How can Sweden put more energy into reality?

Lägg energi på verklighet, såsom i
en gasledning på Östersjöns botten?


Svenska Dagbladet (SvD, one of the largest Swedish dailies) writes today that Swedish negotiators are sweating in Brussels over what SvD suggests are unrealistic demands to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. There seems to be understandably less sweat for Sweden on Bali where the limelight is on major industrial nations such as the USA, Canada and Japan. SvD is of the opinion that Sweden is being punished for being so good at reducing carbon dioxide emissions thus far (ca 8%) and that the current goal to reduce emissions by 20 percent by the year 2020 is unrealistic.

The question I can't let go of is how Sweden can - in such a sweat to boot - ignore what seems like a perfectly logical leveraging power in their EU negotiations, i.e. the fact that 80 % of the distance planned for the gas line between Russia and Germany goes through Swedish economic water? The latter seems like a bigger reason for sweat.
Here in Sweden we read about the gas line as though it were a fait accompli that is just waiting for the bureacracy of the environmental reports. Given the lack of public debate, the gas line appears to be less controversial here than the bridge between Sweden and Denmark was some decades ago. And why this lack of debate, despite the fact that (because?) it's all about enormous investments in a non-renewable energy source, transport between two major industrial nations, one of which is not a EU member and has a dubious track record with regard to democratic practice. Is Sweden giving away its leverage? There is undoubtedly a lot to be said about the issues at stake, which truly brings EU politics to a head.
Why is this not being discussed more in Sweden? Why does Minister (Environment) Andreas Carlgren simply blush when asked this kind of question? There is a framework for how these questions are to be handled, Carlgren says, and to bring this up in the parliament breaks from that rule. Carlgren even goes so far as to suggest that to do so would undermine Sweden's credibility as a stable democracy. That's what I don't get.
Wherein lies the credibility of a democracy that is not prepared to discuss questions that have to do with their own national safety, stability, economy and environment, as well as that of the entire EU? Unfortunately it reminds me of some of the backsides of Swedish neutrality during the Second World War.
----------

Svenska Dagbladet skriver idag att svenska förhandlare lär svettas i Bryssel (i tropikens Bali har svetten tydligen lättare att dunsta bort allt eftersom kraven riktas utanför EU mot större industriländer) om huruvida Sveriges mål att ytterligare minska CO2-utsläpp är rimliga eller ej.
Frågan som jag ännu inte kan släppa, är huruvida Sverige – i detta svettiga läge – lyckas bortse ifrån det som förefaller mig vara ett självklart förhandlingsutrymme, nämligen i förhållande till den planerade gasledningen mellan Ryssland och Tyskland? Man laser om denna gasledning såsom det vore en fait accompli (tom SvD skriver ‘ska’ i stället för ‘föreslås’ eller ‘planeras’*), som bara väntar på några miljörapporter. Gasledningen förefaller tom mindre kontroversiellt än Öresundsbron – trots att det handlar om mycket energitransport mellan stora industriländer, om ofantligt stora investeringar i en icke förnybar energikälla, och om planer på att skänka en stor politisk och ekonomisk fördel till ett icke EU land med tvivelaktig erfarenhet av demokrati. Ledningen ska läggas enligt planerna till 80 % i svenska ekonomiska vatten. Det finns säkerligen mycket att säga om detta, som ställer inte bara Sveriges utan hela EU:s politik verkligen på sin spets.
Varför diskuteras inte detta i Sverige? Varför rodnar Andreas Carlgren när han får frågan? Det finns ett regelverk för hur landet styrs, menar Carlgren, som även påstår i SvD att att ta upp en diskussion om gasledningen skulle bryta mot detta. Carlgren tom påstår att gasledningens entreprenörer med Schröder i spetsen skulle kunna ifrågasätta Sveriges trovärdighet i fall att frågan togs upp på regeringsnivå. Varför då? Jag bara undrar.
Vad finns det för trovärdighet i en demokrati när dess regering och dess medier inte är beredda att ta upp sådana stora frågor – som ytterst berör landets liksom EU:s stabilitet, säkerhet och miljö? Osökt påminner den kusliga tystnad som råder om Sveriges ställning mot Tyskland under andra världskriget.

Retired immigrants to receive help to emigrate

(The following is my letter to editors of Svenska Dagbladet, a major Swedish daily newspaper, regarding an article published today (29/11) which had extremely mixed messages about immigration, integration and multi-culturalism. translation to English upon request)

Länge har jag tyckt att Svenska Dagbladet är en tidning som har ett klart budskap, och som respekterar sina läsares intelligens och förmåga att läsa, reflektera och ta del av era analyser, men nu börjar jag undra. En anledning:

”Invandrade pensionärer kan få hjälp att återvända” läste jag som huvudrubriken på första sidan i Svenska Dagbladet idag. Som invandrare, och snart pensionär efter drygt 35 år som skattebetalare (med världens högsta skattetryck) i Sverige, blev jag förstås nyfiken. Redan när jag läste underrubriken anade jag dock något lurt: ”Moderaterna vill utveckla sitt program för integration.” Inte utvecklar man integration genom att skicka invandrare tillbaka till sina hemländer, ens med bidrag?

Sedan när man läser artikeln på sid. 8 får man reda på att “det sprids ett slags föreställning att det mångkulturella samhället inte fungerar”, enligt Reinfeldt. Att skicka tillbaka invandrade pensionärer, är det lösningen? Och hur går detta ihop med Moderaternas (enligt min mening befogad) bidragsallergi? Eller har jag missförstått något, såsom den (etisk oförsvarbara med tanken på förslaget) fördelen för staten att det inte finns gränsöverskridande sjukvårdsavtal med ett flertal länder, eller inte förstått vad ordet integration betyder?

Jag har läst att svenskarnas läsförståelse håller på att försämras, med följden att förmågan att reflektera och analysera också blir lidande. Är det detta ni på Svenska Dagbladets redaktion börjar visa de första proven på när ni skriver sådana rubriker och artiklar? Eller vittnar det snarare om bristande respekt för era läsares kompetens? I vilket fall är det oroväckande.

Vad menar SvD egentligen?

hugga tugga

I may well have coined a new expression – at least for myself - on my last parallel blog: choppy chat. I use it to refer to the barrage of words, abrupt sentences, bits and pieces of broken conversation, and unanswered questions, however trivial, that often crop up around a family dinner table (as well as on web chats). Choppy chatter is, for example, all the sounds that people make when they are alone in the company of others. Like running excess water and banging dishes in the sink.
Local Swedish journalists would be likely to appropriate the expression, bereft of half of its associations, if only they could capture it. But this one is perhaps not so apparent, or as delectable (or easily translatable) as a mouse to a cat. To appropriate (verb) such that it implies theft, e.g. plagiarism, is hardly appropriate (adjective). On the other hand, perhaps it is one of the inevitable consequences, however unethical, of the deconstruction of social democracy. Perhaps it is one of the perils of believing that you once were (or thought you were) a big fish, and suddenly realize that you are now a little fish, in a big sea. Perhaps it's an act of desparation in the face of a local drought. Perhaps it’s something that leads the poor to take without giving credit to their source, and the rich to hide their loot. All I can do is offer my own 'hugga tugga' as recompense, and hope for the best.

The really big fish in my aquarium

As a preface to my "Unloading in Sweden" I want to tell you the story of the really big fish I discovered in my aquarium this morning. Now this is not a typical fisherman's exaggeration, but my dream. I mean the fish I found in my 110 liter aquarium early this morning was not just some overgrown algae eater, but a huge toothless pike. No kidding. I discovered IT when I went to feed the little school of Cardinal tetra that makes itself at home in my otherwise neglected aquarium. I am sure IT was a big pike because...
...gotta run now but promise to tell you more when I'm back.

I'm back now. Where was I when I had to run out to sing? Oh yes, I had just sprinkled a pinch of dry fish feed over the surface of my tank, when I caught sight of IT. At first I couldn't tell what IT was. Then I saw the gluttonous gullet, the opening to the depths (1.5 foot) of my aquarium. At first I thought IT was smiling at me, above two big pearly black eyes. Then, startled by the power of its suction, I could see that it was so eager for my flakes that it might be dangerous. As I backed off, IT sucked itself up into the air - like a pool vacuum cleaner that has hit the surface and flipped out - and landed with a kerplop on the oak parkett floor below.
Somehow I felt sorry for IT, this fish out of water. At the same time I was disgusted by its big, slimy and unwieldy body. How had IT survived as long as IT did in my aquarium, and without eating the school of Cardinal tetra? How come I hadn't even noticed it before? Were the plants so overgrown and the algae so thick that IT was able to hide on the bottom? Why did IT all of a sudden get such a craving for dry fish feed? Was IT preparing itself to meet the kiss of death?
...gotta run, but believe me there's more to tell about IT when I get back.

I'm back now. So many questions, but when I looked at IT I thought to myself: 'now you got yourself into this (the aquarium), and you got yourself out (of the aquarium)'. So where do we go from here? And then I walked out of the room, letting HER lie there until I woke up. I had overslept by a long shot.
...gotta run...

Back again. I didn't mention that I felt guilty about leaving her on the floor to die, but I knew I couldn't continue to feed her. I also knew that she had definitely outgrown my aquarium (as well as any other nearby, i.e. close enough to keep her alive during the transport, body of water where she might survive a while longer). Furthermore, she seemed too big and too slimy to hold onto. So many thoughts run through my little head in such a short period of time. What was the underlying significance of this chain of events if not that:
- She/it was someone/something with whom I identify.
- She/it had been a big fish in a very little pond for a long time: Perhaps I am capable of more, at least more than I think, or is it more than this society can appreciate (outgrown my medium) and need to move on. Perhaos I am in a sitatation where things can't get better?
- What does the aquarium represent? my bed (sleep), my job, my percpetion of my own capabilities/turf, the Swedish society?
- What does the jump represent? why get up (from bed), why leave my current job?, why leave Sweden?

I could of course continue to lie in bed, though I can't expect anyone to support or take care of me and am likely to lie/die there in bed.
I could jump out of bed, without expecting salvation, and die soon.

Hmm. I tried to tell this story to a couple of colleagues in the office, but I don't think they appreciated it. Do I?

Are you an asset or a burden?

THE SLOPE OF AN ASSET , note the peak (and the blood, sweat and tears on the forehead) which occurs in this diagram at an age that is equivalent to a mid-life crisis for the average adult.
Society can view us as strong as Pipi Longstockings or...


...intriniscally prone to be lazy.
THE SLOPE OF A BURDEN, note falling out around the "ass-et", i.e. mid-life, and peaks as babies and seniors.

Down by the Riverside

Gonna lay down my burdens...down by the riverside.
About how European societies in general (and Swedish society in particular?) view human beings.
About the process of transforming a human asset into a burden.
What you always wanted to know and never dared to ask.
Why social democracy has lost its credibility and sincerity.
Some of the topics to be covered by this blog include personal experiences:
- as an immigrant (e.g. dealing with prejudice, both negative and positive stigma)
- as an employee and manager of a medium-sized biotech company prior to going public (e.g. dangers of going public)
- as the owner of a small incorporated company (e.g. workload, insecurity, attitudes of customers, tax authorities etc.)
- as an employee in a major Swedish company (e.g. dealing with bureaucracy, harrassment, unions, layoffs etc.)
- as an unemployed person (e.g. dealing with AMS and unions)
- as a sick person (e.g. dealing with healthcare and public health insurance)