A common enemy

I have watched enough SciFy to conclude that there is a basic premise behind most of them. That the emergence of Aliens, that is recognized as Aliens. Not the never seen green ones, that seem to abduct mostly Americans and probe their bodily cavities, but an actual other species. Whether they look like us, in the Vulcans from Star Trek, or are the odd looking ones from Independence Day, or even the obscure shrouded ones from Contact it has to be a clearly recognizable Alien. Across it all there is the premise that the discovery of an outer-worldly presence would somehow unite the people of earth and we would put aside our local struggles. Join in the “Earth race” as just humans and face the others as joint species. What is a slight color difference between ourselves, if the other guy has tentacles and can breathe liquid Helium. And those maintaining a nationalistic attitude in the face of an entire Universe is always considered, the idiots.

So how likely is it that we would react this way. Well, just looking at Syria lately, the existence of a clear and common enemy for all the insurgence groups, has not united them the the point they agree on nothing more than they will shoot at that common enemy, but they maintain a conflict with each other also. The Sanskrit saying of “The Enemy of my Enemy is my friend” does not seem to work….ever. Most likely what will happen is that if an Alien race started to drop by, they would just be one more element in a grand giant conflict stew, where we hate liberally across races (humans), borders religions and now planets and species. We have enough conflict to include Aliens.

In the meantime, I will enjoy the fantasy a little longer, hope is as you know, like Aliens ever green.

Equality and sexism…and stupidity

I read on a blog which will only be referred to as “the blog”. Since I found the latest content so mindnumbingly stupid, I did not find it worthy to mention by name. All the same I was compelled to hit the keys and respond, someone might read it and mistake it for facts.

The Author claims that sexism and sexual assaults are running rampant in the state of Denmark, based solely ,it appears, on the flow of thoughts of the author. The only hard fact that is cited is the EU report where Sweden and Denmark suddenly popped up as the hardcore sexist societies, where testosterone apparently is the only guiding principle, and men do not hold back in grabbing a handfull of boob, if the mood strikes us. But having read the report, I can find several problems in the conclusion that is drawn from the data. I do not deny that some may be victims of sexual assault in Denmark and Sweden also, this is of course deplorable and should be  dealt with. But I do think that women in Sweden and Denmark suffer from a misconception, most likely from the many years  they have spend labeling themselves as victims in a society, that is already feminized to the point of insanity. Denmark and Sweden are perhaps the most feminine societies in the world, but since no objective data exist on this, this is for now merely my opinion. Anyhow the report states that a third of all danish women have experienced sexual and/or physical violence since they were 15. So either I have been shielded in my life, or… I do know, and have known a number women, family, wife, friends and despite this still is a big taboo, I suspect I would have met a lot in my nearly 40 years if these numbers were valid. But I have ever only heard of couple in my entire life, which would leave us with a number closer to 1-3% instead of 33%. Additionally, who does the beating, I know no one who have displayed, or even indicated that they thought it would be OK. So how does this work, who is getting beat up and who is doing it? Or is the women who answer this study really answering something else. Is there an equal study that indicates how many men have been involved violence, if so sign me up. I got slapped around at a party when I was 16. But does that constitute a general problem, or just the fact that 3 guys were idiots.

I think the debate looses its validity because the argument seems to come from a group that is more than 50% of the population, who has better education, longer avg. lifespan, better health and yet still insist on viewing themselves as victims.
Like the increasing pressure we see to the freedom of speech coming from religious and other groupings whenever their sensibilities are grazed, so do the female agenda feel that any non-preferential treatment of women is inherently sexist. The individualized idea is that if I felt any discomfort at all as a women, it must have sexism. But women and the blogger seem to have forgotten, that equality means no preferential treatment, to either men or women, that does not equal qoutas, designated spots and behavior to cater to women. I once read a mathematician, who said that many people mistakenly thinks random is evenly distributed, but that is wrong. So if sex is not be considered, is also means that 5 men may be chosen over 5 women, without this being anything other than parameters other than sex, picked these 5. That denial of breastfeeding in a restaurant is not sexist, It can be merely be a preference of the owner, like the choice to serveronly fish, or have a mariachi band. Just beacuse you would like to do something, it does not follow that you can do it in a restaurant. Some people like to dress up as an orcs, but you can most likely not get a table at a  Michelin restaurant in that outfit. Is that sexist?

Den svære beslutning

Med en kærlighed for positiv og flot fodbold og en historik med mit hold AGF, som mildest talt har medført nogle gevaldige nedture og i perioder har noget værre langsparker fodbold, så var det med en stor glæde da jeg for nogle år siden hørte at Erik Rasmussen skulle være cheftræner fra den 1. januar 2009. Ove Pedersen havde ført klubben igennem en periode i 1. division og tilbage til den bedste række, men havde svært ved at flytte holdet over midten af superligaen. Erik Rasmussen skulle ændre dette, med flot og teknisk fodbold, skulle AGF nu være tophold og spille med om medaljer. Desværre gik det som bekendt ikke sådan, og den 20. maj 2010 blev Erik Rasmussen fyret, efter at AGF igen måtte rykke ned i 1. division. Gennem hele den tid Erik Rasmussen var træner i AGF, og for så vidt også før den tid, har jeg syntes at han var en sympatisk mand. Hans filosofi om ledelse og fodbold virkede moderne og tillokkende, og var på papiret lige netop det jeg syntes ville være det rigtige. Nu skulle det være, det kunne kun blive en succes, AGF skulle være dansk mester. Da det så ikke virkede, og AGF rykkede længere og længere ned i tabellen, kom spørgsmålet stadigt hyppigere og mere insisterende, var Erik Rasmussen den rette cheftræner for AGF? Fordi det burde være en succes, fordi holdet var uheldige i nogle tætte kampe, og fordi nogle spillere blev skadede og  fordi at vi jo alle kunne forestille os hvor godt det kunne være hvis altså bare det hele gik som vi nu havde tænkt os da Erik Rasmussen kom til AGF, var det meget svært at acceptere at der måske havde været behov for en forandring længe inden nedrykningen blev en realitet. Jeg holdt for længe fast i en illusion om at det hele nok skulle vende, hvor jeg burde have indset at selvom Erik Rasmussen er en dygtig træner, med et menneskesyn jeg har stor sympati for så leverede han ikke varen. Klubben skulle vinde kampe, vi skulle vinde mesterskaber og det skulle gøres på en flot og seværdig måde, i stedet styrede vi direkte mod nedrykning og i sidste ende måtte også jeg acceptere, at selv de bedste intentioner ikke kan gøre det ud for at levere resultaterne.