And the question of the day, is........

What is the definition of the term "Norwegian"? According to our Language Council, that term defines a person that belongs to the group of people that traditionally has populated this country. In other words, you have to be white to be defined as a Norwegian. That´s just plain racist. Shame on them! You can´t be a Norwegian even if you lived here for two, three or even more generations? How wrong is that??

Way to go, Britain!

It´s quite incredible, you know. How on earth did they do it? Either they didn´t know or they just didn´t care. And they admitted they knew (at least now!), so it shows they just didn´t care! Talk about arrogance! How could they not think about the millions of muslims watching the Olympics? All the muslim participants? I tell you, I do not flaunt my British citizenship at the moment!!

Gaw, architects!

There´s this Norwegian architect who´s well known in Norway because he likes to create big, expensive country houses for the rich. And he likes to get what he wants, and when he doesn´t, then he always manages to say something REALLY, REALLY stupid in the media. The last time it was the female public servants, that voted no for one of his country houses. He told them that they were frustrated PMS suffering hags (or something like that). Well, this time he didn´t get what he wanted again, one of his houses was considered to be visual polluting. He didn´t take that well. Not at all! He demanded a change of colour on the balls of hay you see around the country side. You know, these big, white balls that completely disappears during winter. So I ask you, what do you find most visual polluting, Finn Sandmæl or these white, round balls?

How did they do it?

The "Scream" and "Madonna" has been recovered by norwegian police today. Although I´m happy these nationals treasures are back, and also hope that it has been a lesson for the poor security in Norwegian museums, I can´t help but wonder how on earth the police managed to find the paintings. They have been missing for over two years and all the people thought to have anything to do with the stealing of these paintings, are now in police custody. So what did the police do? They say no ransom has been paid, wonder if they´re lying? Was it an anonymous tip maybe? Have they known all along where the paintings were? I know they could have gotten them earlier, but they moved too slow and the paintings were moved. The police wont speak of this operation, not yet anyway. It can´t be just good ol´ policework, now can it? The Norwegian police just isn´t that good! Or, hopefully, I´m mistaken!

I´m back, a little

Yesterday the trial of Oriana Fallaci commenced in Italy. She´s on trial for INSULTING ISLAM!! Can you believe it? By Adel Smith, president of the Muslim Union of Italy, "who was never charged with defaming Christianity after he referred to a crucifix as a “miniature cadaver” during his 2003 efforts to have depictions of Christ on the Cross removed from Italian schools.[1] He has amassed a reputation as something of a crank after demanding that Christians deny aspects of their faith that offended his Islamic sensibilities: he has called for the destruction of Giovanni da Modena’s fresco The Last Judgment in the 14th-century cathedral of San Petronio in Bologna, Italy, because that priceless expression of Medieval Christianity depicts the Muslim Prophet Muhammad in hell.[2] And in the mother of all frivolous lawsuits, Smith in February 2004 brought suit against Pope John Paul II and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, for offending Islam by expressing in various writings their opinion, utterly unremarkable from two Christian leaders, that Christianity is unique and superior to other religions, including Islam"

MANIFESTO

Published in Jyllands-Posten, February 28.

MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism
After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.

We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.

The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.

Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.

We reject cultural relativism, which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.

We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.

We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.

12 signatures

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Chahla Chafiq
Caroline Fourest
Bernard-Henri Lévy
Irshad Manji
Mehdi Mozaffari
Maryam Namazie
Taslima Nasreen
Salman Rushdie
Antoine Sfeir
Philippe Val
Ibn Warraq

Bu$h selling out

Ok, so Bu$h made a deal with the UAE regarding six US ports. I've been wondering what compelled him to do this, since he previously confidently assured us that it was the UAE who supplied the funding, through their banks, for the terrorists who supposedly attacked on 9/11.And he also claimed the UAE was involved in surreptitiously shipping nuclear equipment to Libya, North Korea and Iran. And two of the supposed 9/11 hijackers are from the UAE. And the UAE recognized Hamas as a legitimate organization long before the election. So why did Bu$h declare that the "deal was done" and that he would VETO any bill passed through congress that attempted to overturn the "done deal?

It seems the UAE invested as much as $8 billion dollars in Bu$h's father's Carlyle Group last year, and the UAE runs the corporation Dubai Ports World. And John Snow, US Secretary of the Treasury, who also signed this deal, was the previous C.E.O. of a company called CSX. CSX was a shipping company and in February of 2004 (2 months after Snow left CSX for the Bu$h administration) CSX sold it's port operations in South America to Dubai Ports World, and the Carlyle Group purchased the rest of CSX operations.

And apparantly, Bu$h's recently appointed Maritime Administrator, David Sanborn, was a CEO at Dubai Ports World until very recently.

So, do tell me, what is REALLY going on here?