Miss Kolka

a warm welcome!?

Ahmadinejad has spoken.

But only after a rather humiliating introduction by Columbia president Lee Bollinger.
It was quite surprising to hear the University scholar make so direct remarks about The Iranian President while "welcoming" him as a guest speaker, saying that he behaved like a "petty and cruel dictator" and was either "provocative or uneducated" when he talked about the Holocaust. Of course Ahmadinejad was rather surprised by this and said that where he came from, people did not make assumptions about their guests or insulted them before they spoke. Then he went on with a religious rhetoric for quite a while, saying that Science was a gift from god and that Knowledge was the most important element for human beings. He mentioned the nuclear, Isreal and Palestine - and from what I heard (and I listened to the whole speech) he asked there to be more research on the Holocaust and that he was for a wider debate on the matter - without banning "revisionists" from expressing themselves - making there a little wink to the so much appreciated freedom of speech of the Americans. He also said that it was unacceptable for Palestinians to suffer the consequences of the Holocaust 60 years later.

Ahmadinejad answered his critics saying that Iran did not want to develop a nuclear bomb - that it was outdated and had never really served anyone. (whether they are trying or not is besides the point) He also answered Bollinger's remarks about Iran executing homosexuals in front of the public. He simply said that there were no homosexuals in Iran like in the Us, that this phenomenon did not exist there. By phenomenon I dont know whether he ment homosexuals or their execution. It was nevertheless an intriguing answer to a strange question - I have never heard about those executions and I don't think the United states can lecture anyone on inappropriate executions.

Ahmadinejad may have his views and to some they might sound foolish and ignorant. My experience is that he is well-spoken, well educated (he is a senior lecturer at Tehran University on regular basis), intelligent and follows a rational line of thought. He might though on occasion say things that appear bizarre, provocative or mention god a little too much for my taste. But he does come from a different culture and I find it astonishing how the media portray him as a madman and lunatic. When what he does is get attention to his point of view - which is clearly different from the usual political crap we are used to hear. People saying things they dont mean and doing the opposite of what they preach. We are of course capable afterwards to make our own judgement. He at least is not as "bad" in his choice of words as I would have imagine nor does he say "evil" things or threaten other countries (not even Isreal this time).

To Condelezza Rice's comment that it would have been a "travesty" if Ahmadinejad would have been allowed to visit the world trade center because "I think this is somebody who is the president of a country that is probably the greatest state sponsor of terrorism", I can only say this:
Because the United stated have never sponsored terrorism?? What about Cuba in the 1970's, the Contras in Nicaragua in the early 1980's, the early Saddam years and Bin laden before he decided to turn against his previous sponsors? What is Israel doing in the Palestinian territories? Many would argue that their actions are the biggest example of modern state terrorism today and remind us again who is their most loyal ally? Nonono the US NEVER sponsor any kind of terrorism...

It is interesting to see how Ahmadinejad is portrayed just hours before he is to adress students (and the world) at Columbia University in New York this monday. Its enough to google his name to find some humiliating pictures and lots of unjust criticism that appears right away. The man has clearly become the next evil leader everyone should hate - after Osama, Saddam, Hitler, Stalin .... Unjust I say because I personally have never heard so very shocking comments made by this man - sure he questions that the Holocaust took place and Isreal's right to exist, often critices the US and Bush and he defends Iran's right to develop a nuclear program. On the first point - for him and his country - Israel is clearly the enemy considering the history and he is by nature provocative so that has to be taken into account. On the second point - well he's not the only one, joining Venuzuela's Chavez (who is regularly portrayed as a lunatic by the world's media) and on the last point - I still don't understand why some countries are trusted to have the bomb and not others- of course people have an equal right to defend themselves and no one will convince me that the United states are more wise in their use of weapons than other countries.

So Ahmadinejad is in New York for the UN Security meeting that will probably adress the Situation of Iran's nuclear program - Last year the same topic was on the agenda - what has changed since then? Nothing. The international community still says Iran should not develop nuclear weapons and Iran still claims it does not have use for the bomb and only has a peaceful program. The president wanted to go to the site of the World trade center and pay his respect to victims of the 9/11 attacks on his US visit (maybe a shameless PR-move?) but because of "security reasons" was banned from going there. Also last year A. was scheduled to speak at Columbia University but it was cancelled at the last minute. Will he be allowed to speak this time? It has been announced that 600 tickets for the venue sold in less than an hour - that security is tight and that mass protest against the Iranian president have been organised. Well, if protesters are using the same arguments as I found on the internet and heard on CNN - "he is evil"- and "we are going to show him what freedom of speech means" than it is likely to be completely useless. Ahmadinejad says he wants to express himself in front of a US audience to clear things up and explain himself. Is it possible that things have gotten lost in translation?

Oh yes..

Had such a wonderful weekend away from Paris, away from all the sounds and the stress.

Wish I could always have 3 day weekends.. I think everyone should. Then there would be more work for everyone and people would enjoy their job more - being there less.

Apparently in Norway they finish work around 3 in the afternoon.. That would also be nice.

Who am I kidding - that would not work in my little workaholic mind - I would just get confused.

Lets work more - to earn more (guess who's Politician's motto this is??)

Well, Mr. President - not everyone wants to escape their personal life and therefore work 16 hours a day, or  can vacation in their millionaire friends' houses. And isn't money there to spend? How are you going to spend it if you work all the time?

Funnily I read an interview with a girl I would not consider a special friend of mine - seeing her status and former "doings" (aldur og fyrri störf hmm hmm)  and for once she actually said something not too stupid :" I have never met anyone who wished they had worked more".

There you have it - Enjoy life while you still can - work is only there to give you an extra push.  

After a long day at work - a day a little bit different

where you could hear an amazing voice on every corner - a little bit of opera every half hour.

A day that could have been exciting and interesting with alll that we could have said about the amazing Pavarotti.

But somehow it became a stressful day, people shouting and the news agenda so unclear. Bosses critizising every little word and technical errors all over the place.

Shame we could not pay a proper tribute to the maestro.

Well, here I am - asking myself the same question yet again. After surfing the net endlessly for some news, something else,something different (and wondering whether the word news does really come from the word "new")- Im not satisfied. I want to learn, I need to discover new things but I dont know where to look.

On a normal work day, I wake up and switch on CNN- then I think to myself that what I hear is in some respect what I followed already yesterday and quickly check Al-jazeera before scanning bbc.co.uk and mbl.is. While brushing my teeth and doing my make-up I tend to listen to the news report on France inter radio - that is if Im on time - more often than not I miss the news seeing that Im late. On some rare occasions I end up listening to an interesting analysis on something "off-news" or a more magazine-like topic like why french workers are the most unhappy nation at work. How fitting.

Then comes work - often at high speed - especially if Bush junior or Sarkozy are to announce some "major" policy changes. Get ready for the breaking news - Switch on the red light. It might be something exciting...except that its ALWAYS the same speech, just with different words.. the policy makers of the west trying to convince people that their action are "right" and the only way forward. And we believe every word of it - at least we do not contradict them the slightest although we might have evidence to the contrary.

Maybe its the lack of time, or the fact that we only have a limited group of journalists that we end up with "fact" stories about what he or she said and what has happened in a chronological order. Forget the analysis or too much criticism when we are talking about our own rightous world leaders.

Then Iranian president Ahmadinejad pops up and announces something about his nuclear ambitions.
This can then be heard by various senior producers: "ok we will do a story on this but we cannot just take everything he says as an absolute truth so a little analysis and putting the event in a more global context is necessary".

Finally!But why can't we do the same regarding other leaders - aren't journalists known for their synicism and critical minds? Lets use them - lets get out of the framework - and LETS actually differ from CNN, BBC and all their friends. Only then can France24 become relevant. A big bravo for Journalist Gulliver Cragg and his Iran story this week... funny enough I could not find it on our website (not important enough to save it more that 24 hours perhaps??).

But why is it that these diplo stories are always considered newsworthy?? All that comes out of political press offices becomes news. What about the refugees that wanted to return home to Nahr al-bared in Lebanon? These people actually have nothing to return to - and we already played the story 3 times, so the story is dead. Or about people going around their daily business in Iraq - despite the bombings.. I think we need to remind ourselves that they are real people, not just numbers. Or do just more light stories..and laugh about silly things.

Oh no, lets rather put Bush in the headlines. That's a seller.

I need alternative news reports...

already checked alternet.org

and Znet.

but I still feel dry and I haven't learned anything new.

AH...I could check out CNN's Christiane Amanpour's yearlong investigation on god's warriors . There is a reason that CNN is known worldwide..even though we dont always agree.

• How much is enough? | 09-05-2008
• Where is Iceland's money coming from? | 06-05-2008
• There's no way out | 19-04-2008
• Sendi it back to China | 07-04-2008
• Poisson d'avril | 01-04-2008
• Wish I was | 30-03-2008
• lesser of two evils | 27-03-2008
• in my head | 25-03-2008
• Where are all the drugs going? | 11-03-2008
• Why is she so controversial? | 07-03-2008
• Presidential obsession | 14-02-2008
• All we can do is wait | 14-01-2008
• The stupidity of the French President (read to the bottom for it to make sense) | 08-01-2008
• S.O.S. | 30-12-2007
• In memoriam | 27-12-2007