What would Jesus do?

This post is inspired by the death of Jörg Haider. This post is NOT inspired by sympathy for his cause. This post is NOT about any conspiracies. It is rather about an interesting moral dilemma.

Though by now the authorities have stated that the politician mentioned had been speeding and been under the influence of alcohol at the time of the fatal accident, that is irrelevant. Let us forget that part. Let us even forget that persons name. Another Austrian fellow should be the focus of our discussion. Yes, the very same one who sported a rather nasty mustache and loving long walks with torches. Would it be ethical to kill that man before he gains absolute control of his country and forces the world to experience another devastating war? Hitler as baby argument with a twist so to say. We assume for the sake of the argument that this leader is already exhibiting harmful tendencies but is adored by his countrymen. What we are lacking is hindsight, we can only guess whether this person is a raving lunatic.

On the one hand we should not take our chances and act only when it is too late. Every moment wasted is another life lost. Right now, when he is in the opposition, he can be eliminated causing less of a fuss. Besides, it would not present the virulent extremists with a reason to embark on a quest on vengeance. At least on a more limited one. Even if we miss, it would be a single life, the lives and well-beings of billions are at stake. From that point of view it is not way too steep of a price to pay. Though there will be conspiracy theories, they are as relevant as those about aliens probing all the world leaders as a ritual way of welcoming them to their office.

Then again it is not that easy. Who are we to judge that person? There is no basis for us to be competent to establish such a precedence. If bush can do that, why can't Putin? Even the genocidal village elders in South-Eastern Africa will claim themselves to be responsible enough to take on such a burden. There is no institution impartial enough to be able to do something like this. That is not even to touch the subjects of one man's terrorist being another's freedom fighter. We simply cannot have everybody going on killing everybody. Under some categories G. W. Bush can be considered responsible for the deaths of thousands, should he too be taken care of? Not to mention the member of Congress, who voted in favour of attacking scary bearded men. Or the pock-marked dude in Ukraine responsible for dismissing the Parliament? Is he too a tyrant in the making as his opponents suggest? No bad guys have outed themselves as such, at least not voluntarily.

Therefore it is politically and morally wrong to embark on such a path. Then again the pay-off is immense, at the cost of a few lives, the world can be saved from another great war of mass devastation or even a nuclear one. What would Jesus do?

Political partisanship anyone?

While watching TV, something I rarely do, I spotted something odd. The piece itself was called The American President and is of no particular artistic value. However the political or moral values caught my attention. Not the part concerned with bombing Syria nor anything with the French. The stances on environmentalism and gun control stood out.

Though the plot revolved around the feasibility of a First Girlfriend as opposed to serious issues, the stance on those was remarkably familiar. Practically every film brought to us from Ameerikamaa, which even remotely mention the subject, has the same point of view. Global warming not only exists but can be stopped by simply using less gas. In addition to that, gun control is the perfect way to make crime obsolete. The only thing in the way preventing us all to live in a global village called happiness is a strange cabal consisting of pork-barreling republican senators on the pay-roll of various lobby groups. That's it, no sensible character appearing human at least in some part, fights against these ideas.

Now the problem here is not whether the points made are valid or not, I am trying to highlight the political bias behind it. The naturally liberal and free-spirited folks at Hollywood cannot grasp the possibility of mentioning any opposite arguments for a debate. We occasionally like to presume that we have no problems understandig American culture or attitudes, simply because we have seen so much. We are stunned by those who claim Jesus created everything and abortion should be banned on all occasions, those folks appear to be on the fringe. Actually it is not the case. We simply haven't seen any. Though I rather not call the media communists, there is a strong bias present.

A thin red line line or a fat blue one?

As you all know our lovable neighbour just had a rather unpleasant confrontation with Georgia. Naturally we are rather annoyed in case some of that nasty stuff gets spilled on our own freshly mowed lawn, however there are other troubling events to pay attention to as well. David Cameron and David Miliband and some others not named David recently enjoyed their own bout of sabre-rattling. That is NATO giving Ukraine something of a turbo-membership. Something we should be rather afraid of.

Don't get me wrong, everybody and their grandmother should be given a chance to be free of intervening KGB veterans and all but NATO membership might be one step too many. You see, Ukraine is not a lovely unified country of western values and aspirations but rather a country stuck between two radically different worlds. Without getting bogged down by details, one can view Ukraine as a bipolar country. The nation is roughly split in two along the same lines as on the picture to the left. The western part of the nation can be characterized as pro-European and the eastern or southern, which ever way you like it, part as pro-Russian. This means a seriously messed up country in short. The Estonian equivalent of such a division would not be the Ida-Virumaa versus the rest but rather something along the lines of Estland and Livland. What I wanted to prove with that boring demographic talk was that the country itself is not sure, which way it wants to go. Apparently they are too busy cutting each others throats to see the big bad wolf creeping around the house.

Now imagine NATO getting involved. Apart from the fact that we would be forcing an alliance of serious strategic importance onto people against their wishes (how's that for democracy?), these kind of countries tend to be extremely unstable and impossible to predict. It is like giving a rabid schizophrenic monkey pumped up to the eye-balls on various stimulants a fully armed nuclear football. Oh and just for the heck of it, the monkey lives next door to a megalomaniac mastermind as well as some bloke named Hitler. Even without a smirking Russia poking around where it is not wanted, the mixture is still highly potent. If, at some point, a few oblasts would decide to secede, the odds are that a full blown civil war might erupt. What will NATO do then? Back one ethnically cleansing half of the country over another? Simply ignore the events? Ask the warring sides to simply kiss and make up? Install a meaningless puppet regime tasked to freeze the conflict and hope nobody notices?

Though I strongly support all attempts to help Ukraine deal with it's nasty neighbour, NATO membership is no silver bullet. Until it's ready, and by that I mean dealt with it's internal issues, there should be no further talk on the subject. Right now we would simply be trying to douse the flames with gasoline. Not only would be fuel further conflict but put ourselves on the line. This, my friends, is contrary to the golden rule of helping someone out: make sure you do not put yourself in danger. Nobody needs another would-be helper crying for rescue.

It's happening

Ehk läheb õnneks. See video ja tark jutt. Nautige.

Obama, schmobama

Novembrini on aega ehk jama Ameerikas kestab veel. Obama on muidugi jätkuvalt hitt. Ta on jätkuvalt lootuse ja puhtuse kehastus. Neid, kes loodavad temast midagi uut, midagi süsteemivälist, on palju. Siiski, mul on tunne, et maania on ehk lahtumas. Ükskord peab see juhtuma, ise küsimus on millal.

Lootust ju on. Mitte, et üks 70 vanake suudaks imesid teha. Pigem võiks loota, et ta teeb vähem lollusi. 18 kuuga sõjavägi Iraagist väla on lausa kuritegelik. Lääne sõdurite elude hinnaga hoitakse eri grupeeringuid üksteisele kõrri kargamast. Kui väed välja viia kaotaks kõige rohkem just tavaline tsiviilisik, kelle elu väärtus just langes kolinal. Siiski, teemasse. Ehk jahtub see fanaatiline usk enne kui liiga hilja. Ehk leidub neid, kes suudavad näha säravate sõnadega taga seisvat tühjust. Ehk tuleb neid veel.

Võibolla olen ma loll ja pime, aga ma vähemalt loodan veel.

Primaries are stupid

Why? Because they pit candidates mostly on person appeal not merits or policies. The major issues in the democrat campaign have been whether Obama really can understand poor gun-loving folks and whether Hillary is actually a machine. The republican issues, if one still remembers them were quite a lot about how god created earth and how religious one is. This amounts to the idea of us having elections and the main debate would be whether Edgar's eyebrows are pointy enough. There are absolutely no discussions about policy whatsoever. Are the candidates really so similar or the Americans so dumb for them not to realise that? You can count this as another reason why I'm glad I live in Estonia.

Hi, my name is Hillary

Curious, isn't it? Despite the fact that she has snowball's chance in hell to become the nominee yet she is one with the strongest hand. The odds are that if there will be no joint ballot, then Obama will be liquidated. If she chooses to accept his offer, she has a quite definite Vice-Presidential position. If she chooses to decline, the odds are that like Gerard Baker, from Times Online, pointed out :" [She'll be] ready to pick up the baton again in 2012, armed with the most powerful “I told you so” argument in the history of politics". It would be quite hard for Obama to find someone else on the ticket, who would have as much clout as a Clinton. But then again, could he find one?

Another Dilemma

An interesting question caught my eye, the case of Bolivia, or to be more exact, the case of Santa Cruz region holding a referendum demanding for more autonomy. An interesting two pronged problems becomes apparent.

First of all, there will always be differences between regions. One is not supposed to call for autonomy or independence simply because one has to pay more than the neighbour. Can you imagine Harjumaa declaring it's autonomy, because it has to pay for all those poor regions in Ida Virumaa? Could you accept that? I guess not. Moreover, such important decisions should be motivated by a grand irreconsileable differences between ideologies or cultural differences not because of greed.

Then again, if one is forced to endure a maniac for President against one's will, what else is there to do? I'm quite sure that the people living in the suburbs are not too fond of the idea of Greater Tallinn. After all, their votes would be pitted against the entire Savisaar-adoring Lasnamäe. In Bolivia, it is even worse. One the one hand, the history is a lot more complex, but then again wouldn't you want to get out , if there is a deranged socialist coca-lover on the loose?

Another one up for McCain

Hillary and Obama are still at each others throats, but there is something one might easily miss regards to the current situation. Both campaigns are going over and over about the importance of the current primaries and how a win hre or there is crucial to their cause. Actually the battles waged now do not really matter in long run. Why don't they matter, you might ask. I'll tell you why, beacuse they are fought in republican heartlands. The states currently contested such as Indiana and North Carolina are established republican strongholds and there is little reason to believe that they would capitulate especially with the elections appearing to be quite a close match.

Election day, Yay

It seems to be a jolly start for a jolly new chapter in English politics. Labour was obliterated in almost every aspect there is. In the capital, London, the incumbent, Ken Livingstone, was defeated by a man widely known for being a stooge rather than anything else. There was a lot more devastation elsewhere. The Tories achieved more than they had been expecting in but a few constituencies. The conservative Party managed to grab 44% of overall vote, with Labour achieving only a meagre 24%, even losing out to the Liberal Democrats. Though this was more about Gordon Brown U-turns than Tory leadership, this still is a promising start of a brand new era.

A jolly cup of war please?

What is this? A plane, a missile, destruction. Without any further comments or propaganda, the point becomes only too clear.

Does anyone want to guess the Russian reaction? What plane? Where? Why should we have any planes there? At least that was the case according to Times Online.

It is one of those rare occasions, where i have got nothing more too add but simply look dumbfound, simply staring blankly at the screen.

Is there a place for Zimbabwe?

Another country somewhere, none of you would find without using a map. Another place turned into a wretched hellhole by a maniacal dictator with far too many complexes to count. Another popular challenger promising to bring peace, prosperity and even more importantly, provisions to the country.

I'm not saying that change is bad. I'm not saying that all those dumb old men should be kept in power till death finally makes them catch up with the reality. Let's just wait a moment before declaring that the world order has been reborn.Though in this case something might actually change.

Unlike many other examples, in Zimbabwe there is a fifth column in the lines of the ruling party. Simply by relying on popular momentum, it is quite hard to get rid of a dug in police state. It is simply far too easy to crush all those pesky dissidents with cold, hard pieces of lead usually called bullets. However, right now, there is dissatisfaction among the ruling party and even an outright challenger accepted by the rank and file members of the party. That, my friends, is the recipe for taking down oppressive regimes.

The deranged leader might keep on yelling all those slogans, but they become empty if there are no means by which to provide the promised retribution. In essence if the police and the army change sides, the fight is quite settled.

Free Tibet

Why should we even care about something taking place so far away? It is not like we have closer ties to them than any random bloke from Kismayo. Nor is it reasonable to expect that just because a few Estonians China will be willing to back off.

Still, sometimes one has to do what is right despite the futility. We did not regain our independence just because a few guys were picketing outside some embassy in Australia. But when we eventually did get what we wanted, those same picketers became useful. They helped to keep the flame of freedom from being completely squashed by the Soviet Union. They still reminded the world that we did and still do exist. So when the time came, we were recognized and treated properly. In addition to moral support during those troubled times.

It is similar about Tibet. If, by chance, the locals would manage to reinstate their rule, they would be welcomed and understood. In law as well as popular opinion, there is a significant difference between a separatist province or an occupied country. Besides, we appreciate that our cause was not forgotten during those terrible decades. I'm sure the tibetans are not any different.

You infidels

It seems the muslims are once more expressing their utter disgust and resenment towards us. And this time, it does not even have anything to do with insolent cartoons and whether it is moral for us to break Islamic laws and ignore their customs.

Apparently His Holiness, Benedict XVI, the current pope residing in Rome, Italy, has insulted the muslims by baptising a muslim. And no, not tule ja mõõgaga. Hey guys, I understand that your religion forbids anyone to renounce their faith but as far as I know, I does not order one to switch off ones brain. The Pope, with all due respect, is the head of another religious movement. Another religious movement, which too believes in enlarging the number of its followers. If he would not do so, then who else would? What is the Pope without religion? Just an Old German fellow. Running a rival religion is all he is about. It is his job to convert others. How can you accept the fact that he exists without accepting the fact that he does the utmost to spread his version of God and friends.

War - how bad it really is?

As you all know by now, 4000th soldier was killed on Sunday. That's 4000 young men have met their untimely death during the now 5 years of war. Can you imagine 4000 coffins in a row somewhere? In order to prevent further casualties the only sensible option is to pull out. War, what is it good for? For security, obviously. By fighting all those militant types in some desert country we keep the fight off our very own green lawn. And that, my friends, is something one can not deny. In other words, their sacrifices keep us safe.

How great are the costs anyway? When one starts to think about, then it seems not really significant. Though every single life is valuable and I know what misery and sadness accompany death, if one looks at it from a larger perspective, there really is no major effect. Do you know how many people get hurt in normal everyday traffic? There were 271 017 casualties reported in 2005 in the UK alone. That is about 743 casualties every single day. Yet nobody advocates banning cars. Now think about it. It is a big sacrifice to the individual who has to cope with his own death, or the loss of a loved one, but is it really that much to ask from the general society? If we are not ready to contribute that to our security, then who is supposed to do it for us?



PS.
This post is about whether it is sensible to withdraw our forces from Iraq right now. This post is NOT about whether we should have been there in the first place.

Good Gracious

Somebody is feeling hurt once more. Some blokes are kept out of Europe. Why? Because they cause trouble here. It's not only our issue of someone standing next to Kaarli Church, rather an universal problem of foreign infiltration, especially the kind that is hostile towards our sovereignity. They are somewhere between your ordinary spy and a crook. There is no reason to lety either of them enter. Sabotage, hostile propaganda and plain old crime are nothing to be too fond of. In order to keep those un-savoury characters from causing any harm, we simply do lot let them enter the country. It's is exactly the same as if you rather not have those people coming to your house, one do not let them in. But wait, it's not right to do so. Your neighbour calls you a fascist, imperialist and accuses you of ignoring human rights. Don't you remember them saying that your neighbour is the one to choose everything for you, including the people allowed to enter your house? it is the exact same thing only on a bigger scale. But that does obviously bother them.

Revolutionize me II

So. Some South American country decides with a minuscule margin, not to let it's president run for another time in the office. But does this really change the way we see world around us? Though I definitely support the notions of liberty and democracy, every election is not a major turning point. International recognition is something opposition parties crave under all totalitarian regimes. One success along the way is not really that groundbreaking. Crying freedom and prosperity every time makes those same notions appear less valuable. It might be the man bites dog effect but it makes the next event seem less important.

Terrorism for a cause?

I stumbled upon this clip back on Metacafe. like all normal civilised person I felt disgusted by the attack on defenceless civilians. All the perpetrators and their accomplices should be tracked down and punished. But then again, why this this happen in the first place. While the west pays no attention to similar or even worse events on a much grander scale in Chechnya, nobody could ignore this one. The loss of life is sad but the fact that it is the only option left for the combatants is even worse. This is no way to fight for one's freedom, this is an act of desperation. What would you do if you were a Chechen who cares about his or her country?

Well done Al

As we all known already, Mr Gore is the co-recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize. Though he is only known for his popular film explaining the risks of climate change, it has done more to arouse public interest than all the other efforts combined. I strongly support the decision as the climate change is something that probably will not affect us personally, but our offspring most probably. Like Mr Gore pointed out, the idea of what would happen if the world's most densely populated areas are to be flooded is terrifying. The exodus of all those chinese and indians will probably have the same effect on our society as the exodus of the huns had on the Roman one. I am as sure as you get, that the most probable safe haven the refuges aim for, is Europe. There is not much we could do about it. Actually there is nothing we can do about it but prevent it from happening. Unfortuanately that is not an option as long as there are people denying the obvious around.

Revolutionize me.

Another day, another uprising. Some crazy people down somewhere like Burma, thinking they could really make a difference by shouting slogans and marching along peacefully. Even crazier folks back here, who think this actually might have worked. Some of them even called it the Saffron Revolution in the spirit of the coloured revolutions

Firstly there is no such thing as a coloured revolution. The only one that actually can be classified as such was the one in Ukraine. Others are forcefully made to fit the mold. Well yeah, it has all been about the students demanding democracy more freedom and whatever else that comes into mind but since when haven't civil insurgencies been like that. The other common factor is that they all were financed by Mr Soros and the USA. Did I burst your bubble?

Secondly even if there actually were those things called spontaneous demonstrations of will, every authoritarian government on this god-forsaken planet should by now be well prepared to deal with them. It might work once or even twice but then reality catches up. The position of an ongoing colour revolution is basically jinxed. Since Ukraine, there has been not a single non-violent colour revolution, which has not been squashed by the authorities.

I strongly support all kinds of pro-freedom movement but calling every damned riot a miracle and a fabulous revolution is silly if nothing worse.