In an editorial in today’s Svenska Dagblad (SVD) Roland Poirier Martinsson writes about the differences in hospital and healthcare between Sweden and USA. He rightly points out that the standard of the American system is extremely high in all areas and in pretty much every community. In Sweden we are learned that the horrible capitalist Mecca on the other side of the Atlantic have dying people everywhere because they don’t get help or get substandard help.
Being a Swede living abroad and have done so in a couple of countries and have traveling some on top of that, I can definitely state that hospitals and healthcare in Sweden are terrible. I don’t why my birth nation always are ranked so high when UN or other organizations rank these sorts of things, but maybe it’s the amount of spending?
There is two things in particular that others are better on than Sweden, even if you are in poorer countries like Turkey or Estonia, and those two are: First of all the speed of the process. You get help more or less on the spot even for minor problems. In Sweden you need to wait for hours or half a day if you have broken an arm. And the second thing is the more caring attitude. In Sweden doctors and nurses are highly professional and well educated, but they do their thing like robots and I have never even seen a smile on any occasion I been to a hospital. In other countries they “take care” of you in a more service minded way. And those who have been hurt or sick know that a smile and some comforting words go a long way. So for those of you that thinks it’s so great that Sweden spend more on healthcare than most other countries, get bent.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
R.I.P America
I have been spending an hour this morning skimming through Obama’s stimulus bill and it’s even worse than I thought. Hardly a single thing, except maybe the money on infrastructure, that will do anything more then”being spent”. In a year or two when the money is gone, if America hasn’t recovered, they are fucked. Maybe he plans on borrowing and printing even more money? And as I understand it, the different states need to permanent some of these money through state law and state founding after these money are gone. So even IF they recover from this recession, a recession which I believe is just getting started, US will end up with even more of the same idiocy with higher local taxes as well as higher federal tax together with a national debt out of this world. Welcome to socialism. Even the Swedish government isn’t this crazy.
I will read some more this afternoon, but here are some points on what the money is being spent on:
$480M Loans to Farmers
- Yeah, like Americans need to borrow more fictive money from themselves and future generations
$15M Oversight of Department of Agriculture spending
- Wtf? He is going to spend money on checking out spending?
$100M Adult and child day care meals and snacks
– hahahaha… snacks…
$400M NASA climate research
– Actually the climate thingy is a huge post in this budget; this is only one of many. Roughly counted its well more than 20 times this post. Even if you believe in the crap about manmade climate change, this money doesn’t generate any kind of effect on the economy.
If you are interested, here is a summary of the stimulus: http://online.wsj.com/public/page/stimulus-package.html
I will read some more this afternoon, but here are some points on what the money is being spent on:
$480M Loans to Farmers
- Yeah, like Americans need to borrow more fictive money from themselves and future generations
$15M Oversight of Department of Agriculture spending
- Wtf? He is going to spend money on checking out spending?
$100M Adult and child day care meals and snacks
– hahahaha… snacks…
$400M NASA climate research
– Actually the climate thingy is a huge post in this budget; this is only one of many. Roughly counted its well more than 20 times this post. Even if you believe in the crap about manmade climate change, this money doesn’t generate any kind of effect on the economy.
If you are interested, here is a summary of the stimulus: http://online.wsj.com/public/page/stimulus-package.html
Morocco VS Iran
I find it kind of strange that none of the big Newspapers in Sweden is reporting about Morocco who has cut diplomatic links with Iran. This in the wake of outcry in the Sunni Muslim world over a statement by an Iranian official questioning Bahrain's sovereignty. Morocco also has criticized Iran for its efforts to spread its Shiite brand of Islam in Morocco.
Morocco, with 99 per cent of the country being Sunni Muslim, and the rest either Jews or Christians, seems to be on the same page as many other Sunni dominated states. The difference is that many other Sunni Muslims lives close to Iran and is afraid of the religious dictatorship of the Shiite’s in Iran.
Breaking of diplomatic ties is a serious business in politics and is very seldom done.
Morocco, with 99 per cent of the country being Sunni Muslim, and the rest either Jews or Christians, seems to be on the same page as many other Sunni dominated states. The difference is that many other Sunni Muslims lives close to Iran and is afraid of the religious dictatorship of the Shiite’s in Iran.
Breaking of diplomatic ties is a serious business in politics and is very seldom done.
Won't someone think of the children?
A bit of an oldie, but a beautiful woman singing about how things only are going to get worse is always soothing.
The parents of Buffalo Bill
I need to write about a couple of amebas in Sweden that for some reason have became parents and refuses to raise their kid according “societies rules for gender”. These low-level feminist a-holes regard their kid as a “person” that they some days dress like a girl and some days as a boy. And they never use words that could imply some kind of gender. The female soon to be mother of Sweden’s next serial killer was quoted saying:
“It’s dreadful to put a note in a child’s forehead were it says; pink or blue”
“To me xxx isn’t a girl or a boy, just xxx”
“If xxx choice to be extreme in one way or the other hasn’t anything to do with this”
Extreme!? The lack of grey matter in this case is so overwhelming that you almost think that there actually should be such a thing as ‘social services’. How do they think this poor defenseless child is going be when he/she/it grows up? I see this “person” in 25y from now sitting in a damp cellar in a suburb whispering down a hole; “It rubs the lotion on its skin. It does this whenever it is told.”
Were the hell is that apocalypse?
“It’s dreadful to put a note in a child’s forehead were it says; pink or blue”
“To me xxx isn’t a girl or a boy, just xxx”
“If xxx choice to be extreme in one way or the other hasn’t anything to do with this”
Extreme!? The lack of grey matter in this case is so overwhelming that you almost think that there actually should be such a thing as ‘social services’. How do they think this poor defenseless child is going be when he/she/it grows up? I see this “person” in 25y from now sitting in a damp cellar in a suburb whispering down a hole; “It rubs the lotion on its skin. It does this whenever it is told.”
Were the hell is that apocalypse?
1919 – The year of shame in Sweden
The year 1909 a bill was passed in Sweden that gave the right to vote to men. Ten years later women got the same right. Although the stipulation that men needed to do compulsory military service in order to vote and that the equal rights didn’t come until 1924, I do think that those primary years of letting first men and then women vote were the horrifying ones. Why did we make those laws so anyone could vote about their neighbor’s income? Don’t get me wrong, voting is for the most part a better way of governing then complete dictatorship, but there are too many flaws built into the system and even if it is the ‘best’ solution, it doesn’t make it ethical. On this day, International Women's Day, we should also look at what the right to vote.
What does it really mean “to vote”? Pretty much anyone you talk to will tell you that this is a right for every human and we should be able to choice who governs us and, more importantly, to choice another ruler if the first one fails. They will also tell you that “one man, one vote” is the democratic way and that this notion brings equality to citizens, no one is worth more than the other, and everyone can only cast one vote each. This nonsense we get taught in school, journalists celebrate it and politicians from every spectra of the political sphere will tell you that this is the most important thing there is. “If you don’t vote, you shouldn’t complain!” – is a normal sentence heard before every election. And if someone choice not to vote they are told about other countries where they don’t have the right to elect their leaders. All of this is said and spread around without any regard to any alternative and no one ever thinks about what the consequences might be.
Voting should be a very restricted “right”, if even existing at all. And if you are reading this you will immediately think I’m some fascist bastard or a reactionary conservative fool. I’m not. And as I said, voting and democracy is the best of the solutions we know of from history. Accept for socialists and some religious freaks no one wants the dictatorship back. But this doesn’t mean you should lay back and think everything is great and it doesn’t put a “morally correct” shimmer over voting like we are led to believe. Voting is in reality only two things; one is to decide what should be done with our collective money and how much of your income someone else should rule over. So when you are voting you are not only voting what your money should be used for, but also your neighbors’, the single mums and everyone else in your particular society. And, secondly, you are making a choice about who will make decisions for you. Even if you don’t think this is too bad, which you should, the next fact might get you to reconsider. The one who get elected and will rule you for the next couple of years is the one who sounds best, he/she who say the best phrases and delivers the solutions that attract most voters. In fact, no one can ever be elected without making promises and sometimes even making outright lies. And those promises; saving the poor; higher pensions; better minimum wage, or whatever they may be, you are paying for. So you are putting your money in the hands of someone who promise you to do something for your money. How is that a good thing? Why can’t you decide for yourself? Especially when this “someone” also needs his/her wage and his/her secretaries, aids and administrators also needs wages, all of which you are paying for.
But if this isn’t something that makes you question the morality of voting, how about the fact that it is never the majority that decides? Yes, that’s right. As far as I know, not one single democratically elected government has ever had the majority behind them. This is because those who are not “fit” to vote, those that don’t vote and those who voted for the “losing side” is by far the majority. Not even if you had 100% turn up and if you count away those who are not eligible to vote, you don’t find a single government with a majority vote. I bet they never told you that in school?
And if this isn’t enough for you, most decisions are not made by the ones you vote into office, no, instead decisions are made in committees or by none elected beaurocrats. Even if the government hire these people or give them instructions how to work or what issues that should become laws or directives, it’s still not the ones you voted for that makes most of the work.
But all of this is nothing compared to what voting really can lead to and has lead to before, namely voting can justify dictatorship, cannibalism or any other atrocity you can think of. As long as the “majority” votes for it, it’s okay. If a village consisting of 100 people, 51 of those are Nazis, 49 are Jews; you can maybe get the idea of what voting might be used for. Let’s remind us that Adolf Hitler actually got voted into office and that we today have a dictator in Venezuela that has tricked his people to vote for dictatorship. But it doesn’t need to be those obvious maniacs you are voting for. It can be more subtle than that. If you in every election vote for the one that promise you most things, in the end, were do you think the country will end up?
So it is a shame that women can vote. Even if you don’t think this and believe I’m some nutcase, please at least think about the realities of voting and the problems of democracy. It’s not as simple as politicians tell you; they want that office with the high wage and to control what goes on, so don’t let that fool you.
What does it really mean “to vote”? Pretty much anyone you talk to will tell you that this is a right for every human and we should be able to choice who governs us and, more importantly, to choice another ruler if the first one fails. They will also tell you that “one man, one vote” is the democratic way and that this notion brings equality to citizens, no one is worth more than the other, and everyone can only cast one vote each. This nonsense we get taught in school, journalists celebrate it and politicians from every spectra of the political sphere will tell you that this is the most important thing there is. “If you don’t vote, you shouldn’t complain!” – is a normal sentence heard before every election. And if someone choice not to vote they are told about other countries where they don’t have the right to elect their leaders. All of this is said and spread around without any regard to any alternative and no one ever thinks about what the consequences might be.
Voting should be a very restricted “right”, if even existing at all. And if you are reading this you will immediately think I’m some fascist bastard or a reactionary conservative fool. I’m not. And as I said, voting and democracy is the best of the solutions we know of from history. Accept for socialists and some religious freaks no one wants the dictatorship back. But this doesn’t mean you should lay back and think everything is great and it doesn’t put a “morally correct” shimmer over voting like we are led to believe. Voting is in reality only two things; one is to decide what should be done with our collective money and how much of your income someone else should rule over. So when you are voting you are not only voting what your money should be used for, but also your neighbors’, the single mums and everyone else in your particular society. And, secondly, you are making a choice about who will make decisions for you. Even if you don’t think this is too bad, which you should, the next fact might get you to reconsider. The one who get elected and will rule you for the next couple of years is the one who sounds best, he/she who say the best phrases and delivers the solutions that attract most voters. In fact, no one can ever be elected without making promises and sometimes even making outright lies. And those promises; saving the poor; higher pensions; better minimum wage, or whatever they may be, you are paying for. So you are putting your money in the hands of someone who promise you to do something for your money. How is that a good thing? Why can’t you decide for yourself? Especially when this “someone” also needs his/her wage and his/her secretaries, aids and administrators also needs wages, all of which you are paying for.
But if this isn’t something that makes you question the morality of voting, how about the fact that it is never the majority that decides? Yes, that’s right. As far as I know, not one single democratically elected government has ever had the majority behind them. This is because those who are not “fit” to vote, those that don’t vote and those who voted for the “losing side” is by far the majority. Not even if you had 100% turn up and if you count away those who are not eligible to vote, you don’t find a single government with a majority vote. I bet they never told you that in school?
And if this isn’t enough for you, most decisions are not made by the ones you vote into office, no, instead decisions are made in committees or by none elected beaurocrats. Even if the government hire these people or give them instructions how to work or what issues that should become laws or directives, it’s still not the ones you voted for that makes most of the work.
But all of this is nothing compared to what voting really can lead to and has lead to before, namely voting can justify dictatorship, cannibalism or any other atrocity you can think of. As long as the “majority” votes for it, it’s okay. If a village consisting of 100 people, 51 of those are Nazis, 49 are Jews; you can maybe get the idea of what voting might be used for. Let’s remind us that Adolf Hitler actually got voted into office and that we today have a dictator in Venezuela that has tricked his people to vote for dictatorship. But it doesn’t need to be those obvious maniacs you are voting for. It can be more subtle than that. If you in every election vote for the one that promise you most things, in the end, were do you think the country will end up?
So it is a shame that women can vote. Even if you don’t think this and believe I’m some nutcase, please at least think about the realities of voting and the problems of democracy. It’s not as simple as politicians tell you; they want that office with the high wage and to control what goes on, so don’t let that fool you.
Don’t cry wolf, kill it!
In the US there is a debate going on between those who thinks the grey wolf have recovered and can be removed from the endangered species list in some states and those who thinks the wolfs haven’t recovered biologically and still need protection. Through government interventions and state money the wolf have reach a more sustainable number, but then again, why do anyone care? These predators are nothing but a nuisance, sometimes attacking farm animals and on some very rare occasions even humans. We don’t really need their fur anymore, even though it might be nice to have one of those coats, so why do we keep them around? Are they that important to the environment and some biological habitats so if they died out we would end up with too many rabbits on our hands? If that’s the case, we can kill those to.
According to the environmental group Earthjustice they will take the matter to court if Wolf’s aren’t kept on the endangered list. To court? Does the wolf’s pay tax and are they viable and productive members of society? What rights do they have in this regard? Are they landowners or running businesses in America? And if so, can they sue some family that hikes through their woods without permission? These Earthjustice freaks are the same idiots that want to keep murderess Polar Bear alive and want to stop oil drilling in Alaska in order to save those killers. They are also one of the brainless groups that actively are working against Global warming. Not that they are trying to blot out the sun, fight the magnetic fields of Earth or suing volcanoes for letting to much gases out in the atmosphere, which they ought to be doing, no, these guys, like so many other duped idiots on this planet, is trying to fight man. And on their website you can read such reviling facts like:
“Global warming impacts our entire planet. It threatens local communities, wildlife habitats, and endangered species. It alters weather patterns, potentially causing more floods, famines, droughts, and ecological devastation.”
Duh! Global warming, another Ice Age or some other natural changes in nature we have seen before and will see again, does this. Nothing new about it, but it scares you a little doesn’t it? Maybe you want to give some money to these “nonprofit” bastards so they can go to court and sue the government. I wonder if they are planning on a witness list? A mother wolf who cries in the witness stand how her litter doesn’t have enough to eat or a Polar Bear that tells a heartbreaking story about being prosecuted in America and being hunted by xenophobic oil drillers. It might work in their favor. Maybe wolfs need some social security checks so they don’t have to hunt? I mean, hunting is hard work and you might fail, and everyone has the right to eat.
99,9% of all the species that ever lived on this planet has died out. Let’s add some more corpses to this list. We should actively get rid of these things, not give them rights or lawyers. How will it ever affect any of us if a couple of more species went extinct? That’s right, nothing! If animals going extinct was so horrific what about Mammoths? Dinosaurs? Are we facing some Armageddon because we don’t have furry elephants roaming the countryside? Is some wild population growing out of proportion because no T-Rex is hunting them? This is just stupid, let them live if they are not in the way and if they step on some human toes, kill them, kill them all.
According to the environmental group Earthjustice they will take the matter to court if Wolf’s aren’t kept on the endangered list. To court? Does the wolf’s pay tax and are they viable and productive members of society? What rights do they have in this regard? Are they landowners or running businesses in America? And if so, can they sue some family that hikes through their woods without permission? These Earthjustice freaks are the same idiots that want to keep murderess Polar Bear alive and want to stop oil drilling in Alaska in order to save those killers. They are also one of the brainless groups that actively are working against Global warming. Not that they are trying to blot out the sun, fight the magnetic fields of Earth or suing volcanoes for letting to much gases out in the atmosphere, which they ought to be doing, no, these guys, like so many other duped idiots on this planet, is trying to fight man. And on their website you can read such reviling facts like:
“Global warming impacts our entire planet. It threatens local communities, wildlife habitats, and endangered species. It alters weather patterns, potentially causing more floods, famines, droughts, and ecological devastation.”
Duh! Global warming, another Ice Age or some other natural changes in nature we have seen before and will see again, does this. Nothing new about it, but it scares you a little doesn’t it? Maybe you want to give some money to these “nonprofit” bastards so they can go to court and sue the government. I wonder if they are planning on a witness list? A mother wolf who cries in the witness stand how her litter doesn’t have enough to eat or a Polar Bear that tells a heartbreaking story about being prosecuted in America and being hunted by xenophobic oil drillers. It might work in their favor. Maybe wolfs need some social security checks so they don’t have to hunt? I mean, hunting is hard work and you might fail, and everyone has the right to eat.
99,9% of all the species that ever lived on this planet has died out. Let’s add some more corpses to this list. We should actively get rid of these things, not give them rights or lawyers. How will it ever affect any of us if a couple of more species went extinct? That’s right, nothing! If animals going extinct was so horrific what about Mammoths? Dinosaurs? Are we facing some Armageddon because we don’t have furry elephants roaming the countryside? Is some wild population growing out of proportion because no T-Rex is hunting them? This is just stupid, let them live if they are not in the way and if they step on some human toes, kill them, kill them all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)