Interesting day in Denmark
•
15 Aug 2007, 07:37
•
Journals
So in the last 24 hours there has been some very interesting issues in Denmark and I would like to tell you about three of those.
1) Ban of smoking
At midnight the new no smoking law was finally executed. It basically bans smoking in public places, also bars and restaurants; there are so many small restrictions in the law but I wont go into the that.
2) No cars on Sundays
This is not a political discussion yet, unfortunately, but people in the media has been discussing to re-instate an old law from the oil-crisis in the 70ies. It stated that it was illigal to drive a car on sunday, in order to save on the reserves of oil, and only public transportation would run.
3) Old politician attacks PM
The old leader of one of the opposing party of the government writes in a column in a news paper today that: "The Prime Minister is a dangerous man who uses the media to sweep unpleasent cases away (like the Danish partition in Iraq). He also changes his mind about issues; he is dangerous in that way that because he is willing to take upon any "costume" in order to stay in power."
It is said that the PM has about 20 government paid spin-doctors working for him.
discuss! :)
1) Ban of smoking
At midnight the new no smoking law was finally executed. It basically bans smoking in public places, also bars and restaurants; there are so many small restrictions in the law but I wont go into the that.
2) No cars on Sundays
This is not a political discussion yet, unfortunately, but people in the media has been discussing to re-instate an old law from the oil-crisis in the 70ies. It stated that it was illigal to drive a car on sunday, in order to save on the reserves of oil, and only public transportation would run.
3) Old politician attacks PM
The old leader of one of the opposing party of the government writes in a column in a news paper today that: "The Prime Minister is a dangerous man who uses the media to sweep unpleasent cases away (like the Danish partition in Iraq). He also changes his mind about issues; he is dangerous in that way that because he is willing to take upon any "costume" in order to stay in power."
It is said that the PM has about 20 government paid spin-doctors working for him.
discuss! :)
If I go to central CPH I can disgusting snow (when there is) chewed bubble gum and spit on the street.
I disagree that a country would be f-u-c-k-e-d if it were saturated by immigrants, they are, as most have noted, a hard working section of society, and one that can play an integral role in the economy; immigrants usually take lower paying, labour intensive jobs, which leaves a greater proportion of the local populous to enter into the service sector of employment. Think about it: with cheap labour provided by immigrants, swiss companies would make larger profits on exports (provided that there are enough swiss companies), and with the tax rate in switzerland that would lead to an increase in wealth for the nation. Greater wealth means more money for education, health, etc, and greater education means greater job opportunities for swiss citizens, which means that in the future the swiss will be higher earners.
Also, you sound like a racist fucktard, with big hair. Just an observation.
Besides, don't believe everything they tell you. Wouldn't surprise me if they exaggerate.
as example: It's like you are going to a burial, and when they say "he was always a good man" you stand up and say that it might be wrong!
Also, "it is said", by who? The same people who think 9/11 was an inside job and Neil Armstrong never set foot on the moon? If you can't verify it, it's like that it's been exaggerated, and even if you can, you must be able to see the irony.
The person who said that he has 20 goverment paid spin-doctors is the same that calls him dangerous.
And you see the Irony in that, right? He's invested in critisicing your government, it's obvious why he's saying that, but it's less obvious from where he gets his facts. When you read the news, you have to look at the motivations of the writer: context, and research, are your friends.
He is a retired politician so, per se he would not gain anything from this investment. Of course you could say that his motivation might be to help his former party members, in the race for government control.
What cases have been buried, and, in your opinion, why?
In connection to that, there was another big case about a documentry from Iraq, made by the national television channel. The law suit made by the government towards the channel is still going; because it unveiled some issues about the government.
A lot of immigration issues covered up and so on.
The UK is said to be very different from the Scandinavian democracies in regards to openness in government, and you should be careful about drawing conclusions about other democracies based on your own country. Plus, you might as well say that the free <anything> is an oxymoron. Liek, at the most fundamental level, free will is just an illusion.
Free press, regardless of my own nation, is a term intelligible by all who speak english, and doesn't require any special knowledge. Free anything is an oxy moron when you take it to mean "Each Journalist has equal rights, and all those interviewed or questioned must treat them as such; that the press should have access to all information", etc, as it implies that we are not human and that our actions are not motivated or caused by anything external.
Of course, if you want to argue that the motivations of the PM are wrong, then I'd be willing to sympathise, but the fact is that you'd have the same problems with anyone who is in power.
Free press isn't an absolute either. The government has to strive to meet the prerequisites for a truly free press. It's not something that appears as if by magic; like many other matters of democracy it is an ongoing process. Reporters without borders attempt to grade all countries in terms of how great the freedom of press is. Denmark is usually #1 on that list, but dropped several places during the latest tally due to members of the press receiveng threats during the Mohammed crisis. It's a funny thing.
In closing, a quote from British John Stuart Mill: If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and one, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
Truely free press is something that can no more be strived for than one can strive to not feel hunger or pain; you can enact legislation and pass laws to protect speech, but to impose fair and balanced reporting is directly opposed to that notion: if you protect free speech, you protect the right of reporters to favour one side.
However, you are right to say that the Government should not meddle in the affairs of the press, that they should not coerce or enforce their own agendas upon free agents: I only contest that, in a free state, this is possible, without breaching the right to free speech.
If I, as a politician, wish to ask a reporter not to break a story, because it may adversely affect me, or my party, then under the tenant of free speech I should be able to do so, only that I not exersise my position to force the hand of the reporter, that his actions be contrained by my words and not my power. Perhaps then, if the latter were true, that your leaders are using laws to control press, it would be relevant to discuss their flaws, but if all they do is ask, then they are protected by the very right you seek to preserve.
However, a free press isn't really about having a factual and balanced press. Journalists should just be allowed the access to pertinent, nonsenstive information, and then to report whatever the hell they want (conditions may apply). Exactly what should be disclosed to journalists is another matter. Again, there is a collision with other rights, such as privacy and security. "Free" really means less than that in an absolute sense, but that's where we begun. The definition of free.
point nr 3. god DAMNNZZZZ at that pic. reminds me of germany about 70 years ago :P
You do know what movie that is from, right?
but that aside, I simply don't buy it that mankinds co2 production is causing global warming. I'm sorry to say it but we are too futile to matter. The effects we as humans have on mother nature and our atmosphere is pretty much null.
Watch this cheasy and make up your own opinion based on both sides of it. The side which is thrown at us in the media pretty much every single day and the side of this documentary. ->> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566&hl=en
problem solved !
picture is from a sunday in 1973
and tbh I always wanted to have a sunday without cars would be so funny but just for once.
The quietness was so nice.