About religion

Boing Boing-post that shows the unbelievable stupidity of humanity. On the comments there is this line, the reason I wrote this post;

But why is it so hard for people to accept that maybe, just maybe, the people who compiled the Bible and told stories over six thousand years ago were possibly trying to just figure it out, just like we are today?

It is attributed to AndrewJC, who is the author of post #19. This pretty much sums my views on religion, and thus deserves a post of its own. It's far better said than anything I did in the Jehova's Witnesses-post a while back.

Living extraordinary lives

During the past few days I watched (again) The Fabulous Destiny of Amélie Poulain and continued reading One Palestine, Complete, among other things. While doing this I again thought about how interesting and almost magical life was in the movie, or as descripted in the book (not talking about the violence). This led me back to my old thoughts about what interesting - or special - life essentially is. And while it should have been always readily apparent to me, it only now really hit home; life is [almost] never extraordinary; it's either normal or miserable. And I'm talking about judging your own life, here and now, and not someone else's.

Let me explain.

What makes life extraordinary, special or otherwise noteworthy? How someone lives, what he does or who he meets. This means riches, achievements or relations. The problem is, that in the first case we judge someone's living conditions compared to those of someone else; we are always ourselves the standard. Rich people see poor people living extraordinarily, if miserably. And poor people in turn see rich people living...well..extraordinarily happy.
The problem with the second is that while things sound glorious while told as a story or anecdote (for example, living abroad due to father's work), the experience of going through with it is actually quite tedious and mundane. The long flights, living in a country with high language barrier, no friends etc. The extraordinary parts get buried under the pile of daily problems.
And the third? Well, knowing great people does bring some light into your life, but I feel that it also lights the misery of your own life in comparison.

Now, after saying all this I admit that there are people who feel like they live extraordinarily; I expect most of them are people who's living conditions changed dramatically (and suddenly) after childhood, usually due to some singular feat (like winning in Olympics after years of practice) or because someone else did something big (distant relative died and left his considerable fortune to your disposal). But in normal life? There was a person in my classroom few years ago who had used two years to hitch hike around the world. I remember overhearing him talking about dancers in Brazil, about holy places in Jerusalem and the rush hours of Japan. I'm sure he felt he had done something nice and cool, but while telling you have been to all these places (and visualizing to others how you did it) seems grand, in practice I bet the grandiose is lost in his mind under the nights in flea-ridden hostels and days walking in rain.

The only people who in practice ever think that their life isn't normal are those who are chronically depressed and want to get better or find a way out.

And Amélie? She walks in Paris where nuns cross the streets in flocks, a man with glass bones and artistic tendencies lives under the same roof and everyone you meet is a strong personality, worth a book by themselves. And she never realizes it, or wonders about it; I'm sure she thought about it briefly when she moved to that area, but in practice; this was her life, right? And life is normal, no matter how extraordinary it actually is.

Friends and emotional attachments

How do we define people around us? Unknown, people we know by name, people we spend time with (but don't actually know), friends? Particularly the last two categories fascinate me. You get from category #1 to category #2 just by introducing and maybe sitting in the same class room. To number #3 by going for a beer together. But to #4?
Is there an universal definition? Some people say that once you let people into your home you are friends. Or that you can spend time together without actually doing anything. Are mutual interests expected? Trust? Love? Respect? Something else?

I'm asking this because while there are many people I happily declare my friends in all the above definitions of the word, there are some that I don't. Or, to put it less bluntly, don't think if it's proper to call them friends. I'll get back to this shortly. Bear with me.

I remember that at the age of 12 an adult asked me who my friends (ystävät) are. I responded by listing my few mates (kaverit). After that, the adult in question was careful to call them as such. The distinction was that "mate" is a #3 while "friend" is a #4. I notice that some people are more relaxed with these terms. I have often wondered do they do so just out of courtesy, or are they so quick to forge the emotional bonds that friends have between each other? Or imagine that such bonds exist? Or maybe they just have a definition that allows #3's to be called #4's.

I wonder.

To go on; is there a proper way to make a friend? I have never been very good at this. A person is an occasional distraction at school... and few years later you notice its four in the morning and you have spent forty-odd hours in the "distraction's" apartment watching television, telling poor jokes and talking about life. Obviously, at some part between these two scenes the relationship changed.

Back to the definition. I hear that people who use MySpace and MSN to forge social contacts make a distinction between "friend" and "friendster". By definition, the latter are not real friends, but #3's. It comes to me, can one forge real, lasting relationships through the Internet, without actually ever meeting the other face-to-face.
I remember reading last year in newspaper about a Finnish guy who had entered exchange of letters with American girl in the 1950s (when both of them were still in middle school) and only met the week the newspaper came out. They had written each other letters for over 50 years, diligently and without fail. And while the Finnish guy had been to America - indeed, only few score kilometres from the girl, he hadn't had the opportunity to see her. And she had travelled Europe but had likewise been unable to visit Finland.
Were they friends? I imagine they wrote on paper everything that happened in their lives. I imagine, that over the years they told each other secrets they didn't tell anyone else, not even their spouses. But they had never met. They didn't know how the other laughed, how the other smiled. Didn't know how the other liked to form sentences or what syllables they give weight when talking. Or how the other has curious way of bending head when checking the time.

Are such things important for friendship? Is it strange, pathetic or otherwise improper to call people you have talked daily for years friends? Even if you have never met, even if it's only through IRC or instant messenger?

Where do you draw the line? What's the definition?

What is real?

Many TV-series (particularly scifi-series, which are very dear to me) have an episode where the hero has to question what's real and what's not. In the more extreme cases, the hero starts to have flashes where he or she is actually locked in a mental institution, and everything that has thus far happened in the show has been a figment of imagination. This is strengthened by people in the institution knowing about the series chronology, about vampires (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) or aliens (Smallville).

In Smallville Clark Kent finds himself in a such a situation. He is shocked to find that Jor-El is infact a brand of soap, and Oliver Queen (a.k.a. Green Arrow) is the name of the hospital worker administrating his medicine.
Buffy in turn finds out she has been in the mental institution for six years - since the series started - and both her mother and her father are expecting her to come out of it. All that has happened in Sunnydale is just dreams in a sick woman's mind. It makes it even worse that the series questions itself: "sick girl who's in mental ward or super-girl who battles vampires - which sounds more insane?" to paraphrase from memory.

This annoys me on three levels; first it ridicules fans who have invested time to the series chronology. It highlights the built-in ridiculousness of the more absurd parts of the series mythology (hero's super strength, origin story, being centre of the world). Also, for stories to work we have to believe in them, believe in the rules of the world; these is-the-hero-insane stories beg the question is that time well placed.

On second level, the stories don't end well. The mental ward is often thought to be in "our" reality, where there are no Kryptonians or vampires. It is inherently more "real" than anything in the series itself. After you introduce the ward, you also have to explain why the ward was just the figment of the hero's imagination. Otherwise we get to the "it was just all a dream" scenario, the most effect way to lose interest of the watcher.

In Smallville, Martian Manhunter explained how the ward was infact a psychic attack by hostile force, who tried to overtake Clark's mind by showing him that he was mad.
In Buffy, just the opposite is done; at the ward Buffy's mother explains how the friends in Sunnydale are not friends at all but traps that keep her comatose in the real world. The episode ends with Buffy asking forgiveness from her friends - and then cut to the ward where the doctor diagnoses Buffy comatose and we are shown parents weeping. It wasn't a trick, or an attack.

On third, and less popular culture-level these episodes beg the question about life itself. If we interpret the world solely by our senses, and our senses are processed trough our brain - how can a person decide if she or he is hallucinating? A person tells you that you are hallucinating - do you trust the person? Or if two different things claim that the other isn't real - how can you make an educated choice between the two?

This isn't just about me pondering TV-series. I have a friend who sees hallucinations. Doing pretty well with them too, as I gather. Takes medication for it. When my grandmother gets sick, she regresses one year at a time back to her childhood. Mother is going to get me soon. Who are you? Why are you here Uncle? Back from America? When her body gets better, her mind gets better as well, and again she knows who I am..
And while I don't have anything of that magnitude, I do get blackouts when I rise or make sudden moves, during which my ability to see or keep my balance greatly diminishes. They take up to 30 seconds and when my mind clears it always hits me how much on the mercy of few wirings I am. My whole world - literally - is hosted inside a lump of meat. And the distinction is so hard to make; am I living in the world or is the world living in me?

[ To talk about am-I-crazy scenarios, here is a good wiki-link about it taken to it's extreme; Tommy Westphall.

The mental ward or it's variation has also been used in Star Trek: TNG, Star Trek: DS9, Lost, Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis and Charmed. ]

Meditating in car

I have always loved the feeling of being on the road when midnight is drawing close. Getting back home from somewhere far away, after long day. There is something wonderful in the way you are going somewhere and still sitting; a friend is behind the wheel and you know that just by sitting, you are doing something. The lights appear and vanish and you can hear the sounds of the road under you.

And radio plays, and as the midnight closes, you hear less and less of Britney Spears and the Boy Band of the Week, and more and more of the classics and the songs with staying power. The songs you remember having heard previously, but of which names you can’t quite recall. Idly you think that maybe tomorrow you will do some research and find out the song... only to forget till the next time you are on the road.. The annoying hosts of day time have all gone, and the ones speaking are middle-aged and melancholy.

And you are on the road. Going somewhere. And you don’t even really ever want to get there, because as uncomfortable as the seats are during day, just at that instant there is nothing where you would rather be. All the worries, troubles and aspirations are somewhere far away. There is just you and the sounds of radio.. and a driver, somewhere far away..

[ These thoughts occupy my time just before I go to sleep ]

What the hell is wrong with organized religions?

I have been thinking of religions lately. Partly because of this entry (I was linked by my friend Vlad, who apparently has rather good grasp on things I like), partly because couple of Jehovah's Witnesses came to visit the Residence the other day. I was not around, but apparently they knocked on each flat door and asked from which countries the inhabitants are from. They then gave Watchtowers and Awake!-magazines in the languages of the countries mentioned. So now I have religious magazines in Finnish and English on the kitchen table.

I don't much base for organized religion. I trust the scientific approach as far as our normal life goes, and I quite agree with the idea of evolution and Newtonian physics (yes, I know they only apply as long as the objects travel slower than 10% of speed of light). When we step outside the area that can be observed and verified directly by our senses, I get a bit unsure. They say that it all started with a Big Bang, which seems like a sensible conclusion from the known facts. The same goes for post-Einstein physics. They say it allows pretty much everything from time travel to reaching distant stars in days. This may very well be so, and I do know that CD-players would be impossible to manufacture without Einstein's theories.

But when you start to think about it, REALLY think about it; the universe is so huge and big and infinite. There are no borders but it expands all the time. And every material is coming from the same spot and has just spread around. There may be evidence to support it - and I do want to believe - but it's too big. And the same goes for the religious alternatives.

But to be honest, I'm not very concerned. Some days I feel that there might be something out there, and on some days I don't. In general, I feel that it's more important to know what's inside than outside. And whatever you believe, they are your beliefs and don't really belong to anyone else. If I discover something that works to me, the last thing I want to hear is that I'm wrong. Incidentally, Lutheran church (at least in Finland) is pretty cool with the subject. Apparently they (we?) have priests who don't believe in Hell. And priests that only believe in God as a symbol for human goodness. And priests that don't believe that women can be priests, which pretty well shows the other side of the tolerance-argument, but I digress.

I do read about other religions; believes often tell something important about the culture and the person itself. And so I was reading Finnish Awake! at the kitchen table, while I was eating my breakfast müsli. I admit that I dont know much about Jehovahs Witnesses, other than they go from door to door and nobody seems to like them. It's all very vague.

There was a longish article in Young people ask-series titled Why is it wrong to date in secret?. It was basically the moral story of Jessica, with additional quotes and explanations from the Bible. Jessica's story goes as follows;

Jessica had to do a choice. Everything started when one of her classmates, Jeremy, told he was interested in her. Jessica says: "He was very good looking, and my friends said that you will never find a guy as honourable as him. Many girls were interested in him, but he only had eyes for me".

After a time, Jeremy asked Jessica out. She tells: "I explained to him that I am a Jehovah's Witness, and that I could not date anyone who was not a Witness. But then Jeremy got an idea; we could date without telling my parents.

[...] Surprisingly, Jessica accepts Jeremy's idea. "I was sure that if I dated him, I could make him love Jehovah", she says. [Then] Jessica [...] heard about another Christian girl in the same situation. "When I found out that she had ended her relationship, I knew what I had to do", Jessica says. Was ending the relationship easy? No! "He was the only boy who I had ever truly cared about", Jessica says. "I cried every day for weeks."

Jessica also knew something else: she loved Jehovah, and even if she had gotten sidetracked, she genuinely wanted to do what was right. In time, the pain went away. Jessica tells; "my relationship with Jehovah is now better than ever. I am really thankful that he gives to us at the right time the kind of guidance we need."

(From Herätkää!, June 2007)

The girl cried for weeks and imagine what the boy felt like. I don't really know what the teaching of the story was - other than "cults are bad for you, mmkay?" - But I'd like you to imagine what it would be like if there is no Witness community on the area. The article also mentions that dating is forbidden altogether if the people aren't old enough to marry and prepared to do so after relatively short dating.

Religion is what you make of it, what you believe in. You can try to convince others to believe in the same way, but it's rather inhuman to make people live in a way that makes them unhappy. Denying something purely because somebody says you should does sound a bit perverse for me, just because somebody may have probably said something against it, possibly, 3 000 years ago. As such I really like the relaxed attitude of the ground-level Lutheran church; the higher ups are not as much fun (few years ago they fired an employee for being gay).

I am, of course, a product of my society, and of my generation. People talk about traditions, values and history. Personally I think that for them to carry on, they should have some other things for going for them than just age. And not everything old is bad, but that story sends chills down my spine. Actually, I felt pretty bad for few days. The worst thing is that they didn't even think Jeremy's feelings were worth exploring. The only important thing is that Jessica had gotten closer to God!

Diary

Memory is a terrible thing. It alters and simplifies our recollection, making us heroes of our own lives. We forget our failures. Different occasions merge together and sometimes the timeline of events goes all topsy-turvy as our brain tries to make stories out of singular events.

My first venture into keeping journal wasn't voluntary. I was seven years old and I had problems with learning to write Finnish. I had been out of the country for two years, studying and reading in English (as well as one aged six can). Coming back to homeland and learning to write in language with different grammar proved to be problematic. My mother bought me a calendar book and forced me to write an entry for every day, even though I had very little interest in doing so.

First time I tried writing one voluntarily was when I was ten. I was spending my summer in Nicaragua, and thought that it might be a good idea to record events from a time that would surely be unlike any other in my life. After the first two weeks, the entries started to get shorter. After three weeks, they were just a list of verbs. Soon I stopped completely.
I tried again four years later, for the same reasons as above. The entries were longer, but during the two and half months I only got twenty pages into A5-notebook. I spent weeks without writing anything - though to be fair, the summer was pretty uneventful.

During this time in my life, I was sure that I was already emotionally as adult as I would ever be, and that the memories of those days would never fade. Thus I didn’t keep a diary, a thing I can’t deem as good or bad. The memories did fade, but I suspect that they were nothing in particular I would want to remember. On the other hand, this was the time of my life when I created many of the quirks I now have. Would be nice to know why I originally avowed not to use alcohol or why I disliked a person whose company I three years later looked quite forward to.

I wrote my first long, emotional text when my first relationship crashed. I was feeling awful. For reasons I don’t remember I opened Notepad and started writing. I must have filled two or three pages, and I remember how it surprised me that I couldn’t lie to myself as I did in my head. Half-truths that made sense in my mind looked so thin on paper. I had to tell my feelings and situation as a story, which forced me to question things you normally brush over in your head, as you are more occupied with the present state of affairs.
I wrote for two hours, after which I password-protected the file. I probably have the file still somewhere on my hard drive, but I have not taken a look. While I was more truthful, I have no illusions that I would have been any less naïve.
Reading the file again would also surely hurt, if for different reasons than then. Written word always reflects the ways we think – never more than when we write about our personal problems. I am not sure I want to face the person I was then – even if it would be a moment of growth as a human being.

Last summer I got a book from my mother with hard red covers and full of blank A4-pages. Mum meant me to use it for drawing – I was just finishing my fourth book – but I found the paper was too glossy for that. The ink didn’t stick to the paper needing up to five minutes to dry.
The book rested on my shelf for few months till I found myself depressed by worries of the future, family and matters of heart. I could not separate the feelings in my head, leaving me unable to function. I was in sorry state for few weeks till it occurred for me to take the book down from the shelf and start writing.
This was over half a year ago, and to date I have finished 107 entries. Some of the entries are written very carefully, with every alphabet carefully placed precisely where intended. Some are written hurriedly, with big and half-formed words scrawling over the pages like fat snails. But I kept writing about my experiences, thoughts, worries and hopes, even when I was tired, sick, angry or feeling my heart would burst from grief.

It helps to write things down when you have a problem; just having it on paper changes it to something more akin to to-do list. Matters of heart become solid, making them easy to touch. Often writing it down even offered solutions that were earlier nowhere to be seen.
It helps to write things down even on a normal day; you never know when you want to know of some detail that would otherwise escape your memory, or remind yourself how you felt about different people.
And finally, it stops you from making stories out of your life. Going trough the pages you can see what was important to you then, and how you felt about different subjects. Seeing how things unfolded gives you a change to learn of them more effectively than by just recalling.
Alas, it also offers exellent list of mistakes you make. Where you trusted the wrong people and where you made a mistake that only manifested months later.

But, all in all, I love my diary with red covers. It has probably improved my life more than any other singular item ever in my possession.

What did I want to be when I grew up?

This is a looking-back post. In a way, it's a decade report about where I was ten years ago and where I am now. I think it's very personal text about, basically, how I became me. You might wonder why I write it here, on a public blog (ha ha) where anybody (hah) might see it instead to the privacy of my own diary journal. I leave you with that question for now, and give answer at the end; after reading these things about me, it might make more sense.

I imagine all of you have seen Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. The film has a part where, with flashbacks, we learn how Jones became archaeologist, how he started to fear snakes, how he got named Indiana and where he got his style.
And you could see all this from following him on one important day of his life. Somehow it was so easy. You are a kid with no plans of future, and then you experience something important and suddenly you know who you want to be in twenty years.
In real life, it all happens gradually and is - at least it was for me - full of pain.

Ten years ago I was doing my last days at lower compulsory school. Back home the summer between lower and upper compulsory school is pretty much the difference between child (12) and a teenager (13).

I was not well liked. My family had moved to the town a year earlier, and I only had two friends in the school; I suspect they might not have liked me very deeply, and only were in my company because you have to have something to do during the breaks. After the summer, I did not see them again.
There were over 38 people in our class; our home class was an old (and small) gymnasium, built in the fifties, which had fallen in disuse after they had built another school building next to ours to accommodate the growing student body. I could not name half the people in my class.

Imagine me then, in the early summer of 1997. I was often ridiculed for my choices in clothing (dictated by comfort), when the "cool guys" wore hip-hop jeans with wide enough trouser legs to get the whole waist in.

Upper compulsory school was not nice either. Around me everyone was reinventing themselves, becoming hiphoppers, beauty queens, rockers, jocks.
And I was lonely. The people I knew earlier had gone to other schools. I wasn't able to make any connections to new people during the first two years, and so I sat next to classroom door waiting for the teacher arrive. Sometimes I read novels, sometimes history or geography.
The lack of social contact had left me awkward and shy, and the fear that somebody would stop me in the middle of too long explanation had gotten me to the habit of talking fast.

Because I was not "in" in the popular culture of the time, I hated it. Backstreet Boys, radio hosts, programs in television. Media in general. If somebody asked, I was more than happy to share my feelings. I hated being me; disliked kid who was nervous of doing the wrong things in case it would be noticed and somebody would make jokes, or hit me on the back.

I got friends, and I got to upper secondary school. Most of the more brainless people were filtered to the ranks of the unemployed and the student body of vocational school. Life was better, but I was still very tightly wounded. I had started to define myself by what I was NOT, leaving me a bit hollow. I didn't drink, and I didn't smoke. I didn't go outside on Friday-evenings but stayed home. Perfect wallflower.
I got few friends, the first that I actually retained after I got out of school. Some of them smoked, some of them drunk heavily, one had interesting ideas about relationships.. But most of all they were happy to listen to me even if I didn't make much sense, and introduced me to things that they thought I would enjoy. I got much more relaxed and happy, and started thinking that maybe it wasn't important to be like everyone else or blend to the background. I started imaging what kind of person I would like to be.

Four years later I think I'm nearly there. I have forced myself into situations that I have wanted to do, but earlier felt were too rowdy, unfamiliar or just afraid of. I'm more open about things I like and seldom bother to hide my interest in things that take my fancy, were they cartoon shows for kids, graveyards or human body shapes. And I stopped making excuses to cover myself.

Maybe all this is a small thing for someone else.. maybe to others deciding these things is easy. It wasn't for me. I started thinking how much I had changed, and I wanted to have it on black and white. Words and printed text have more power than thoughts, even if you are only speaking to yourself. That's why diaries are such a powerful tools.

I always thought that when speakers came to the school talking about things being easier when you are older, that they were lying. That the feeling on the background would never change. I am happy to notice I was wrong.

Will us be judged after death?

Someone asked this on one forum or another. The question was really about existence of God, but the question-asker didn't specify what he meant. There was some arguing about making definite questions with only one meaning. Then someone pointed out that judgement is made by living people for living people. This sounded interesting and so I wrote;


I disagree with the person who claimed that we are judged while we are alive. Many of our accomplishments can only be seen in the right light years after we died.

I mean, there are lots of inventors - and even more artists and authors - who were disregarded as good-for-nothings, but are today worshipped in certain circles like gods.

Even Jesus, as historical figure, died with few friends and followers. Few of those who lived lived on decades directly after his death thought of him more than as some nutso who got few followers.

Only after we have been long dead, can our accomplishments and deeds be judged objectively. In few hundred years Hitler might be remembered as the guy who prompted Europe to finally get it's stich together after 1500 years of internal feuding. Today we are still too close to ground zero to see these things objectively. What will last and what will not. EU might still break, and new war torch Europe. It is too soon to say.

Napoleon was undoubtedly the Hitler of his time. He conquered most of Europe and the rest of the Europe feared him. The Beast, was he called. In the following decades he didn't get much of good PR. But what he did then is one of the main reasons why democracy spread at Europe.

I'm not saying Hitler was a great man, I'm just pointing that it's too early to say so. We area still writing the history of early 20th century. . .in the end, it is the historians who will judge us and decide who are the good guys and who the bad.

And, if there was God, so would do he. Free will means nearly infinite amount of chances and ways things will turn out. And that's why there are limbo, for people to be somewhere till the cards they threw into the air when they were alive to settle where they would.

The answer to the question is 'yes'. There is judgement, and it's called history.

"Sometimes I feel that humanity doesn't have history but crime register.." - Kari Suomalainen

Answer to: Why are we being excommunicated

My friend TFK translated to me the article "Why are we being excommunicated" by Professor Binyamin Noiberger. In this post I will try to put this into components, and answer them one by one. This would not work via IRC, as it causes me to shorten my texts, which gives way to interprations that I did not mean.

In the first paragraph, boycott of Israel is talked about. The writer points out that while Israeli products are boycotted, this is not done to other countries that have bigger and more recent track records in impolite actions against neighbors. Professor Noiberger lists Sudan, Saudi Arabia and China. Without researching these countries in any big detail for this text, I would like to point out that these countries are not, in any way, democratic, and even their capitalistic nature can be questioned. Israel, on the other hand, has a working democracy and healthy private sector. While in Sudan, Saudi Arabia and China the stateship is guided by one person or group of persons, Israel, at least on the paper, is a governed by its people. And this is how boycott works. By not buying Israeli products, you cause problems to local companies, who in turn pressure the goverment to do your bidding.
Also, unlike the other named countries, the products of Israel are easily identified, and alternatives for Israeli products found, this is not the case with the other countries. Sudan and Saudi-Arabia sell oil as their main export product. The oil goes directly to the world market, and private customer has no way of finding out is the gasoline he buys producted from Venezuelan, Russian or Saudi-Arabian oil. China, on the other hand, has a huge export trade and it would be childish to think that any manner of boycott by private organisation could ever cause even smallest impact on the sales of the product. As China mainly produces consumer electronics and clothes to Western markets by western companies, there isin't really an alternative in the product group and pricerange that you can choose to boycott chinese economy.
Israel, on the other hand, exports relatively cheap consumer goods and competes with several other countries with similar products and prices. This follows that boycott in this case is easy and working strategy. Strategy, that would and would not work on Sudan, Saudi-Arabia or China.
It should also be pointed that unlike Israel, Saudi-Arabia and Sudan are seldom in the news. Before reading this article (and checking the summary of Sudan's present situation), I was infact completly ignorant that there was anything to boycott in the country. While the countries are undoubtedly well covered in Israeli media because of the countries proximity, from British - or Finnish, as it were - perspective these countries seem very far away indeed. Israel, because of its historical and political background and news coverage given, seems far more closer and easier to influence.
This is not to say that Sudan, Saudi-Arabia or China were better or as good countries. It is just to say that these countries can not be affected via boycott, and other matters, not relevant to this text, should considered.

Next professor talks of anti-zionism, and of equalizing it in british academic circles with colonization, racism and imperialism. Noiberger himself points out the most common reasons for this belief; refusal of peace and the settlements condemned by United Nations. There is also other reason that Noiberger didn't mention or wasn't able to identify. In today's news coverage, only people with strong religious bias identify themselves abroad or in foreign news-interviews as zionists. These views are almost always connected with dreams of greater Israeli territory. People with more down-to-earth religious believes or political views seldom see it important of mentioning zionism. As the word is something not encountered in everyday life, the interpretation of the word has changed, in Western world, to mirror these sentiments. To this writer as well, "zionist" was synonymous with "person who was for restoring historical borders of Israel". Not until few months ago were I aware that the orginal, standard meaning of the word was closer to "nationalistic", as related to Israeli nation.
Of the talks of Israel leaving Palestinian territories as miracle-answer to solving the whole dispute; I would not agree to it, but the answer does seem very attractive in its simplicity. Particulary younger people with more black-and-white view of the world would find this satisfying conclusion. It is only as we grow older as we are more adept in finding the gray in the black-and-white world. Professor, having lived decades in middle of the dispute, would of course see all the shades of gray, while his students, young and far-away from the land in question, would only see few, if any, shades of gray.

Next the article handles the views and relationships of the people of Israel and Palestine, as seen by Oxford students - and british people in general. It should be noted that while Israeli view of the situation is, without doubt, the fact that this land belonged to us from time immemorial, the Palestinian view of the matter is undoubtedly the same. The Jewish race was away for a long time. They might not see Jews as one people who have returned, but as Brits, Americans, Germans - in short, Western people - come to claim land that is not theirs. Land that they have defended over millenium. Without having studied the matter in no great detail (and I admid I might be wrong), they might see this as fitting sequel to Crusades of the Middle Ages.
Thusly, even the orginal UN Partition Plan might have been seen as unjust, as it came from Western organisation.
As the problem is very complex indeed, there are no easy answers, no simple solutions. Because of the decades of violence, there is no trust to be had and plenty of bad blood. From outsiders point of view, which Professor is sketching in his text, simple solutions seem to have very good changes in working. But they come outside the culture of Israel; the culture of Palestine, and what looks good in in paper is not so good on action, as proved by several unsuccesful peaceplans from West.
When private persons talk like world would be black-and-white, and act based on these views, the end results are, at best, amusing, and at worst, catastrophic. In this case Professor's students have undoubtedly convinced that Israel is the bad guy (because, heaven forbid, they might all be equally of blame, or blameless) to justify and make world fit into their mental projection. Professor undoubtedly noticed this himself, as did the reader of his text. I can only completly agree.

I will not talk in lenght about conspiracies; we all know that they are by nature easily identified if created. I will simply note that there are jews in America who have formed lobby groups, and who try to pressure and affect decisions thru political donations. Human mind is very adept in seeing mountains there where are hills, and creating the most magnificent shapes out of formless shadow. Undoubtedly, there are jews bribing Congressmen at Capitol Hill, just as there are NRA, Nut-Christians, big corporations and what-have-you doing the same. That's the American Way.

I can't say anything about the meeting. Professor is undoubtedly correct, and that sounds like very morally bankrupt method of acting. Maybe the people who should have said something, were thinking of diplomatic ties? That would be very Machiavellian way of operating, which, I understand, is very prominient in European politics.

Again, in the last chapter, I completly agree. but point again that the word "Zionist" causes some bad thoughts in my head. If the word would have been "patriot" or "supporter of Jewish state", I would have instantly risen and clapped my hands. As it is, it took me a moment to understand how he had seemingly competing ideas in the same sentence, under the same definition.

I have last studied Israel and its history five years ago. My view on the subject is that of a very much outsider, but I congratulate myself in thinking that at least I dont fall into the usual traps of simplifying things too much. However, my information and ideas may be false, and I am willing to listen those rebukes that I will most probaply hear for this text I have written. Please note that it is not my aim to be disrespectful toward jews or Israel, nor do I think it is ok how those people acted in Britain, as descripted by Professor Noiberger. It is however important to understand that he is mostly talking of young people. Their fathers walked and talked for communism in the seventies. Exellent and good intentions don't always produce nice results. While they undoubtedly acted harshly, that didn't come out of hate, but of ignorance, which I think is very important. There is a distinct difference between lynching black people because one hates them and lynching people one sees standing for evil.
I got the idea that not one of these problems the Professor mentioned were aimed towards him, but towards Israel, towards it government. As such, the students did important distinction between Israeli people (and jewish people in general) and Israeli goverment, which should be noted. As such, question falls mostly under PR - how can Israeli government help form an image of itself, that dosent revolve solely around illegal settlements and violence, as it has during the last few years?
The direction Israel has taken lately, of dismantling the outer settlements and refusin to make more, as well as walking away from Gaza, will probaply be marked as "positive" in the eyes of people with little "deep" information of the situation, no matter how the situation developes on daily basis. If Professor would return today, he might see that the situation has improved from the days he spent at Europe, which, I believe, took place just after the parlamental elections of 2003, and during the "harsh" politics of Ariel Sharon at that time.

Harry Potter Part III

For some reason, I want to write this all down on one go. This post talks about racism in the Harry Potter-books, as the people are divided into "muggles" (humans who cant do magic), true-blood wizards (who are descending from other wizards, for hundreds of years) and half-bloods (other parent is a muggle and other true-blood). There are also "humanlike" races, such as centaurs, elfs and giants. and "halfhumans", who are nearly human, but who may have other blood in their veins as well.

While in the first books the Evilness of Lord Voldemort is taken at face value, in the later books it is revealed that what truly makes him evil is his shame of being halfblood. He collects followers by talking against muggles (of whose hunting should apparently be legal) and on the other hand by promising more rights to humanlike-races, such as giants and werewolves.

Many trueblood-wizards feel that wizards of whose both parents are muggles should not be teached magic at all. Thru the books, Hermione Granger is said to be "mudblood", which has about the same politeness value as the word "nigger". While Harry and friends are of course opposed of this, they dont see anything wrong with insulting and bothering TRUE muggles. The Minister of Magic dosen't much apriciate the Prime Minister (a muggle) of the Realm. In the sixth book the PM goes thru several flashbacks, which show that the Minister of Magic dosen't tell anything to his de facto boss. And when he does, it is very grudingly, without following the spirit of the rules. After long conversation about something else, while already going for the door, the Minister of Magic, Mr. Fudge goes;

'Oh, and I almost forgot,' Fudge had added. 'We're importing three foreign dragons and a sphinx for the Triwizard Tournament, quite routine, but the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures tells me that it's down in the rulebook that we have to notify you if we're bringing highly dangerous creatures into the country.'
'I -- what -- dragons?' spluttered the Prime Minister.
'Yes, three,' said Fudge. 'And a sphinx. Well, good day to you.'

Also, humanlike-creatures, however peaceful they are, don't got any rights. Hermione repeatedly talks about elfs being used as slaves. She is the only one who has any problem with the subject, and is repeatedly treated as a joke because of her concerns. The centaurs can only live in the forrest next to the school because the Ministry very kindly allows it to be used as reservation. Giants are nearly extinct, and the last one in Britain was nearly stoned to death before the headmaster of Hogswarts went inbetween.

The halfhumans who can pass as true humans do so, as it's the only way to be employed.

While some of the races are pretty violent and on average dumber than humans (it is agreed that giants are partly of blame for their own situation; when wizards forced them to the mountains, they started killing each other accoarding to ethnic problems), halfgiants are as smart and calm as normal humans, but are still treated like their full-giants. Werewolves, even those who got bitten by accident and take medicine not to be danger to society, are greatly disliked.

All in all, wizards, even those who think themselves as fairminded, are actually very closeminded.

Harry Potter Part II

The relationship between parents and the children in the books. In case you have not read the books, short description of my current topic should be in order. Harry and his best friends Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger all go to the boarding school of Hogswarts, where the students start at the age of 11 and which consists of seven year-classes.
Trough the books the children and parents both show very little parental interest in their kids - and the kids, in turn, don't seem to need any.

If I understood correctly, the summer vacation from Hogswarts is six weeks, and the winter vacation is about two weeks, I suppose. Outside these vacations, the parents don't see their children. Also, it is possible to spend the Christmas vacation at school.

While Harry is an orphan and his adoptive parents are horrible, Hermione and Ron both come from loving families. Hermione is the only child of muggle-couple (eg. they cant do magic) and Ron is one of the six children of old wizard-family. In all the six books, Hermione's parents dont speak even once. As far as I remember, they were spotted once, from afar, but they never talked. From Hermione's dialogue, however, it can be seen that she dosen't resent her parents, and probaply loves them. Ron's parents are shown in much more detail. Harry and Hermione both spend days if not weeks at Ron's parents at a time. The mother is shown to be perfectly lovable house-wife, who washes the dishes, clothes and even knits by hand sweaters to all members of the family (and Harry and Hermione).

In the end of the first book and the beginning of the second book, it is told that Ron's younger sister Ginny would be starting at Hogswarts. She has - so we are told - expected it for years. The mother is sending her to the school happily, and both she and Ginny see this as the way things should be. She does not cry, nor is she missing her mother. Indeed, during winter vacations both Ginny, Ron and Hermione decide to stay at school to keep Harry company. Year after year.

The parents see their children up to six weeks a year. Less, some years, as Hermione stays with Ron's, to be with her best friends.

And parents think this ok. Not once during all the six books, do the children imply that they miss their parents, or parents miss their children.

The only expection is Harry himself, who is an orphan. His feelings toward his real parents are expressed several times during the books. He misses them. And in the later books, he wants to be like his dad. He is very angry of the way how his parents died when he was only a year old, and seeks openly revange against their killer (Lord Voldemort). It is very suprising, that all the rest children in the books don't have any feelings towards their parents. The only one who is expressing love is Ron's Mother, who in the fifth book is weeping for her loved ones, of whose life she is scared for. However, after a while, she recovers and sends her children once again to Hogswarts.

While I was wondering this, I tried to look up info about boarding schools. What sort of parent - in real life - sends hir child, who isin't yet even on hir teens, to place that means you will ever be able to see him/her few weeks every year? Isin't that cruel? And what does all that do to the psychological development of the child?
I tried to google some studies, but it didn't give me any results, only pages that wanted me to send my child to a boarding school.

Why Judaism Is Cool

Found this some time ago in Warren Ellis' dirty blog.

At the time I didn't think much of it. I found it disgusting, but that was about it. Today morning I was at shower and thought how much trouble those fucking idiots are going to destroy something so precious. Wouldn't it be much easier all around if these dimwits would just camp outside synagogues and mosques instead of going to the tropic getting eaten by mosquitos that probaply spread all sort of nasty diseases.

And then I thought some more of those "spreaders of word". I remember how they go door to door disturbing all sort of honest folk.

Jews never do that. Whatever you say about jews, they never interrupt you in the middle of your favorite show or bath. Thats a huge plus in My Personal Up and Down List.

Ajasta (about time)

Wrote this at IRC-Galleria, short translation to follow this longish message (if you cant understand, trust me, you dont lose anything), also I might add some more material if I feel like it, to the english version;

Ja Doctor Who Christmas Invasion tuli katottua. Oli jännä. Tässä sitä kattelin 900 mhz:n koneella, ja nykitti niin että piti kattoa isot mustat palkit ympärillä. Tuli mieleen että hyvä että kotona on ainakin kunnon kone nyt, ei olisi vanha 600 mhz enää tätä pyörittäny, ei edes palkkien kanssa.

DW:tä katellessa tuli mieleen, kuinka aika muuttuu. Sarjahan on siis pyörinyt päälle neljäkymmentä vuotta telkkarissa, ja pyörii siis aikamatkustuksen ympärillä (mm.). Katellessa tuli mieleen että tulevaisuus on nyt. Enkä tarkoita edes sillä "vanhat scifisarjat sijoittu aina meidän aikaa" fiiliksellä, vaan yleisesti siten, että moni uneksittu ja villi asia on nyt arkipäivää tai jopa vanhanaikaista. Tai muuten vain kadonnutta. Menneinä vuosikymmeninä ihminen hallitsi säätä, pystyi lopettamaan sairauden kuin sairauden parilla ruiskeella ja kaikkeen oli olemassa ratkaisu. Ja nyt, vuosikymmeniä myöhemmin, sääkontrollista ei puhuta (luin jostain että hurrikaanin pyyhkiminen tai sateen luominen häiritsi pienemmässä mittakaavassa säätä suuremmalla alueella, josta naapurivaltiot eivät tykänneet), bakteerit ovat saaneet immuniteetin (ja aina on vielä HIV) ja DDT oli sitten huippumyrkyllinen jne.
Nyt on esim. bluetooth-kuulokkeita, näköpuhelimia (jota elisa taas vaihteeksi markkinoi, eikös tää ollu tulossa langallisena seiskytluvulla? Jetsonit..) ja mitä kaikkea.

Mutta toisaalta; emmekö me aina elä tulevaisuutta? Uudet high-tech (tai sellaisena myytävät) tuotteet muotoillaan ja markkinoidaan aina tulevaisuutena. Jos automuotoilua katsoo, niin ne ovat kaikki tulevaisuutta, 20-luvulta eteenpäin. Mennyttä tulevaisuutta. Aina teollisesta vallankumouksesta lähtien. Joskus tuntuu että kaikki hieno on jo takana. Kaikkein fantastisimmat rakennukset tehtiin 60-luvulla, ja silloin oli kaikki (ainakin hypen mukaan) hienoa.

Mutta ei kaupungeista koskaan tule sellaisia futuristisia ihannepaikkoja kuin scifissä. Onnistuin äsken jopa selittämään itselleni miksi. Scifissä kaikki on aina uutta, kaikki kiiltää ja on uutuuden karheaa. Todellisuudessa uusi muuttuu normaaliksi ja kuluneeksi hyvin nopeasti, ja jokaista "tulevaisuuden taloa" kohti kaupunki on täynnä vanhoja taloja menneiltä vuosikymmeniltä. Tarvittaisiin sota, joka tuhoaisi koko kaupungin, ennenkuin tulevaisuuden kaupunki voitaisiin rakentaa. Se on ainoa tapa rakentaa kaupunki joka on selkeästi yhdeltä vuosikymmeneltä (tai tietenkin perustaa uusi kaupunki; kuinka usein kaupunkeja vain perustetaan? Ainakin Suomessa ne vain tulevat jostain ja jossain vaiheessa valtuuston puheenjohtaja sitten sanoo että "täs ois sit kaupunki valmiina".) Joku Berliini toisen suuren jäljiltä voisi olla jotain joka näytti, ainakin hetken, yhden vuosikymmenen lapselta.. tai kenties Hong Kong, missä historiaa ei ole varaa säilyttää, ja hallinto pitää huolen että sentimentaalismi ei saa kamaa museorekisteriin, jos sellaista ylipäänsä on olemassa.

Ajattomuutta on paljon helpompi etsiä. Tiedäthän, sitä ajatonta kaupunkia? Menneiden aikojen Pariisia, jossa kaikki ei välttämättä ole uutta, mutta aina kaunista, ja ihmisillä on aina aikaa kävellä kaduilla, jotka kimaltelevat auringossa, viime öisen sateen jäljiltä... Joskus kun kävelen Keravalla, Tapiolassa tai Helsingin keskustassa, voin melkein nähdä sen. Ajattomuuden ja kauneuden. Kuinka kaupunki on täydellinen Juuri Niinkuin Se On. Ja sitte huomaa kuinka rakennus jos toinenkin on peruskorjauksen tarpeessa, eivätkä kadutkaan ole ihan sitä mitä ne voisi olla.

I watched Doctor Who Christmas Invasion. Was pretty nifty, and got me thinking. About future, and more specifictly, how we are living it, right now. And I dont mean like "all the old scifi was situationed to our time". No, I mean technology. Jetsons, apart of the flying car (they stopped developing that after it became imminent that state would want you to have licence for four-engine aeroplane to be allowed to fly, even thought computers make it only slighty more difficult than normal cardriving) are modern day. Sometimes, we are even forward in the curve. Video-conversations thru mobilephones are of this day (thought they probaply cost an arm and an leg, and only CEOs of big companies can afford them), as are handsfree bluetooth-gadgets (worth mentioning because every selfrespecting scifi has them, starting from Star Wars and Star Trek) and really powerful homecomputers, that double as television sets (also items of every science story worth its money). Robots arent there yet, but give it a few more years. I hear they have gotten the AI to the level of five year old.

But then, is not future always now? Sure, we have all the stuff mentioned above, but much has been lost. Weather Control is also something in every scifi, as is the fact that diseases are either all extinct or easy to take care of, no matter what. All mastery of nature. We lost that during the way. We could take care of huricanes, but the big-level, short-area distortion was changed into small-level, big-area distortion, and it usually went over countryborders; neighbors didnt like taking part of your problems... the dream of diseases vanished with developing resistance of bacteries, and with HIV. And mastery of nature vanished with DDT. And cars, they are always of the future, by their design. A cool, streamlined Ferrari looks futuristic now... but no less futuristic than the model of -61, or -34. It's just a different future. I tried to google something definite on the subject, and found this. Fascinating stuff, eh?

Sometimes, when I watch classic movies from the fifties, I actually feel that that time was more of the future than is today. Think of it; the future is over.. And one reason one gets this feeling, is that the movies concentrate around buildings that were then brand new. Still rough around the edges. The reason why no modern city cant reach that standard, is that the cities only renew themselves one building at a time. The time to update each and every building (worth changing) takes so much time that the style between the first building and the last building makes them of different style again. And even thought they would be of the same style, the first ones would be quite worn by the time the last ones would be finished; and where would people live if the change would be done all-at-once (and where to find the people to do the labour?). There should be a war, or a brand new town established, for the city to look about of the same time period. Also, future never arrives without bugs, of the technical kind. Modern solutions are often untried, and engineers and architechs and try to crasp the now. On the subject; I miss bathtub. I havent lived in an apartment with bathtub since I was six, and used an small movable one last when I was about ten. Bathtubs arent modern no more, bathrooms are build with showers instead, and even buildings WITH bathtubs are repaired, and the tubs removed (suddenly I ache for an b-tub).

Something to go to, and wait for, instead of city of the future, is, perhabs, an city without time. To be tied to certain time, is to be limited by the limitations and customs of that timeperiod; either there are no vaccines, or hot water, or no bathtubes... or perhaps its impossible to get clothes or shoes in certain size because you vary too much from the average? A timeless city, would have no such limitations. It is Paris of dreams, where everything is romantically, and curiously, at the same futuristic and old (but with vaccines, bathtubes and horsecarts (without shit on streets). And while that Paris dosen't exist, and truly, there exists no city like that, sometime, for a brief moment, sometimes even day or two, it might be your hometown. The consist rush hour might vanish, and the clouds of pollution might disapear; and sun might bring light down just SO, making everything look new and glorious (partly thanks to the rain during the night, that stopped just before you woke up). And birds sing, and you can actually hear it because there are no cars or other machinery going nearby. You feel like you could dance yourself... have you felt ever like that? Like everything is perfect? That must be, surely, what heaven is all about. Maybe its as close as we ever get.

OK, if you can read both finnish and english, you will find these texts to be quite different in nature. Lucky you. For those who cant; be content that it talks mostly about the same things, with some different variations and points.

BTW, Happy Christmas and Merry new year - or was it the other way around?

About dogs.

While I was coming back to home from my mother today, I saw a woman with very interesting hair-do, with very short hair expect just in top of her eyes, where she had big patch, greased to go upwards. It had also been dyed yellow (rest of her hair was brown). She was dressed in wierd jacket, pants and boots. She wasn't very slim, but not fat either; she looked like she had bought that chocolate bar few times too often, but not like she would have been swimming in it.
She also had a dog. I dont know much about dogs, so I cant well identify it; but it was about three fourths of meter high, it was very brown, very slim and very agile looking. In other words, it didnt look much like it's mistress.

From seeing this, I remember the old saying about dogs and their masters (or mistresses, as it is), and about how they end looking like each other. And I started thinking, if this was so, why was it? Was it because, after having had a similar lifestyle for years they started to look like each other? Or maybe it was only the company?

And from this, my train of thoughts jumped to the obvious conclusion; what if people actually bought dogs, to make themselves LOOK like dogs? "I would like to look little more masculine, I think Ill get a bulldog." "I wanna look little more official, I think I take the wolfhound." "I think I want to look cute, Ill take the pudel." And so on.

While writing this, it occured to me that people really do this. They take animals they want to highlight they lifestyle, or give certain image; dalmatians, for examble, are animals that can and should run 100 kilometres each day (read this from somewhere), so they are perfect animals at farms; but people who want to look avantgarde (and thus live in urban cities) get them. Not good for the pet, is it?

So, maybe I wasn't so genius as I thought, eh? But it's a nice thought. To get slim and younglooking by getting one of those dogs that chase bunnies at competitions..

UPDATE!

OK, first post in a while. This time, we have a moral dillema. This url was in topic of one irc-channel I frequent: Spamusement. The pic of interest is posted here:
.
EDIT: Here was a picture of a form you have to fill in Hell; who would you want as your room mate; Hitler or Paris Hilton?

OK, so you are in hell, and you should select a roommate between these two. Obviously we disregard the question of gender, because we assume that no sex between roommates in hell could be expected (ms. Hilton is very goodlooking female individual, and in case the reader happens to be female... well.. I guess Eva Braun thought Hitler was cute).
So, whats the problem? I mean, sure, Hitler killed millions, but people who personally knew him said he was pretty nice and entertaining fellow. Artist by profession (and not a bad one either), he could decorate our flat to be nicer in style. Probaply pretty neat person (obsessed people usually are), he would be ideal roommate.
Paris Hilton.. dunno why she would be here, but shes spoiled rich kid. Probaply would expect me to do all the chores.

Plus, we have to remember that were in hell, so we probaply werent saints either, while alive. So, I'd personally choose Hitler, and it wouldnt even be difficult choice. What do you think?

On other things, somewhat bordering on my personal life; what's wrong with people? I just had the oportunity to meet a person who has been disliking, maybe even hating me for the past three years for something I had very little to do with (in a nutshell, he aproached a girl, who said she wasnt interested. Just a few days later I had better luck. Been hating me ever since). It wouldn't bother me otherwise, but we have several friends in common, and he seems to be trying to make sure they are HIS friends and not mine. From what I gather, this guy has a (very beatiful) girlfriend, is engaged to be married (at least he had golden ring in his finger), he has his own place in big town/city, he has studyplace, friends.. apparently everything he was lacking or dreaming of when I knew him better and called him a friend. So, life has been good to him. And hes holding a grudge?

Visit on my personal life; having a date today with a girl. Were going to movies. I also got part-time job; for now, its only for a month or so till the regular comes back. If she dosent, the place is mine for good! Anyway, it's easy money, and Im awfully happy.

Having problems with my Windows-installation. Mostly fixed now, but I need more permanent solution. Will not go into details here; just thought to inform you.

Walking the Blogosphere

Today, I was bored. Really bored. I had just finished a book I bought (will talk about it later on - as you were really interested), and I was spending time by clicking that "Next Blog" you can probaply see even now hanging from the uppermost right corner of your webpage-window. I don't know how that button works - clearly it dosent throw me to the 'next' blog (as "each blog is numbered, and your's is 4 and the next is 5"). I could go back to the previous page and push "next blog", and go to page that wasnt the one from where I backed off. Also; by pushing the button, I sometimes got the same blog again. This happened so frequently, that it should not be probaple, with all the thousands (millions?) of blogs in the world, and in the blogger alone.
So, how does the "next blog" thing work? Anyone want to explain?

Also, when scrolling trough the blogs, I found several curious things. First, most of them were really inane. Several blogs had just "asfhagash" posts every few days. WTF? Im pretty sure that they dont mean anything, on any language. Then there were lots of blogs with really, REALLY narrow interest. Like "Blog about bolts", and then there really were posts after posts of bolts, where you can use them, where you can buy them and so on. OK; they were not bolts, but several as worthless objects, with no usage in everyday life.

Then, there were several "buy my stuff" blogs. And "this blog is just for google adds" pages. As someone would visit them without anything to read of, only the adds.. There were two blogs that only had quotes from the bible. Maybe that might have interest to someone... I guess.. new quote for new day, and all that. Might be popular in some circles.
There were blogs with so many pictures (there was even some young teacher in USA who had put several videos to his profile - the pages loaded for eternity). Some blogs just spoke of bad design, having been broken into several smaller windows that made you scroll everything..

Then there were several blogs with actually interesting text, on language I can read (there were several with neither). They were suprisingly few and far apart. I commented on few. In case youre one and traced me down, hello.

The one that really stuck to my mind was blog of some missionary with big link to "needgod.com". After some sort flash animation, there were eight questions, that by answering you would find if you would get to Heaven. "Great", I thought, "I so love quizes! And this might be amusing.". Well, proved that it wasnt. The eight questions were on the lines of "Have you ever lied? For any reason, however small?" "Have you stolen? Anything, however nonimportant?" Anyway, questions that made you give the "bad" answer. Who of us hasnt lied? Who of us, over twelve year old, has not watched 'lustfully' either man or woman (depending on your preferences)?

Anyway, of these eight questions, two brought some thoughts to my mind. "Have you cursed in God's name?" And then there was examble: "Oh G-d!" My question is, is that a curse? And I thought God's name was Jahve, or Jehova, or something along those lines, depending on your language. Or is that just one of his names? If God would be in phonebook, would there be something like this:

Gobard, Donald / Bird Street 12 A, Espoo / 853 3566
God, Jahve / Heaven / 124 7687
Gregory, Edward / Sea Lane 4 A 3, London / 114 689


Just a thought. I always though that 'God' was written on big letter same as President. Because, in each country, there's only one of them.. and there's only one God in Christianity. There are other gods, and the big letter dosent really go thru while cursing...

Things I thought out...

There probaply arent two people, with whatever chemistry, that work better together than those who hate each other's personalities, both knows the other hates other, but they still try to hold the peace because - for now - they are stuck with each other. So both bite their anger and do their job as well as they can, as fast as they can, to get sooner away from each other.

They dont chat with each other, nor do they slack; they just want to get on with it.

About Terry Goodkind

The links in this article lead to Wikipedia (English).

Terry Goodkind is American fantasy author. His story's main character is Richard Cypher, who lives in continent divided to three parts; in the western part (his home) there is no magic; this part is also mostly forrest and smallest of the three; people hunt and have small villages and some sort of council, but thats it. The middle part is much bigger, with kingdoms, magic and magical creatures and such. And to the east there is one more area, which is one huge kingdom ruled by Lord Rahl.
The parts are divided by barriers, which now come crashing down. Lord Rahl attacks the Midlands, and the Spokesperson of the Council of Midlands (that has representative of the kingdoms), the Mother Confessor, goes to West to found the First Wizard, who left Midlands years ago. Only he would appoint a new Seeker of Truth. With Seeker and the First Wizard, maybe Midlands could fight back...

Richard Cypher gets to be the Seeker. With Mother Confessor and the First Wizard, he travels thru the continent. Lord Darkhen Rahl is trying to find the Boxes of Orken, which would, with proper rites, make him the ultimate ruler - indeed, the God - of the world. One of the boxes must be secured until one year has passed - thats the timelimit to Rahl to do the rites, if he fails he will die.

The first books are really interesting, and I kept my nose deep in the books till I had them read. While the writing wasnt exactly superb, they had this spirit of joy in them. You usually knew what happened next, but that didnt stop the books from being fun.

Each of the books is more or less stand-alone. Darkhen Rahl meets his fate in the first book, and the next book starts immediately after, by revealing the new threat to be solved. This works pretty well.

Then happens so that Mr. Goodkind finds Ayn Rand's books Atlas Shrugged and the philosophy of Objectivism*. He is so deeply taken by the idea that he has to corporate them into his own books. And so he has to start doing retcons, usually pretty bad ones. In the end this leads to the point where Richard, in the beginning of the series pretty blue-eyed "let's help people", "killing and slaving people is wrong" and "there is more than one truth", becomes very like how Lord Rahl is potrayed. [ Though the writer himself dosent apparently realize this ]

I stopped reading in the book eight, Naked Empire, where Richard finds a large valley where people live in undeveloped community. They have houses, they farm, have cattle, but they tactics are primitive, making, for examble, houses with two or more floors impossible. The people used to be really happy. While most people have their own house for privacy, they prefer to sleep together in big barracks, to streghten the community. Everything important is shared, owned by community. Everyone is happy, no one is violent. This changes as the "villain of the week" has found the valley and promptly went on to make the people there their subjects. The subjects dont rebel; they believe that if they do what they are asked to do, maybe the bad men go away. Even the deaths and rapes of their wives and children are not enough to make them forsake their peaceful philosophy.

Richard finds the valley, promptly agitates several people to rise arms. In one scene, he and his men attack the building where the enemy is hiding. However, the villain has sinister tactic; instead of attacking (he knew Richard was coming), he has alerted the locals of the coming attack. They promptly make signs and make human chain that circles the building. They shout stuff like "KILLING IS WRONG!" "DONT DO WAR!" and so on. The enemy soldiers keep their swords in their sheats, as Richard attacks. Seeing how the locals dont step aside, he orders his men (family and neighbors of the protestors) to kill the demonstrators, which they do (cos Richard has magnetic personality).

All in all, the last books are more and more manifests for the case of Objectivism; Richard might stop to make speeches that are nearly ten pages long; someone counted that nearly half of the book eight is such speeches.

However, the first books are really interesting reads, and while not that well written, they have energy that might make them worth your while. Book six is clearly affected by the philosophy, but Richard still goes and finds more or less peaceful way to solve the problems; later he just kills everyone who dosent see the the world like he does. Because only he is right; and if others dont see it, they are wrong and have done their choice and deserve death.

*In case you are not interested in the Wikipedia link, all that needs to be said is that the philosophy is "each for themselves, and screw the others". You cant depend on other people, and neither should you depend on others; that makes the dependant weak, and will never grow strong. While Rand has a point, her view is hard and offers no compromise. The philosophy dosent recongize "helping the other back on its feet".

About Pirates of Old

When we were young, we all dreamed of lives as pirates (well, we lads did, anyway, girls played 'home', I suppose). Some of us (read: me) even had "pirate-kit". It came with eyepatch, hookhand and dagger.

Incidentally, why do pirates have - at least, when thinking stereotypes - hook instead of hand, only one leg and patch over eye? And then kids WANT to be like them. "Yeah, when I grow up, I'm going to have only one eye, hand and leg. And then I'm going to rob people."

Right.

If we think logically, those identitymarks are actually silent witnesses to made mistakes. You see, on ships of old, there were lots of changes to get rid of your appendixes if you weren't careful. You are tying a knot with some rope and then the sails get wind - and there you go, right hand! Was nice knowing you!

And after losing the hand, our examble subject goes with group-pressure and gets himself a hook. There's nothing wrong with hook-hands, per se, but apparently the men of old werent really that big on preparing to bed. So, once sleeping, a bed bug goes and bites the pirate next to eye. While sleeping, the body moves on its own and tries to slap the nasty bug. And there goes the eye... And while absent-mindedly scraching one's body, its easy to make impressive looking scars, that really make women go WILD.

With the eye goes 3D-vision, and the area of sight goes from 180 degrees to 100. Its now really easy to stumble and lose that leg too.

Now we also have to remember, that back then, people thought veggies tasted good, but werent really that important to health. This caused body to lack vitamins and - in the end - teeth to fall off.

And there he is, our pirate. With one eye, leg and hand, with impressive scars and nasty looking beard (no mirrors and its hard to shave with your weaker arm, while the floor goes up and down). And let us not forget the teeth. Or lack, thereof.

And really, thats all worth it, to be pirate and having parrot that can say "CRAACK! OFF THE BLANK! CRAAC!". And of course, robbing people. And looking cool, under that Skull-and-Bones flag. A Kodak moment.

Oh, Pirate I was meant to be...