Here, ducky ducky ducky ...

There's an old saying that says if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck (subtext: even if it claims to be, say, a sheep). I read an interesting article in Dagbladet online this morning. Do you know the term 'Freudian slip'? Well, here's an example for you. o_O

Washed-up rock star Hank von Helvete (not his real name ;-) has recently been cured of his heroin addiction (which as far as I recall he claimed that Jebus had cured him of a couple of years ago, but I guess that didn't take) by the $cientology front organization Narconon. Now he's been sucked into the anti-psychiatry campaigns of the CCHR. All this, apparently, at the instigation of his new manager who is an avowed $cientologist. However, he claims that he himself is absolutely not a $cientologist, and that he is not being exploited by the cult (also, I'm sure, that it's not a cult, but we know better, don't we).

In the article he says various things about Kaja Bordevich Ballo, who killed herself about a year ago, and her father, MP Olav Gunnar Ballo. Not the nicest things. And here's the Freudian slip. He says, I feel incredibly sorry for a father who loses his child. That's got to be clear. But no fucking way will I take the blame for it. (Ballo has criticized the Co$ for their involvement in his daughter's death.) But ... if he's not a $cientologist, and he has nothing to do with the Co$, then why on earth should he be blamed for it? Huh.

Yet more proof, if any was needed, that $cientologists lie.

Don't let them fool you.

The Hymn of the Federation

National anthems are an interesting phenomenon. You can come to understand a lot about a nation by studying the song they've chosen to represent them to the world. It's not a coincidence that the American anthem is a battle hymn, a story about war. And Britain hardly even has an anthem at all. I find it difficult to really count God Save the Queen, since that's also in use in other countries too - here in Norway, for one.

Some examples: The Norwegian anthem is about the country's physical appearance and about its people's struggle against superior outside forces. The Swedish anthem is about how Sweden's great and they like it a lot. :-) There's nothing about anything historical or troubles in the past - and indeed, why should there be; they had no such trouble, they only made it for others. ;-) The Danish is about physical features, again, as well as the country's ancient history. It refers to some of the old Norse gods, even. Really ancient history. :-) The French anthem is about their modern history, about ideology and politics. The Saudi Arabian one is about how Allah rocks and please will he give their king a long life. Sheesh, the poor saps. The Israeli anthem is about Zionism. As far as I understand the lyrics they seem rather whiny and irrational. Quel surprise. ;-) The Icelandic anthem is about how Iceland is the best, Iceland rules, Iceland is the best EVAR, and God loves them more than anyone. Again, not a surprise, is it. ;-) The Spanish anthem has no official lyrics, because apparently they haven't been able to agree on any. :-D I've seen a couple of versions of the lyrics and ... to be honest, they sound kind of fascist. The Dutch anthem is the oldest in the entire world. Of course. :-) It's about history from centuries ago and how it's best to be friends and get along. Aww. :-)

My favorite national anthem, out of all the ones I've heard, is of course the Norwegian one. Discount that, I am hopelessly biased. :-) My second favorite is the Russian anthem, the Hymn of the Federation. Now that is a hell of a national anthem. I dig it. :-) And since this is - hooray! - Russia Day, it seemed like a great reason to post it here on the blog. Have a listen. Oh, and if you think it sounds kinda suspicious, well, it was written for the Soviet Union in 1944. So ... yeah. It is kinda suspicious. But it sounds fantastic. :-)

I love books. :-)

Yes, I love books. :-) And I love the things books inspire people to. I mean, look at this ... !!

This is Arma de Instruccion Masiva, a 'weapon of mass instruction'. :-D It's the creation of the Argentinian artist Raul Lemesoff, and these days it can be seen on the streets of Buenos Aires. He's actually a BookCrosser although he may not really know it - he both gives away books from the sculpture as well as accepting donations of books. I think this is so fantastic. Just look at that thing. Brilliant. I'm not really into cars, but I think I'd want one like this. ;-)

A few of Lemesoff's photos can be seen on his photostream on Flickr, here - some pretty good shots IMO. More pictures of the Arma, if anyone's interested. Three days ago I'd never heard about this guy, but I like him already. :-)

I'll be cross-posting this to my book blog, Leisha Reads ... a second blog that I set up in January as a place to post book reviews etc. Mostly for my own enjoyment. :-) Feel free to stop by though. :-)

Pat Condell mini-rant

Pat Condell is fantastic. He says what needs to be said and he says it so well. I love the car metaphor. :-)

Lizards and turtles and snakes, oh my!!

Today's post is brought on by an article in today's Dagbladet which, unfortunately, seems not to have been run in the online edition. The text of the article is here (in Norwegian). Thanks to my friend Dag-Erling for texting me about the article, although I had in fact seen it already on my way to work ... but it's the thought that counts. :-)

Anyway. The article is about the proposed change in legislation which will make reptiles legal as pets in this country. Or I should say, reptiles in private ownership. 'Reptiles as pets' is a misleading term. :-) At the moment, reptiles are completely illegal for anyone to own in this country except zoos with official permits. I've been planning a post about that in which I want to go into more detail on that law and its history and consequences, so I won't talk too much about that here. It's enough to know that reptiles are illegal, except for turtles, for which permits may be and are given to those who can prove allergies that prevent them from keeping furry animals (I myself am in fact allergic even though I had a dog for twelve years). Norway is pretty much unique in the world in having these restrictions. It is nonsensical and counterproductive. As I say, more on that later.

The article is about the proposed alterations to the law, and some reactions to them. The organization forced to handle the law and its consequences is called Mattilsynet ... a relatively acceptable translation of which would be, let's see ... the Food Authority? OK, so let's call them FA from now on. :-) This body, which has a very schizophrenic attitude towards the law, has been asked by the Department of Agriculture to draw up a list of species - the number was debated, but ended up on 30 - which can be kept acceptably in this country, the so-called 'positive list'. My herpetology group, the Norwegian Herpetology Association (NHF, website here) has been working with the FA to create this list for them. We of course are strongly in favor of the changes. ;-) There are other groups, though, who are strongly against ... and it's the dumbassery spouted by that side that inspired me to write this blog post today.

The FA have realized that something needs to change ... something needs to be done ... because at present, although there is a total ban on all herptile species, there are at least 100,000 reptiles in private ownership in this country. Yes, that figure is correct. One hundred thousand - and that's a conservative estimate. A huge field of animal husbandry with a high level of activity over which the authorities in this country have absolutely zero control. That is not good. I am so glad that there is leadership in the FA now that is capable of seeing that.

However, there's always another point of view. In this debate represented by Dyrevernsalliansen*, the Alliance for Animal Protection, and their fearless (and apparently brainless) leader Live Kleveland. She/they have had the highly biased and AFAIK underqualified biologist Clifford Warwick review the list. His report shows, and I quote Kleveland:
Should one weird hobby really count for that much? According to a report [...]** we must accept a certain number of deaths as a consequence of allowing [these animals]. They may carry diseases that can transfer to humans, and in that case illness in humans and in some cases deaths will be inevitable. OMFG. Can she not hear herself talk?

A few years ago a little boy, I think he was seven, was pretty much torn to pieces by a pack of huskies whose outdoor enclosure left something to be desired. A tragedy, of course. But do you know what? If we're going to have extensive dog ownership in this country - and we obviously are - then some young children will be killed. We must accept a certain number of deaths as a consequence of allowing these animals. Where's the debate??

Personally, I believe that there should be restrictions on all forms of animal ownership. Today only one group, the herptiles, have any sort of restrictions on them, whereas the other groups, birds, fish, rodents, cats and of course dogs, which arguably do more damage to humans than any other species we associate closely with, are basically a free for all. IMO this is wrong. No one should be allowed to just keep whatever pets they choose unless they can prove that they can and will care for the animal acceptably. There are any number of dog owners in this country who should never have been allowed to even puppysit for a weekend. Where's the debate??

In closing, a few word from Are Hogner, owner and director of the one zoo we have here in the capital, Oslo Reptile Park, also quoted in the article. It's now no longer a question of whether it will be made legal, but about when it will become legal.

Indeed. And long overdue it is.

*This organization is of course, like their comrades at home and abroad, a group of extremists and borderline terrorists, although to my knowledge they have never been convicted of any criminal activity.

**I have left part of this quote out because it is non-essential and I suspect that the information in it is a lie.

The Lake House

I was at my friends' K and Dag-Erling's house watching movies yesterday ... first love actually, which I do love, actually ... Colin Firth and Hugh Grant, and a wonderful cast surrounding them and a brilliant script, what's not to love?? :-) ... and then The Lake House. Which is one of my favorite Keanumovies. It's not for everyone, I guess, but I've liked it ever since ... ever since I first heard about it. It's a total chick flick, but it's kind of original, it has some wonderful characters, and Keanu and Sandra have great chemistry together. Plus it's really nice to see a sincere love story where the characters aren't 19 years old and even act their ages. Oh, and Christopher Plummer!! Who doesn't dig Christopher Plummer??

Anyway. Today's post was going to have to be inspired by last night - it's Keanu Monday!! :-D - but not as I'd thought at first. I was going to post a video - the ending of the movie, which is just too sweet - but then I changed my mind when I remembered the American poster for this movie. It's amazing. I can't believe I don't have it. :-o

I must have it.

Click to enlarge, it's soo worth it ... ;-)

The Dissolution of the Union

Today marks the 104th anniversary of modern Norway's independence. On June 7th, 1905, Parliament declared the union between Sweden and Norway dissolved, due to the failure of King Oscar II to provide Norway with a government. The union was a personal one with the monarch the only tie, and after years of strife between the 'brother peoples', this situation had been actively created by Norway's political leaders - a situation in which it was impossible for the king to fulfill his constitutional responsibilities. And thus we were free. :-)

Not without struggle, though - during the summer of 1905 the threat of war (perceived or real :-) hung over us constantly. In some ways we had been transported back to 1814. Then, too, we had thought that we were free ... that we had succeeded in throwing off the shackles of union ... only to be forced into them anew. In 1814 we had had two choices - surrender to Sweden willingly and be treated with leniency, or resist and be taken by force. A denial of the Swedish claim would have led to an invasion, which we would have been powerless to fight off. Europe had little interest in our affairs and less in helping us. So there was really not much to choose from ... and we surrendered. 91 years later, however, the situation had changed. We were much stronger, we had everything we needed to claim our independence ... and in Europe the climate had changed, there was a much greater sensitivity to the rights of small nations. Any threat of a Swedish invasion now would certainly not be overlooked or even favored.

In the union with Sweden, we had a great deal of independence, even our own constitution. The one thing we did not have was the right to determine our own foreign affairs policies. Foreign affairs was a matter for Swedes. All our consulates abroad were controlled from Stockholm. This became a bone of contention for two reasons. Partly because Norwegian foreign affairs interests differed a great deal from those of Sweden; partly because as Norway became a force to be reckoned with in international shipping, it was primarily Norwegians who required help from the consulates ... help that Sweden was a great deal less than capable of rendering. Norwegian politicians began to demand true Norwegian consulates - Swedish politicians opposed their efforts from very real fears that this would bring about the end of the union. For this and other reasons there was a great deal of friction between Kristiania (now Oslo) and Stockholm. Our Parliament passed a Consulate Bill without the sanction of the latter; this was vetoed by the king, first once, then twice. But that is as far as the royal veto goes. When the bill was passed for the third time, the king refused to accept it. Our government resigned in protest. King Oscar refused to accept their resignations, knowing full well that he would not be able to find anyone to take part in a new cabinet. On May 27th he met with three of his ministers, demanding that they sign his refusal of the Consulate Bill. They absolutely would not, adding that any Norwegian who signs his name to that paper, will thenceforth have no country. And King Oscar slammed his fist on the table and said ... you know. :-) It was not entirely untrue, either - Oscar II was very fond of us, he travelled here extensively, he knew the country well and he spoke perfect Norwegian. Which is very rare in a Swede. ;-) But events had moved far beyond his control.

On this day 104 years ago, Parliament declared the union with Sweden under one king to be null and void because the king has ceased to function as Norway's king. It took months for Sweden to accept this fait accompli - months of negotiations and bickering and rumors. On August 13th a national vote was held here to determine popular agreement with the dissolution, which to Norwegian minds was already an established fact. Male citizens 25 years of age or older could vote, and the results were what you might call extremely conclusive: 368,208 in favor, 184 against. Although women could not vote at that time, signatures were collected in support of the dissolution, and 244,765 signatures were gathered in only two weeks. Pretty impressive back then. :-)

There is good reason to be skeptical of these numbers, since the polling was both disorganized and biased. But there is no reason to doubt the strong wish of the Norwegian people to finally be truly free. Hence, the Dissolution of the Union and an independent Norway - a new royal family and a new chapter in our history. May our independence never end. :-)