instance. Today, in fact, after months of anticipation. In Norway we’re happy because the new guy’s name creates possibilities for puns just as the old one’s did. From “Yes, we Kan” [but he couldn’t] to “Hva nå da, Noda?” [that last one doesn’t make sense in English. Sorry, guys. But knowing Japan, I’m sure there’ll be a new guy with a punnier name within a year]).

In addition the Strauss-Kahn (he couldn’t either) case made nice headlines all summer, Libya and Syria (oh, who am I kidding – the Middle East in general) still ensure that trees are being chopped down to produce paper, and most recently, of course, a little lady called Irene got loads of attention (all jokes aside, hope you’re all safe).

But I’m not here to talk about current events either (and still not the weather).

What am I here to talk about, then?

Frankly, I’m not too sure. I meant to say something meaningful about blogging. Blogging on this blog, specifically. If you think it’s been kind of quiet here lately, you’re absolutely right. If you think that’s caused by irreconcilable differences within the group, you’re absolutely wrong. If you think it’s caused by a slight tendency of burn-out and summer business, you’re closer to the target.

We’ve been blogging approximately five days a week for a little over a year now (we even missed our own bloggiversary, that’s how preoccupied we’ve been!). We’re eight individuals, trying to coordinate across despite living in different countries, time zones, continents. We have different schedules, backgrounds, different ideas about blogging. In a way, I think our diversity is what makes the mix interesting. But it also makes it challenging.

Thus no one complained when a summer vacation was suggested. A vacation that allowed us to take a much-needed break from blogging. In order to not leave the blog hanging over the summer, however (no telling what crazy shenanigans it might have gotten into then), we decided to post once a week. Thus, this summer have seen fewer posts at the BB&B blog, but I think the posts that my dear colleagues put up were more than top quality wise.

Maybe that is why I had such reservations about my own post… What in the world could I write about that would be equally interesting as the previous posts? Trust me, the sleepy small town life doesn’t provide interesting blog fodder…

My solution was to post about our blog schedule. To explain why we took a break, and when we will return to normalcy. But (you thought I was gonna write “I am not here to talk about…” didn’t you?) even if I wanted to be here to talk about that, it is easier said than done.

You see, we haven’t made up our mind! Every now and then, we make some (smallish) changes here on the blog. Like setting up alternative schedules when we tire of our old topics. This is a golden opportunity for doing just that. So, the debate is going in the Burrow. What will we do now?

But I’m not here to reveal any secrets…  

Hypocritical much?

I'm well aware that Japan and the devastating March 11 earthquake and tsunami is out of international news by now. It's been long replaced with other stories, such as Libya, Syria, other countries that end with -ia, and politicians tweeting their wieners. If covered at all, chances are that what you hear from Japan has the word "Fukushima" in it, since that seems to be the preferable way news desks worldwide see the potential for scaring people into buying papers.

That might sound cynical, but I've been monitoring foreign coverage of Japan lately, and it's not encouraging. If you have spotted Japan in the news recently, there's a good chance you think the entire country is a wasteland. If you haven't, though, there is an equally good chance you think everything is back to normal.

Neither is particularly close to the truth.

First of all, there are areas where the tsunami left entire societies in pieces, many of which are still not rebuilt, some of which it will take years to fix. Many of the people - those who survived - previously living in these societies, have not been able to return yet. Some are still living in shelters - high schools and sports centers and whatnot - while others have moved to temporary housing of the slightly more permanent kind. But even here there are problems. Some of these houses do not have tap water, or if they do, it might not be drinkable. Some of them are located far away from shops and other facilities, which is unfortunate since many of the residents are elderly and/or without cars (a substantial number of cars were washed away or destroyed in the disaster).

Then there is Fukushima. It is still very much a topic - both because it is ongoing, even though the reports of new developments are few and less spectacular now than they were in the beginning. But there remain unanswered questions. How much radiation was actually released, and can we trust the measuring now? What sort of impact does this, and the still heightened levels surrounding the defunct power plant, have on the people living there, the food produced close by, or the fish in the surrounding sea?

In addition, there is a political crisis in the country. The Prime Minister is sitting on a bit of a catapult seat (the details of which you can find in a rant from yours truly, here). While it seems to me that the Japanese population isn't particularly happy about changing the head of the government right in the middle of a crisis, the members of the parliament seem intent to do so. Further, the political crisis might have direct influence on the general crisis, since passing of laws and bills (such as the reconstruction budgets, for instance) requires political agreement.

And let's not forget the economic crisis while we're at it. The disaster sent Japan into its first trade deficit for more than a decade. That alone isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the fact that exports have gone down - more or less the only thing that was pulling the already sluggish Japanese economy - is not good. However, by now a lot of the production in Japan is nearing its pre-crisis level. That opens for exports again, and thus there might be light at the end of the tunnel. But Japan already faced tremendous economic challenges before the crisis, and so far it's looking like the impact of the crisis has been all bad (without even the small benefit of inflation, as some economists hoped for).

Apart from this, however, most of Japan is functioning as usual. It's not dangerous to travel here - unless you insist on going to the no-go zone around the Fukushima-power plant... Same goes for food produced in Japan - I don't worry about that anymore. I trust that the tests the authorities in cooperation with international organizations such as WHO perform are as good as they can get, and that the food here probably will not kill me anymore than food produced elsewhere would (e.coli in Europe, anyone?). And despite all the bad things I said about the Japanese economy in the previous paragraph, I do think it's safe and wise to invest here again. The tsunami did not wash away the Japanese innovative spirit. They *will* recover, and foreign investments will be much needed (and probably much rewarded, with time).

As for quakes? Yes, there is still the occasional aftershock, but by now they are mostly down to the pre-disaster levels. Japan has always been, and will always be, a seismically active country. Those of us who have spent some time here know this, and by now I'm not even as edgy about them as I was. I had the following conversation with a friend from back home the other day:

"Are you okay?"
"Yeah, my cold is getting better..."
"I meant the earthquake..."
"Earthquake? Oh, you mean the 6,7 we had this morning? Yeah, didn't feel it. Don't think it did any damage. No biggie."

So that's not so much an issue anymore.

What IS an issue, though, is the energy supply, and what will happen with it during summer.

You probably knew that the Fukushima plants are now closed (or as closed as they get, since they are still struggling to cool them down). But did you also know that a good 30 others of Japan's total 54 reactors are closed for the time being? Due to interruptions of regular security checks after 3/11, many plants were shut down as a safety measure. Japan has relied quite heavily on nuclear power, and thus this is putting a severe strain on the energy supply. During the summer, when the sweltering heat makes living and working without air-conditioning seem almost impossible, it is feared that the country will face blackouts. This coincides with industries trying their best to make up for lost production by running the assembly lines at top speed. And at a time when fossil fuels are running at an all-time high cost precisely due to the incidents in Japan, and those in the Middle East.

Japan is trying. The Prime Minister - from his catapult seat - is promoting renewable energies. It's a good cause, and an important one if Japan is to find economically and environmentally affordable energy sources in the future. But "future" is a keyword here. You cannot exchange nuclear for solar, geothermic, wind and hydro power overnight. The time frame Prime Minister Kan has set is "20% by early 2020s". It's commendable, ambitious and perhaps even possible. But it doesn't solve the problem right now, this summer.

People living here are also trying to save energy. They turn off their AC, or at least set the temperatures higher. In order to make this more feasible, the "Super Cool Biz" campaign  (a intensification of the regular "Cool Biz", where people are encouraged to loosen [or remove] their ties and jackets to better cope with the summer temperatures) is running. I haven't seen many Hawaii-shirts in Tokyo streets yet, but who knows - perhaps this will be the end of the traditional Japanese salaryman "uniform" - black suit, white shirts and ties?

It's difficult, though. Have you tried working in an office environment where the temperatures rise above 25, 30, 35 degrees (celcius)? It doesn't really matter if your shirt is white or Hawaiian, I can assure you. And the same ting goes for my house. Lately I've been sleeping poorly, waking up every hour or so, guiltily letting the AC run for a few minutes. I can't open the window - since the mosquitoes here seem intent to eat me alive - and it wouldn't do me much good anyway with the still hot night air flowing in with the bugs. It's not comfortable, and it's not healthy. And this is just the start. Summer in Tokyo is hot and humid, and June is nowhere near as bad as July or August. The worst is yet to come. Some claim that the nuclear lobby - a considerable force in this country - are keeping a low profile until the worst commotion has settled down. Then, when summer sets in for real, they might remind people how one again can afford using cooling systems. It might be a conspiracy strategy, but it really sounds quite effective...

The Ministry for Economy, Trade and Industry is saying that it is safe to turn the nuclear reactors closed due to the security check interruptions back on. Prime Minister Kan admits that a (near) future without nuclear power in Japan is hard to imagine. The population, I don't know... As often is the case here, they generally don't speak up much. We've had some demonstrations, but we're talking a few hundred people. Out of 127 million. The newspaper Asahi Shimbun recently published an interesting survey, however. 74 percent said that they supported a gradual termination of nuclear power. I think this is probably the closest to the truth you get. Japanese people are pragmatic. They understand that shutting down all reactors tomorrow is impossible. But they also don't want another Fukushima.

Personally I see a lot of problems with nuclear power plants. If it were up to me, we'd have nothing of them. We'd go all the way for renewable energy (and when I say renewable, I mean that, and not pseudo-renewable as nuclear is, since it leaves HUGE infrastructural and logistic problems once the reactors are too old. They will continue to demand attention [and potentially costs] for centuries or millennia after they stop producing values). I'd like solar panels on every rooftop, windmills, and every other environmentally friendly energy form there is to dominate the market.

But for now it is an illusion. Maybe Japan will manage 20 by 2020. In the meantime, however, it's difficult not feeling like a hypocrite. I don't want them to turn the reactors back on, but I also don't want to live through the summer feeling like a raisin-zombie. I'll be leaving mid-July, so probably I'm not even going to see the worst of it. Which makes me an even bigger hypocrite.

But there you go. The world works as it always does. We all want too much. I want my cake, and I want to eat it too. And since I will leave the cake soon (stretching the metaphor here now, I know...), I feel that my nibbling at its edges won't make that big a difference. I'm good at turning off the light when I'm not in the room, after all... But of course it does, if we all think that way. Thus, I can only hope for Japan's sake that the rest of the people living here are not as big hypocrites as I am...

The End of the World

Tsunami in Japan. Revolution in Libya. Girls stoned to death in Bangladesh. Kids abused in shelter homes in India.
Cobra escaped from a New York zoo. Leopard trapped in a Mumbai drain.

You would think people could have their pick of news. But the one thing that has taken over every living, breathing moment of over a billion people for almost a week is none of those. It is something that transcends all of that. It is something that features Gods and devils. It is the End of the World. It is WAR!

Yesterday, India took on traditional rivals Pakistan in a game of cricket. Get that? A. Game. Of. Cricket. Yes, just a game. A game which is played in barely 25 countries across the world. A game!!!!

Sure, both India and Pakistan were "on a roll". Sure only one team could have made it to the Finals and have a crack at lifting the World Cup. Sure, it is the last chance for India's finest cricketer to lift the Cup. Sure, sure, sure. But....It. Is. Just. A. Game.

Offices were declaring a holiday, people were planning to wear Blue to support the team, people were going wild with facebook status updates.

But when I mentioned on my status message "Much that it may surprise you to hear it, the world is not coming to an end tomorrow!!!", people still did not get it. I wonder which part of the message was ambiguous, but I had at leat two people call me up and ask me if I was trying to reassure myself that the result of the game did not matter because I was scared that India would lose.

Surprisingly, or not so surprisingly, I had only one person back me up (and if you are reading this, you know exactly who you are)!. Everyone else chose to belive that the World was Indeed coming to an End, either way.

Like one otherwise sensible person commented, "how can u guys be so placid. This is not cricket. Cricket is when india plays with anybody else. With Pak...it is a war!!"

Wow!!!

Get real, guys. Cricket is a game. Just. A. Game. It is not War. Cannot be War. Should not be War.

It had to happen sooner or later. In fact, knowing me and my big mouth and even bigger opinions, I am surprised it did not happen earlier, much earlier. I freaked! On Facebook! On my own wall on Facebook.

This is not War. War is when you are fighting for your Values, for your Freedom, for your Land, for Riches. War is a high stakes game, where people get hurt. War is the catalyst that forces negotiations to happen. Cricket. Is. Just. A. Game.

But more than that, do the people who speak of War even realize that by bickering with Pakistan, India is pulling herself to Pakistan's level. Pakistan is still an underdeveloped Third World Country. India is spoken as one of the Political and Economic Success Stories. War with China, I can start to condone, but a war with Pakistan? Disregarding the military might of the two countries, if India takes on Pakistan, I would call it "bullying", not "War".

Anyway, India won the match (even though I am not the only one who thinks it was fixed). The World did not come to an End. The Finals against Sri Lanka will be anti-climatic. I refuse to be sucked into the Mass Delusion. Cricket is just a game, and I would rather be out running some miles, or kicking a few balls than watching a bunch of overpaid models strut about a cricket green.

Or maybe I will do something that provided me unlimited amusement during THE WAR- follow the game, not on TV or live streaming, but through Facebook Status updates. The real winners were not the Men in Blue, the real winners were the mobile service providers- they must have done more business in one evening than they did in the rest of the month put together.

And who knows, maybe the World will come to an End if India loses the next match?

And since this song refuses to refuses to go away, I am inflicting it on all of you.

Happy Non Delusional Thursday.

Libyan Vida Loca

You are probably thinking that I am very predictable.

It is my turn (again) to tackle Topical Tuesday, and what can you expect. Historian, political scientist, with the Middle East as my specialty. There are revolutions going on in Northern Africa, and I eventually had to touch upon it.

You are wrong.

I actually had to google Libya today to make sure it was in Northern Africa.

So no, I won't be giving any lessons on Libyan (Libish?) domestic politics anytime soon.

I did think I might talk a bit about the above picture, though.

It cracks me up.

It was taken at a ceremony honouring the victims of the earthquake in Italy in 2009. Now, don't get me wrong - I don't think the earthquake is funny, and neither is the fact that while Gaddafi might look like a lunatic, he is also a brutal dictator who recently (or not so recently? Again, my Libya-knowledge is fairly limited) has taken to slaughtering his own population.

But set the seriousness aside for a while. Look at the photo and tell me that the picture - separated from earthquakes and Libya and whatnot - the picture is funny.

This is how I envision the situation:

GADDAFI: I am the Saviour. Or the weather girl. Or the missing love child of Stevie Wonder and Carlos Santana. Either way, I am here. I'm sure you're all terribly impressed that you're in the company of the greatness that is Me, and I accept your adoration even if you only are leaders of the UN, US, Russia, and that country that makes French Toast. Silvio was wise to invite you to worship me.

BAN KI-MOON: I can't believe I let them talk me into this. Kofi would never have been forced to stand next to this clown. Oh, my god. Is he going to touch me?! Maybe I can move a little closer to Barack and hope they cut Gaddafi out of the picture?

OBAMA: Look serious now. Or sad. Think of the economy - that should do the trick. Do I look more serious and sad with my hands folded? Hm... Maybe if I look shut my eyes no one will remember that I ever appeared in a picture with these people?

MEDVEDEV: He is so TALL! Will I look taller if I stand on my toes?

SARKOZY: *snicker* Hey, Silvio, have you seen that Gaddafi is wearing a dress? It's so funny I almost wet my pants a little. *giggles*

BERLUSCONI: Yes, yes. It is all part of my plan. Gaddafi is so crazy I will look like a serious politician in comparison. I'm sure my friendship with him will never backfire!


There you have it. A blog post.

Chocolate and Politics

In Japan, Valentine’s Day isn’t about love. It is all about the chocolate. Each year on February 14^th, Japanese girls and women buy chocolate for their, boyfriends, husbands, male friends and coworkers. It might be an expression of love, but it is also considered a courtesy or social obligation (in fact, the Japanese language has a specific expression for “obligation chocolate” – giri choco). You might think the one-sidedness gravely unfair (especially if you’re a woman), but since the Japanese always reciprocate gifts, there is naturally an occasion for this as well. Hence, on March 14^th – known as White Day in Japan – it’s the guys’ turn. Again it might seem slightly unfair – since only the guys that already got a gift feel obliged to return one – but for White Day not only chocolate but also more expensive gifts, like diamonds or lingerie, is common. So it is debatable who’s got the better deal.

This year both Valentine’s and White Day fell on a weekday, and thus Japanese producers and importers are happy. It means increased revenues since more people will buy candy for their coworkers. These are good news for the industry, as Japan’s chocolate consumption soars in the months of February and March due to the peculiar holidays. Good news is of course always welcome, but at the moment the chocolate industry might need them more than usually.

Cocoa – the key ingredient in chocolate – is becoming pricey, and political.

This trend has been going on for years, as the demand for chocolate worldwide (particularly in China, where the market is growing) has risen rapidly. The cacao tree is native to the Americas, but today cocoa beans grow in a narrow strip (approximately 20 degrees north and south of the Equator), from South America through Africa to Malaysia. It takes about five years for a tree to mature, which means that producers cannot just plant another tree to respond to increasing demand.

More importantly as of recent, however, is the fact that the world’s largest producer suddenly closed the tap.

The West-African country Côte d’Ivoire (whose proper name is in the country’s official language, French, though it is commonly known as the Ivory Coast in the English speaking world) has been troubled for decades. Following independence from France in 1960, Côte d’Ivoire has like many other African countries experienced civil war, a coup d’état and political unrest. A peace treaty between the government and the former rebels was signed in 2007, and an election was supposed to take place afterward. The election was, however, postponed a number of times. When it finally was held, in 2010, there was hope that this might lead to stability. Instead, it led to further tension.

The president, Laurent Gbagbo, had a large support base in the south of the country; while the opposition candidate, Alassane Outtara, chiefly was supported by the population in the north of the country. The election was characterized by certain acts of violence, but still it was considered fair by election observers. However, as the polls closed, both candidates declared themselves as winners of the election, and both took the presidential oath of office. Independent observers say that Outtara is the winner, and he is also supported by the international community. However, this helps little when Gbagbo is still in power, a power he recently tried to use to expel all UN peacekeepers.

Côte d’Ivoire produces about one third of the world’s total production of cocoa, and it accounts for about 20 percent of the country’s total earnings. Thus, it was in an attempt of cutting off the funding for his opponent Outtara recently declared that all export of cocoa (and coffee – Côte d’Ivoire is also one of the world’s largest producers of coffee) will be halted for a month.

Half a world away, in Japan as well as Europe and America, producers of chocolate are worrying. For Valentine’s Day, the export ban was not a problem, since purchases are made months in advance. For the Japanese White Day, however, and for the other upcoming chocolate-covered holiday, Easter, it is a problem. As a result of the export ban, and the general unrest in Côte d’Ivoire, the price for cocoa has sky rocketed.

Now, if this had been oil, it would have meant that the price of gas would also rise. Chocolate, however, is a very different commodity than is oil (as developing countries have experienced in the past, when attempting to “pull an OPEC” by reducing the supply of the raw materials to increase prices).

First of all, despite the popular belief, we can live without chocolate. We can also live without oil, but it is much harder to substitute, and it affects much more substantial parts of our lives if we don’t have oil (transport and energy supplies) than if we don’t have chocolate (cranky).

Secondly, while we’re used to price changes in the oil market according to market rules, the price of chocolate is much less volatile. It normally changes with the overall inflation in the society (meaning that if other prices increase – including wages – so will that of chocolate); and it is sort of seasonal – much cheaper on February 15^th, for instance (which is one of the few times supply and demand regulate chocolate prices). But normally the price of the product chocolate is not overly dependent on the price of the cocoa.

Since we are not used to chocolate prices fluctuating, consumers most likely will not respond well to it. Hence, it is no solution for producers to increase the price now (as a result of increased costs), since this most likely only will lead to reduced sales (and thus further reduced income), since most consumers would react to the rapid price change and instead buy something else.

It is an interesting situation. Producers are despairing. Consumers are largely ignorant. I have tried to dig out whether the export ban has been observed, and whether it has had any effect. So far I have not found an answer, though media reports that mediators are on their way to the country.

As for the population of Côte d’Ivoire? Hundreds are killed. Banks are shutting down and the ATMs are empty. The political instability continues. Some 25-50,000 Ivorians are refugees, or “internally displaced” as they are called as long as they remain within their country’s borders. The last thing on their mind, probably, is whether they’ll have chocolate for Easter.

Topical Tuesday: What will be the fate of NASA?

I read a really interesting article in the New York Times today concerning the United States and space exploration.  The fate of NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) hangs in the balance as the agency will need to streamline its budget and do "more" with "less."  Many believe that the government should continue the space missions and programs currently in progress just as we always have; with big budgets and no time frames.  However, there are others who feel that NASA's current state of operations needs revamping of budgets and redirection in it's purpose.

Continuing the space program in its existing form, which is the legacy of the Bush Administration, has several benefits and disadvantages.  With the large appropriation of funds, there is a prodigious amount of resources for the advancement in space technology.  We can actually achieve human space exploration beyond the moon.  The Constellation Project would become a reality; from Earth to Moon to Mars.  Future colonization of interstellar bodies would actually be possible and we would become proficient in creating long distance spacecraft travel.

However, an extension of exploring the solar system brings many problems as this is an extremely, costly model.  This type of budgeting will increase the United States national deficit beyond the trillion dollar mark (zillions, maybe? No, just checked- it's quadrillions).  This, in turn, would cause the slicing of other program budgets like health care benefits and education.  Another possibility is that we will screw up the rest of the solar system just as we mess up everything else.  Sadly, I think our destructive tendencies are programmed into our genes.

On the other hand, the cancellation of many of the missions can be advantageous.  The government would be better able to delegate necessary funds to programs like social security for senior citizens and development of jobs in our degenerate economy.  Also, by cutting back on sending human beings into space (only until NASA can figure out safer and more effective means of travel), there will be a remarkable growth in terms of "robotic sciences and aviation," (Chang).  NASA could allocate funds from the private sector and raise revenue to support their research and development departments.  This could be a way of problem solving the accumulation of capital.

But, the abandonment of this vital program also brings complications. By cutting revenue to the space missions and programs, NASA will be forced to solicit "rides" from other countries with spacecrafts.  This disadvantage would leave the US at the mercy of paying astronomical fares to explore space, much like New York City's MTA.  In addition to this, NASA has stated that it cannot build heavy lift rockets for commercial use due to budget restrictions and limited time-framed schedules (ibid.).  Like all other bureaus in government, NASA will need to re-organize, downsize and prioritize it's spending. My fear is that the US will revert back to the days of Reagan when all of the US space shuttles were nothing more than glorified taxi services for high-powered companies.

It's interesting that this same concept is in Stephen Baxter's Manifold Space.  Baxter discusses the existence of life other that originated on Earth.  He discusses the possibility that the United States, and in turn other countries, lose site of our innate compulsion to expand and explore.  Perhaps I'm nuts, but I really feel that space travel is that next insurmountable plateau.  We can better find resources to sustain ourselves if and when we expand.  I'm afraid that Easter Island, the eradication of natural resources and the disappearance of an entire people, will happen on a global scale should the world population continue to increase (we all know it will).  The only answer that I can come up with is will be to spread to the stars, like Octavia Butler's Earth Seed.

What are your thoughts or point of view on this?  I want to know!


Images from Wikimedia Commons.

Constellation project.: NASA Website.

Chang, Kenneth.  "For NASA Longest Countdown Awaits." New York Times (New York City) January 24, 2011, Morning Edition, Section: D1.