On the suppression of the rewarded sex

Being an issue of controversy and of spit cutting air to fluttering mouths I have so far stayed out of rebelling against my prime love-to-hate parcel of Swedish legislation. But I will not easily sit idly by as the Liberal Women of Sweden (well, the chairwoman at least) have now risen behind the idle calls to extend the ban on rewarding sex workers to every corner of the globe. As if liberal principles had not already determined that the ends does not always commend the means, that Swedish law applies to Swedish soil only, making the calls for such an amendment a cry from the crest, into a wilderness beyond the walls of parliamentary authority, geographical and social. Joint efforts must be made to stem the trade of new slavery, which is truly an abomination, but in this the pitiful law mentioned will play no part. That is not an opinion.

Let me say it once more; I do not condone trafficking, or the domestic use for any purpose of men or women, minor or adults, against their explicit desire. But trafficking was never the spirit of anti-prostitution legislation, and no lawmaker or philosopher adhering to the principles of logic can claim that was the case when the Congress* of Sweden re-introduced the ban on remunerated extramarital sexual favors fourteen years past. Since then, two countries have followed; Norway and Iceland. In the former case, the law explicitly penalizes against offenses committed outside the boundaries of the country which erected the statute. In the latter, taking off your clothes in an erotic, uncasual manner has been banned as well - at least, that is, in a house of public accomodation. Cash is King; King Herod it would seem, by the definition of gracious protectoress Johánna. If the slacker laws of Finland, which only consider sex purchased from victims of trafficking to be suppressible, all the North but jovial Denmark has been cast into an abolitionist kettle along where we have once more rejoined Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the majority of the United States to consider the trade in sexual favours (for bills and coins that is, or dope; food, cigarettes or half a lifetime of increased fiscal security is sort of tolerable) a matter of state. Every one of the countries mentioned have laws against rape and sexual abuse, as do every other country. I would even remark that most countries where rape within marriage, for instance, is legal (Tunisia, for instance) are abolitionist. Criminal behavior is not so much the issue as the prime agent of every piece of anti-sex legislation in history; morality.

French sex workers protesting the Hollande administration's plan to re-criminalize their clients, bringing my interest to the interests of sex workers themselves. Like Prohibition and the Russian revolution, abolition tends to be pushed mainly by an élite with scant regards for wishes expressed by the people concerned.

Morality.
Here is another word; property.
Power entails property, and in my opinion they are inseparable. I also believe, being born post-Enlightenment and two years past President Bush's famous statement of the end of totalitarianism ("blowing away like leaves from of an ancient, lifeless tree") that my body belongs exclusively to me. It is not ours, no more than my rights are our rights. To deem human rights as communal implies they are alienable and can be given away by consensus, a disturbingly authoritarian notion.

Free sexuality, the right of everyone to fuck with with whomever so desirest for any reason, has been suppressed in ink as well as practice since the rise of civilization, but almost nowhere and at no time as much as where Abrahamic religions have prevailed. For the last centuries and decades, it has experienced a renaissance which has since not seen renewed pressure. Religious dogma will not return (for long) in the public sphere, so why should limitations on my right to live and fuck freely? Freedom of information can, roughly, be estimated by the distance to the closest pornographic magazine, divided with the density of population. The adjoined calls for restrictions on pornography and striptease, to mention two activites once commonly attacked by the purposed opponents of equality, now by its most stubborn forebearers, is even more disturbing. The greatest foulness of "right" and "left", fear of free flow of bodily fluids and monetary value, herein joined in unholy matrimony.

The common excuse given for this renewed suppression of this free sexuality of ours is called violence against women. Yet the laws mentioned, tactfully, recognize no specifics of gender on either seller or buyer, nor should any law ever. And as statistics have so often recognized, nor are the buyers or sellers of these favors of a sexual nature solely either men or women. Of young prostitutes in the Nordic countries, males compose a majority. Not a few cases, or a significant minority, but a majority! How can a law ever be based on the claim of an absolute when no absolute exists, or even a generic trend? Prejudice would seem a branding of insufficient heat. I would claim that a 40-year old male, add "millionare" and "teetotaler" to be safely beyond any reasonable discussion of consent, purchasing or selling a night of passion from his absolute equal in these qualities, can impossibly constitute violence on women, nor can it sensibly constitute violence at all, nor could anyone derive its consumption from the need for a higher value; yet, his crime is of equal value to the legislator. How can this be? Have our lawmakers set out to redefine the fairly everlasting boundaries of sex and violence?

Making the act legal. Images such as these, from brothels as well as private homes, were showered by criticism and hushing when unearthed by 19th and 20th century archeologists. Under neo-abolitionist laws, this depiction might have spared the participants of legal proceedings.

Violence is a misnomer, for the heart and soul of the term is force; rape, abuse, torture, assault and homicide are all defined by the singular interest from the act, the reduction of victim into an object whose interests are below the culprit's judgment. Any of these acts carried out between a consenting pair ceases to be an act of violence and, mostly, a crime, as it should it be. The legality of having sex, of killing yourself, of stripping, of slapping or restraining your partner for as long as consent lasts must be fought for towards an everlasting establishment of preservation. Short of permanent bodily harm or the loss of limbs, I think any unenforced sexual pleasure is beyond the reasonable boundaries of government. To consider an act between two (or three, or fourteen) consenting adults by definition inconsensual because of the exchange of a material value is as foolish as to deem it consensual because of the absence of such a compensation, another queer evaluation implied by current legislation. Further to that, if you think the abuse of trafficked women and men is more illegal in Sweden than in Germany, place a camera before the disgusting act you may have in mind, press record, and think again. Or just paint the damn thing. Or be daring and call for the abolition of pornographic images and movies as well, and mind the erection of your spine when you call us all to pause the tape of sexuality and play it in reverse. Consent must govern, alone. That is the spirit of the revolution whose purpose once was to establish the freedom of mind and body on this issue of sex, to which I most strongly adher. The law should not be concerned, politics should not be concerned, was the rallying cry when sodomy laws (solely for men engaged in "carnal knowledge" with other men, like King Gustaf himself) were overturned in Sweden in 1944. This principle was sordidly overlooked when a suppression as old as the "oldest profession" was resurrected in the last year of this century of allegedly unhampered liberation.

My body, my despotism. At least if I am a human being deemed capable of reasonable judgment. Any power infringing on this implies property, and no more than a slave of one who break our laws will I be one of those who make them, or deny that may come to pass in the proudest republic of public consent. The same public consent that has merrily sanctioned, by silent approval, a lot of tyrants, before and evermore.
Non Serviam.


((And please, do not insult your intellect by claiming to yourselves, or me (well, if you'd like to ;) that this is about my personal urges. I have no personal interest in being a sex worker or to benefit one (for the moment), but to suggest that I must support the suppression of activities I may not personally indulge in, or even condone, would mean I have to favor prison sentences just as much for hockey, charter travels to Bulgaria, same-sex sexual activities (thought we were past that one), haggis and most brands of red wine, to mention a few. That sort of thinking sort of digust me, and implies a totalitarian state where all activites must be either enforced or downstruck.))

* = Admitting that I translate "Riksdag" into "Congress"; the literal translation being "Congress of the Reich" or "Congress of the Realm", with the suffix -dag being derived from old German "tagen" which translates as "to gather", "to have congress". An interesting reflection, it would seem now  = )

For a debate (unfortunately rather one-sided) on the topic, click here.

"Why is it a crime to buy or sell something you can give away for free? Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?"

George Carlin

The Giants have fallen...

... the Winter is about to begin  8= )

SKYFALL - Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis

I just watched Skyfall, the first Bond movie to have a bilingual title not a name, which works just as well in English and Swedish. After the tremendous success of Casino Royale (needless to say, the 2006 version) and the rallying criticism against Quantum of Solace (2008), my expectations were, strangely, high. Perhaps because I have strongly enjoyed the works of Sam Mendes (though yet to see American Beauty, I've strongly enjoyed Thomas Newman's spellbinding soundtrack, and was exalted to see he had accompanied the director to this feat as well), but Road to Perdition is not Bond, and the greatest director outside the gulch is yet to prove worthy of Martin Campbell - thou wunderbare själ. Thinking of it in hindsight, it might have been ominious, but that would have been equally false.

Bond movies is a repetative work; to the extent that several actors (Charles Gray, Joe Don Baker, Maud Adams) have reprised their performances in a different character). Counterwise, both 007 and his nemesis Ernst Blofeld (unfortunately not seen since 1983's unofficial Never Say Never Again) have been embodied by five or six different faces. My favorites are Connery, Craig, Pleasence, Savalas. Proven the right actor and a right script, I would gladly see his re-introduction, obviously by a Nordic actor (just imagine Jonas Gardell wearing a Mao costume with the Persian in his lap). Under Mendes' careful guidance, we are instead introduced to a band of terrorists led, or rather co-ordinated in their efforts by a brilliant Javier Bardem, who vaguely, but not too obviously brings me to Heath Ledger's historic performance of an undisclosed villain.

Until Casino Royale, a most dignified reboot which (as an individual feature) outshines Batman Begins, only two Bond movies had broken the classic beginning and end model, one being the very first, before the concept was washed fresh from the womb, draped in tux, collar and bowtie and breast-fed Vodka Martini and nicotine. The second, without mentioning names or events, is the twisted conclusion of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which interestingly was until Craig's debute the only one to truly move me. Hurl whatever you can grab inside your head's most inferior compartments at Lazenby; he is still the one closest to the character of Fleming's novels (possibly split with Connery) and quit not of incompetence because his manager (correctly, one might assume, only insufficiently so) warned that the patriotic, sexist, unproblematic agent would perish in the increasingly revolting culture of the 1970s. If you have deliberately avoided or meekly failed to seen all of OHMSS, do it now. The plot, the thrilleresque mystique and the music are all unforgettable, though noticably dividing among fans and unfans. I only miss Desmond Llewellyn's Q - now I miss him forever. Just like the cigarettes; Bond used to carry all dangerous habits, remember?

Casino was thesis. Quantum, antithesis, a descent like a risen paraplegic back into his wheelchair, which, although a more than decent movie, made the withering Bond-ness in terrific action feature Die Another Day seem charming and adhering to its inheritance. Frankly, I could only wish for the old, all live-and-well actors pass by in the background of this grandesque 50-year anniversary to be slim of perfection as a motion picture, but this is not quite the return to the ways of old, nor their reorganization into something new, yet familiar. Bond is not Ethan Hunt, or Indiana Jones (who, despite South Park's brilliant critique of the same, was goodly handled in the late fourth installment) or even Carrie Matheson. I recall to miss something, and still it is... fascinating. Only the screenwriters would be like to do a better job to finish the next one into perfection, and my only advice to them (unless one day granted that unspeakable and horrendous honour) is this; watch all the films of old, read the books, and try to grasp the threads that never end, and then build yourself a loom. The new Bond, now only reconstituted and about to burst out of the chest of Daniel Craig, the most wonderful choice, will need the best of old and new to stay alive.

And Adele (ndeserves another eloge. Her voice was made for this purpose. A personal wish to the list would be Sharon den Adel, though I doubt it is one shared by all.

On Abortion, Malta and Tonio Borg

Malta's choice of Tonio Borg for the European Commission is, to make a pun, a blow against choice all over Europe, if only on paper, and most deceivously so. Mr Borg's history on corruption (no, I'm not talking about the Swedish Chancellor of the Exchequer - wish we had that title) is a most disturbing one, even for a southron European country which, as seen in the case of Greece, makes use of the term "corruption" a little further than unappropriate use of public funds for the purchase of chocolate or booze. If the Maltese government has any sense of how bad this will make them look, they will withdraw his candidacy. However, if Malta is to be denied its commissioner on the spurious ground of opposing legal abortion, the island is be like to stand without a representative for the next 150 years or so. When thinking that he opposes women's rights, just imagine what their papers would write of your view of human rights in this context (Infanticides! Infanticides! Embryo-killers in the commission!). Until hearts and, above all, minds alter on this very fundamental issue to the position that embryos are not people and that nobody, under any circumstances, has the right to life - yes, I'm not kidding, how do we really enforce this "right" if it is by all indications to be deprived of everybody? - particularly if dependent upon living a parasitic existence on the body of another, unwilling human being, I'm afraid this will go on and on with far less wisdom and knowledge than hatred and interjections exchanged between the parties ("Babykiller!" "Woman-killer!" I can almost grasp the rhytm).

The departure from the EU of Malta, Poland, Ireland and so forth (all Catholic, it seems) will not benefit the possibilites of resolving this issue from within the European community. Swedish representatives within the European Parliament has barked emblems such as "undemocratic" on Mr Borg's dubious reputation. I wonder what this would make notable founders of the Union such as De Gasperi, Robert Schumann and Konrad Adenauer, one of my relatively few conservative heroes (along with Robert Taft and Cato the Younger), who all famously resurrected democracy after two decades or darkness, inferno and deception. It is said it "wasn't an issue" back then, but that doesn't make their position on abortions any different from Mr Borg's, or Salazar's (whose secular constitution, however, allowed for more exceptions than the Malta of today).

Abortion is a human right. Or, more precisely, part of the greater human right to do and dispose of your body and your cells and whatever organisms that may depend upon them as you please. No one, doctor or not, has a legal obligation to carry out a medical procedure against his or her will, not in defiance with, but as part of that same right. Your hands, ears and mouth are your property. Your employer may expect you to use them in accordance with exterior wishes. The law, I must say, may not, and should not. If, say, a doctor of "faith" (the obnoxious word) was to be prosecuted by court for failing to carry out what he or she, againt my views would consider tantamount to murder, I will sordidly disagree with any sentence passed. To penalize for not executing one's own opinions is, frankly, something I can't countenance.

For some common sense (apparently not so common) arguments on this topic, American Professor, Anarcho-Capitalist and moral philosopher Walter Block essentially rounds up my arguments in favour of legalized abortion (for a non-viable fetus) in this televised six-minute feast. I hate to say it, but I came up with the idea "as long as eviction equates death" before I saw it.

And yeah, Obama won Florida. It seems the majority of states (26+DC to 24) goes with the winner, this and almost every time. A relief, particularly to my hypothetical proposal of having a national referendum on president, with a demand for the plurality of votes and of states, otherwise throwing the election to House and Senate. In a federation, it isn't unreasonable to ask for the winner to be approved by the majority of states. Still, the popular vote needs to be put in the front room, if yet not alone.

A Few Good Men

Just an addition to yesterday's more gargantuan post.

Taft, Rockefeller, Dewey. All Republicans who I've strongly admired for years. Please come back = )

Comments on THE Election

I realize I could, and probably should spend 504 pages writing this draft, then cut it the maple syrup-way to more like 5.04 pages stuffed with 5,040 facts and points you really don't want to know. Not because you're not interested, but, yadda yadda, already there  = D

It was a really interesting night. Unfortunately the pubs of Stockholm, as I will never forget, are forced to close the bar at 1 a.m. and thence - unless customers organize to either occupy the scene or buy very large quantities of Coke, Sprite and, uh, pure Schweppes - the TV sets, within about ten minutes, as I learned. Even more unfortunately, there didn't seem to be a single 7-11, billboard or, uh, McDonalds with a LIVE image of the nonwithstanding events of late November 6, 2012, a tremendously important date. For that, I'd like to dedicate this passage to Mayor Nordin and all the bigots who've suggested to extend the partial post-1-o'clock ban to every single night, including ones such as this one. I'm sure they're up to more important things, but seated before a Romney lead in electoral votes hoping Virginia or Florida would tip back to the blue fold when CNN cut to black, I did not recognize the existence of that argument.

No, I'm not going to pretend. 2008 was greater (not just because of the context in my case, which was truly magical) but this was a true milestone. We now can look forward to a deficit paradise lost, a multilateral foreign policy (hopefully extending to a joint intervention in Syria) and the true commencing of ObamaCare (or RomneyCare, as it is known in Massachusetts - not exactly the same thing, but none would exist within this parenthesis without the other). Who really cares about 1936, 1996 or 1984 (I'm not talking about the novel, though in hindsight, it's title must've seemed quite ominious to Democrats). It will not be memorable in the same fashion, but I will not forget walking at a tremendous pace from Södermalm to Kungsholmen, to my small but wonderful TV to see the new, but so far indecisive droves of votes roll into the pen. When Ohio changed from light red to even lighter blue and South Carolina the opposite, confirming the count was heading to a close and a close which Romney hardly could reach 270 with (and no Republican ever has; asides from JFK, no Democrat since Hangman Grover) it was pretty much done. Neither McCain or Mitt would have done very well if not in the lead before California and the Pacific states comes rumbling in. My tip to both leadership is this; watch the 2014 elections in New York and California. The rise of a moderate, secular, optimistic Republican Governor with any of those states within an armlength of his (or her) pocket might just be what is needed to turn the current tide, or arrest that in the happening. I have seen too little change for the last years to believe in a Democratic Governor of Texas succeeding Rick Perry, and if, he (or she; remember - or learn - that Texas was the first state to elect a female governor, nearly 90 years ago) will not be a prospective option for the party base.

There is already talks of 2016; I hardly need to mention the event, and did my first calculations on an unfolded train table yesterday. A possible scenario suggested is Jeb vs. Hillary, but the question is whether the voters will again want to see representatives of both the most pondered families on the final ballot (yeap, in the US the voters who decide the candidates for the nation's most powerful office, or at least would if everyone voted), and whether other options will exploit this fact. If so, they will likely be successful. Some of their names; Dayton, Cuomo, Biden (obviously, and yet you didn't miss him, right?), Begich, Shaheen, Christie, Jindal, Bohner, Haley, Pawlenty, Rubio. Ryan. My favorite donkey and elephant, both female, will remain secrets in a bag of undisclosed thoughts for now, but I might as well mention I'm rebuffed to learn Scott Brown was ousted. Though I'm likely to agree more with Senator-elect Warren, who in every aspect is worthy holding the seat of John and Ted Kennedy, I conclude pro-choicers, liberals, Northeners such as Brown would have preserved as certain degree of reason and sensibility within the weakened Republican caucus as the current Congress is replaced two days into the new year. The future GOP, if again to earn the endorsement the American people has predominantly granted it since the days of Lincoln, must move behind the Robert Taft's and Nelson Rockefeller's of today, and compose itself of younger counterparts of Olympia Snowe and Dick Lugar. I am honestly sad to see them go, but happy that the Democratic caucus has tigthened its grip on the Capitol, as much a tradition as the generally Republican-dominated White House. An even greater relief is that McCaskill, another prospect, stays, and that Lugar will not be succeeded by the great fool of greater faith who so strangely bested him in the primary. I also mentioned Jim Brown in the other column, but it's not going to happen - if you don't know him, he ran a rather strong second behind Carter in '76. All Brown is... down.

For those who haven't seen the electoral map; here it is. The Devil won Florida, just as my friend Todd (not Akin) suggested would happen in 2008, and hence it's dyed in devilish gray.

And here is my approximate way home Tuesday night. Just keep scrolling, you'll reach something else eventually.

If Florida flings back like NC, IN and the lone Nebraska district, the state count will be 25-25, in itself heralding, without any other information, a victory for Obama. I did not expect any other outcome; Romney's best bargain would have been to wrestle away the popular vote, as some late polls indeed suggested he would. The Virginia result is just as impressive as Romney's showing in NH and MN (you can't see either here, being thewinnertakesitall as it is). Compared to the last two decades, the electoral map seems to be undergoing a change rather insufficient for a break of the political standoff which most unfortunately has emerged during the same period, and not by an unrelated cause. Combined with the increased devouring of the Republican party by the serpent known only as "very conservative", it is a dangerous prospect. God, I miss the Clinton years. Not that I want to relive them. Not with what we got to work with now.

This image, taken in Barcelona last week, ended up here for an unknown reason. And please, TV networks, don't switch the colours back to the old scheme. Blue is just so much more..... ;)

Election night 2008, now shining in a new and clearer light.

GRRM wrote a great post on the result, which also called for the GOP to return to a better-suited past (just not in the same sense most of the party mavericks do right now, when calling for a "real conservative"). If you forego my (now-buried) preference for Senator Clinton, my contempt-bordering dislike for president Eisenhower and unfree trade, and my fear of all-socialized medicine and regulation, I deemed it a glorious read. Glorious, that's the word for one of the greatest narrators to have voted for the man of this year and the next four; the still-forty-fourth president of the United States. Barack, you will be missed, but not today.
 = )

And yes, I just watched Election Day - Part II, and the consecutive two episodes of West Wing upon returning home to the Cold North. Now I know. Another three to go. Feels... sad. For that election, just as thrilling (but, or rather and with the tranquility of realism, that you're actually living something, of a real-life event), look for the greatest event of 2006 over here and bask in awe and comment your fingers off with your thoughts, but !!!beware!!! of spoilers that may ruin your life as much as being on the wrong team would.


In contemplating the probably unbearable loss and disdain of yourself that may bring, I offer my sincere condolences to Mitt Romney. Whether it really means something or not, Daddy is watching.

!!Spoilers!!!

!!Spoilers!!!

On Rawls and Nozick

Ever thought about the seemingly opposed concepts of liberty and justice? So did John Rawls. His A Theory of Justice of 1972 is an unfluttering beacon of the former, though it has often been interpreted, in name and spirit, as one of the latter. Rawls' plea is this; assume you have no idea where you are born, or in what position, or condition; in short, behind a "veil of ignorance". Now design a tax system, a welfare state, pension plans (voluntary or mandatory?), daycare and old age-care, all with a mind for what may benefit your life, even if your contribution is neglectible. Rawls assumes, correctly I would say, that most finding themselves in this position would gladly pawn a degree of freedom - or, making it easier, a sum of their expected income - for greater security. The mechanisms of a money-consuming state must be designed with a mind for the less fortunate. But in the same suggestion, Rawls stoutly rejects the notion of a zero-sum game and the virtue of absolute egalitarianism, leave alone the said infringements of liberty such a state has suggested according to earlier philosophers and economists. A society designed (more or less stringently) with a mind for the less fortunate must include a high degree of difference - a gap, echoing Margaret Thatcher's famous last debate in the House of Commons ("You would rather have the poor poorer, provided the rich were less rich"). I doubt Rawls had much admiration for Maggie, they are in absolute agreement regarding this spot, which philosophically makes a great gorge between Rawls and the average socialist philosopher.

Nozick published his s'posed masterpiece; Anarchy, State, Utopia in 1974, two years after Rawls'. Whether intended as a rebuttal or not, it is hard not to see them as dichotomizing liberal thought in two corners. Nozick's point is formalized in the very last words of the book; of creating a multifaceted society where all human association is voluntary, and where all but personal security is managed through consensual collectivism. All adults will be able and allowed to travel freely between these micro-societies, hence allowing a libertarian access to preferrable social services while retaining the right to boycott, renounce and desert each and every society one does not prefer. This to, paradoxically within the same objectives as Rawls, strive towards the goals of liberty and security, but from a different viewpoint. Core and heart is Nozick's notion of "patterning", i.e., the personal choices made by men and women which always strive against a larger, collective endeavour, which will either destroy society at large or become suppressed by it. If your preferences indulge you into the use of cannabis, under circumstances which does not interfere with other's decision not to, why shouldn't you be allow to follow this "pattern"? No utopia or goal is objective or better; the "common good" would rather consist of allowing as much multitude and diversity as the very existence of multitude and diversity allows. Nozick later moderated many of his strict "libertarian" viewpoints (a term which emerged during this era), but is still today considered a beacon of 20th century liberalism and radicalism; a Nestor of libertarian socialists, liberals and conservatives alike.

I strive to keep a foot on either volume.

The Tyranny of Democracy

When they came for our hedge, I barely protested. I was too busy with an upcoming math exam and defending my B-course thesis. Apparently, the public officials of the appropriate committee, who I never saw, never elected, had decreed it wouldn't make any difference to to the people who've basked in its closure and shadow for decades, hence a speedy and audacious resolution when the absence of those most concerned was most likely. By the power of their logic, I might as well have asked these servants of mine if they would mind me dropping in with a chainsaw to cut short any furniture or extremities whose importance they have never explicitly defended. Now, it seems we cannot park the car by the side of the road, be it in July, for undisclosed reasons possibly related to ploughing. But nobody a resident of Umeå, or any place inhabitable in this country can possibly defend such a restriction around-the-clock, around the year, for the reason of fighting snow. July? We have lots of snow then. Add May through September, for a very conservative estimate, and you have five months of unwarranted tyrannical unaccess to the area around your own house for no apparent reason. Traffic security? That will really see a boost with streets free from troubling obstacles which may actually harm your own vehicle when pressing it well above the speed limit.

Adding that this decision, taken by undisclosed servants of the people (including myself, having done my said duty and cast a vote in the local elections in 2010) for undisclosed reasons with no apparent public debate to an end which I cannot bring myself to defend, is just abhorrent. Just like that, the strength of what used to be called the greatest democracy on earth (I think it's Iceland or Norway now) has erected a ban on placing the car by the roadside outside my own door or garden, or at least well away from the mailbox or garbage cannister, or allow the same for very much invited and welcome guests, be it for the trivial purpose of loading it with cargo or washing it clean. This is just deplorable.

It's exactly what Plato meant when he said democracy would evolve into tyrannical features in its pursuit for leaders, and these ones haven't risen to explain or justify their reasons and apparently unchallengable powers. Even Sulla took pride in walking the streets of Rome unguarded, prepared to offer an explanation for every decision of his career to any citizen concerned by his dubious legacy, something that can hardly be said of many leaders of today, be they dictatorial or appointed "democratically" through the choice of other elected officials (as the Dictators of Ancient Rome were, thus making decisions such as this more a product of Dictatura than Demoskratia).

The power to restrict, regulate and re-furnish the lives of ostensibly free citizens thrives and grows in silence in its general residence of today; the committees rooms, the secret meetings, between the range of coffee cups, and has thus been reduced to the simple truth of a handful of men ruling a throng of other men (and women) by their collective audacity and arbitrariness. Yet, every area South of the river and westwards through Grubbe are exempt. Divide et impera. A justification for this sudden and sacriligious change of order has been sordidly absent, as has information of where villa-owners and their guests may now park their cars without fear of penalty. Frankly, this has nothing to do with democracy at all. Democracy allows only for participation of all willing adults and the erection of a frontier of inalienable individual dignity and freedom. This is the hallmark of an oligarchic order, reeking from the sad fact of almost every human's seemingly nature-given tendency for wielding a scepter and forcing others to submit to their own preferential order. Control your environment or become a product of it. Screw that truth.

"Professor, I'm not what you term a civilized man! I've severed all ties with society, for reasons that I alone have the right to appreciate. Therefore I obey none of its regulations, and I insist that you never invoke them in front of me!" (Verne)

Ken Follett's The Fall of Giants is AWESOME!

Just wanted to state this; I've been pondering this audaciously extensive, Bible-paged tome for nearly two months, and in the last weeks worked my way through the commencing dinner to plow about 600 pages. I'm not, as you might suspect, alienated from much in historical fiction, but this strong and strangely captivating (being rather rushed, considering it endeavours to capture all the 20th century in three volumes) narrative is something very new to me. A truly epic work of fiction with a great sense for details and the psychology of human conflict. Readit!

Spanish edition of Fall of Giants, just the one I saw in Barcelona a few days ago. The second volume, Winter of the World, was released in September.