|
Katt posted:Plus most of those countries don't really count because NATO would never deploy to save them from Russia. To be fair, right now it'd be more along the lines of "President Putin, a great man -- great for sure, assured me personally in our perfect phone call that Russia which is currently doing so well with Corona, so well but not as well as us (led by your favorite president - me!), would never invade or threaten their neighbors. Fake news made up by Democrats and the media (enemy of the people!). MAGA!" (I felt dirty writing that out, and I am sorry if you mentally heard his voice in your head reading it.)
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:57 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/fiskargubbe/status/1257671448719757313
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 23:24
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:It's honestly kinda infuriating that Tegnell's respons to over two thousands deaths is "whoopsie?" nah
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 23:29
|
|
|
https://www.sydsvenskan.se/2020-05-05/de-aldre-har-klarat-sig-fran-smittan-darfor-sticker-skanes Might be paywalled but so far Skåne is managing ok for now. I guess I should say thanks to Denmark for shutting down and letting Skåne get the benefits of their quarantine without shutting down. One interesting fact is that only 10% of the work in the care of the elderly is performed by untrained workers in Skåne while the same number is 23% in Stockholm. Ie less rotation of personal. Region specific number of deaths are also presented and it would be interesting to see them per municipality normalized on population.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 06:10
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:norway and the soviet union had a border for a huge chunk of the cold war and norway is today iirc the only NATO country directly bordering russia At the risk of drawing ire I really am not a fan of how that whole event is discussed in Norway, especially hwo it's used by Russia. It wasn't some high-minded act of liberation, it was essentially purely done out of Soviet military strategic concerns, essentially the necessity of securing the northern flank once Finland capitulated to prevent the Germans from occupying and/or somehow bringing FInland back into the war again so the Germans in Finnmark had to go. On their side the Germans stationed in Finmmark knew they were incapable of defending themselves against a Soviet attack and in a typical display of their ruthless and callous disregard for civilians in occupied territories went for the scorched earth strategy as they pulled back, forcibly evacuating much of the population who were uprooted by the destruction of their property. In the end there weren't really many people around to be liberated and those who remained seem to be described in many contemporary accounts as being annoyingly sympathetic towards their German former occupiers, harboring resentment against the Soviet forces and the Norwegian soldiers who came in to occupy and operate out of east Finnmark. So in the end I don't really think the liberation of East Finnmark really accomplished much good, being as Germany was months away from unconditional surrender in any case, and that this meant that the German forces in Norway at large ended up surrendering without having to really be fought. Almost certainly the Allies (Western, Soviet, take your pick) could have liberated all of Norway if they wanted to, but this was both unnecessary as there was no way the German forces in Norway were going to fight on once Germany itself was conquered and would have only resulted in massive loss of life and destrcution as Norway was turned into a battleground. That said from the Soviet strategic perspective it is completely understandable why they did invade east Finnmark, but the extent to which this has been allowed to become a Russian propaganda talking point is not truly warranted if you look past the emotional factors of liberation (which in the way things transpired didn't really amount to much for the time being in any case). Also there was really no chance in hell that the Soviets were going to keep east Finnmark rather than leave it to Norway, they certainly didn't want to and didn't need to at least.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 09:15
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Speaking of war monument, I really like this one. It's in memory of the Osvald-Group (a communist resistance organisation) and is called Smash Nazism:
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 10:15
|
|
|
Holy poo poo I didn't know Folkhälsomyndigheten's said that you're not contagious after two days of presenting symptoms.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 11:20
|
|
|
Re: ww2 chat. Yes, I'm pretty sure Stalin didn't feel a particular need to grab more thinly populated Arctic real estate (which they already had a bit of in the USSR), especially when it would have a steep diplomatic cost. (Norway, unlike Finland, having been forced into the war on the Allied side, etc.)
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 11:26
|
|
|
Groke posted:Re: ww2 chat. Yes, I'm pretty sure Stalin didn't feel a particular need to grab more thinly populated Arctic real estate (which they already had a bit of in the USSR), especially when it would have a steep diplomatic cost. (Norway, unlike Finland, having been forced into the war on the Allied side, etc.) I think alot of people aren't aware of just how cautious Stalin was in foreign policy affairs and how much importance he attached to keeping on the good side of the Allies and essentially calculating and determining how much he actually could and should demand. Essentially most other concerns were mostly important in how they would help in establishing the sphere of influence (and buffer zone) he desired in Eastern Europe and also keeping the Lend-Lease flowing when the war was still going on. Those concerns were probably extremely important when it came to why Stalin decided to abandon the Greek communists and dismantle the Third Internationale. East Finnmark probably didn't even factor into this, except for the obvious knowledge that there was nothing to gain.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 11:32
|
|
|
Stumbled upon Aron Flams twitter and good God, few ultraliberals are as annoying as him. Mostly due to his arrogant rhetoric and what i interpret as a very inflated opinion of his own intellectual prowess and perceived underdog status in contrast to his supposedly indoctrinated sheeple opponents. If "gymnasial" was in a dictionary, his face would be on the entry.
Falukorv fucked around with this message at 13:39 on May 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 13:36
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:I think alot of people aren't aware of just how cautious Stalin was in foreign policy affairs and how much importance he attached to keeping on the good side of the Allies and essentially calculating and determining how much he actually could and should demand. Essentially most other concerns were mostly important in how they would help in establishing the sphere of influence (and buffer zone) he desired in Eastern Europe and also keeping the Lend-Lease flowing when the war was still going on. Those concerns were probably extremely important when it came to why Stalin decided to abandon the Greek communists and dismantle the Third Internationale. East Finnmark probably didn't even factor into this, except for the obvious knowledge that there was nothing to gain. I read a book about the Finish war with the Germans at the end of WW2. The Fins were forced to kick the Germans out of a Finland but a bunch of Finish officers were like "They're our mates!" so it was a really half hearted effort. The Fins pursued German forces very slowly to not risk having to actually fight them. Giving the nazis ample time to demolish any bridges they passed. Figuring that the Fins could replace them with smaller bridges which would make it harder for the Soviets to move tanks around Finland afterwards. The problem was that while the Fins were doing their gentlemen pretend war with the nazis. The nazis were going full scorched earth on Finish towns along the way in order to deny the Soviets any houses to keep troops in etc. Moral of the story is don't play nice with nazis because nazis are not your mates. Also gently caress nazis.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 15:16
|
|
|
fnox posted:Holy poo poo I didn't know Folkhälsomyndigheten's said that you're not contagious after two days of presenting symptoms. Two days after no longer presenting symptoms, which is also what the article says.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 15:24
|
|
|
Katt posted:I read a book about the Finish war with the Germans at the end of WW2. The Fins were forced to kick the Germans out of a Finland but a bunch of Finish officers were like "They're our mates!" so it was a really half hearted effort. The Fins pursued German forces very slowly to not risk having to actually fight them. Giving the nazis ample time to demolish any bridges they passed. Figuring that the Fins could replace them with smaller bridges which would make it harder for the Soviets to move tanks around Finland afterwards. Did you mean this more as a response to the first one? I don't quite get it as a response to that particular post other than just makigng a general WWII post. Anyway what I was saying summed up, was that the liberation of east FInnmark wasn't really necessary and didn't do much good for Norwegians relative to the suffering and damage incurred when you consider that Germany's defeat was seen as imminent at this time and as it turns out the Germans in Norway would then surrender more or less without a fight (compared to before this where we see them employing scorched earth tactics in their withdrawal). It's kind of a miniature demonstration of how a full-scaled Allied liberation of Norway would go down, lots of suffering and damage caused by retreating German forces and being turned into a battlefield if and where the Germans stood and fought that would then be rendered unnecessary by the defeat and surrender of Germany itself. However that's if your goal was the liberation of Norway. When you're the Soviet Union and you have to secure your northern flanks and pacify and secure newly surrendered Finland, then liberating east Finnmark makes perfect sense from a military strategic perspective. When that is your objective and not liberating the country then the damage and suffering that might be inflicted on the civilian population as a result doesn't enter much into your calculus and you might even be able to spin a propaganda advantage (though that really seems to have been a thing leaned into more heavily by Russia in recent years than back when, the part that drew the greatest propaganda benefit from the liberation of east Finnmark was almost certainly the Norwegian exile government which sent forces there and began to partly, at least symbolically operate out of Norwegian territory again).
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 16:04
|
|
|
i don't think the soviets much pretended to be after liberating finnmark for its own sake, though i also very much doubt that the locals would've refused the soviet invasion if they'd been asked NKP had eastern Finnmark as a bastion for years after they were practically wiped out everywhere else, the invasion was popular despite the costs
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 17:12
|
|
|
Momonari kun posted:Masks are more about you not spreading your germs in your spit/sneeze around than any kind of blocking of the virus. That's why reusable cloth masks have been recommended for general populations, because of the asymptomatic/presymptomatic nature of it. I only really use a mask when I have to be in super close contact with anybody other than my wife, but for the most part I feel like I'm the only one wearing, even when I'm working. According to South Korean CDC, they're also about physically and psychologically preventing people from touching their mouth, nose and eyes. The mask is a physical barrier to some of these and a reminder for the rest. It's possible to drill "don't touch your face'" into soldiers fighting in foreign jungles and wetlands, but it's pretty hard to do via public health information campaigns. Masks are hygienic training wheels stopping people from touching themselves where they shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 17:28
|
|
|
PederP posted:According to South Korean CDC, they're also about physically and psychologically preventing people from touching their mouth, nose and eyes. The mask is a physical barrier to some of these and a reminder for the rest. It's possible to drill "don't touch your face'" into soldiers fighting in foreign jungles and wetlands, but it's pretty hard to do via public health information campaigns. Yeah, Korean people use masks for colds, allergies, air pollution, or even just to stay out of the sun so you don't get burned, so it's definitely a cultural difference. Most in Norway probably think masked folks got the corona. Since the government seems insistent on opening things up, and work is finally starting up for me again, I've got some cloth masks on the way.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 17:41
|
|
|
PederP posted:According to South Korean CDC, they're also about physically and psychologically preventing people from touching their mouth, nose and eyes. The mask is a physical barrier to some of these and a reminder for the rest. It's possible to drill "don't touch your face'" into soldiers fighting in foreign jungles and wetlands, but it's pretty hard to do via public health information campaigns. According to FHI masks make you touch your face more because they're uncomfortable to wear.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
Good news, everyone! Health Authority has determined the virus will go away by itself even if we open everything up now.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 18:08
|
|
|
SplitSoul posted:Good news, everyone! Health Authority has determined the virus will go away by itself even if we open everything up now.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 18:45
|
|
|
D. Ebdrup posted:Well, it's a bit more of a nuanced opinion that's in the pdf of the report.. Just reporting what I heard on the news.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 18:46
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:According to FHI masks make you touch your face more because they're uncomfortable to wear. Still can't get over how the journalist asking the question at the press conference proved their point mid-asking. That's just, wow.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
What happens when a former minister who jumped straight into a cushy private sector position returns to politics? Well apparently they bring the lobbyists with them. https://twitter.com/Reuterskiold/status/1258081025353228288?s=19
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 06:16
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Still can't get over how the journalist asking the question at the press conference proved their point mid-asking. That's just, wow. Got a link?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 10:36
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:According to FHI masks make you touch your face more because they're uncomfortable to wear. Is that based on evidence or is just an opinion? FHI has been adamant that they follow an evidence-based strategy and while we don't have the results of the studies on masks and Corona yet (several countries have studies underway), there is mounting indication that they have an impact. And there is to my knowledge, no evidence that they are harmful. There seems to be a cultural resistance to masks in Scandinavia and the British Isles. I am not sure why, and I find it absurd that masks should be harmful. If this was a bacterial pathogen, then yes, it's a valid point. But a virus? It can't fester in the mask and simply exposing your mask to direct sunlight will kill a lot of virions. Also masks help people with seasonal pollen allergies, and there's a fair bit of those in Scandinavia. Look at the yougov data on masks and fear: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/articles-reports/2020/05/02/international-covid-19-tracker-update-2-may. I think the cultural bias shows, but I am not sure why it is so.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 11:18
|
|
|
There's definitely some bias against them, probably related to crime/politics. I was under the impression that it was basically illegal to wear a mask in public.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 11:26
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:What happens when a former minister who jumped straight into a cushy private sector position returns to politics? Well apparently they bring the lobbyists with them. I'd like to read it but it's pay walled
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 11:27
|
|
|
thotsky posted:There's definitely some bias against them, probably related to crime/politics. I was under the impression that it was basically illegal to wear a mask in public. I've been wearing a mask around whenever I'm at a closed public space in Malmö. I don't trust that people here are respecting any sort of guidelines. My girlfriend got told that there's gonna be renovation work in her apartment building. I'm not sure how the company doesn't see the problem in having crews go into every apartment, stomp around, while people are trying to stay apart from one another. The true kicker is that she called the company's office, and the lady who replied who was explaining how there was no risk for infection had to end the call because she couldn't stop coughing.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 11:49
|
|
|
It sort of is an ideal time to do renovation / maintenance work, but yeah, not inside apartments. Our internet provider decided to do work on the net out here as well; not great when everyone is trying to work from home.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 11:55
|
|
|
Fader Movitz posted:I'd like to read it but it's pay walled Almost the same story, just reported on june last year. https://ekuriren.se/opinion/ledare/vem-har-paverkat-liberalernas-vagval-sm5176338.aspx
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 11:59
|
|
|
PederP posted:There seems to be a cultural resistance to masks in Scandinavia and the British Isles. I am not sure why, and I find it absurd that masks should be harmful. If this was a bacterial pathogen, then yes, it's a valid point. But a virus? It can't fester in the mask and simply exposing your mask to direct sunlight will kill a lot of virions. Also masks help people with seasonal pollen allergies, and there's a fair bit of those in Scandinavia. Before all the corona stuff, my wife did some cleaning work at a construction site, lots of dust and crap all over the place, people painting, etc. and no one at the site, or at the company she was working knew about proper mask usage. Luckily, the company acknowledged the problem and paid for one-use masks for her to use while working, but she was the only person the whole time who wore a mask. I've seen masked people here touch buttons on public transport with their fingers, then touch their eyes. People at markets wearing masks push up right by me, no distancing at all. It's not really infuriating so much as confusing. I can definitely see someone coming to the conclusion that a masked person might end up touching their face even more. False security is definitely a thing, but that should be taught and not blame the masks.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 13:01
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:What happens when a former minister who jumped straight into a cushy private sector position returns to politics? Well apparently they bring the lobbyists with them. You can't bring what's already there. Lobbyism is the death sentence to any democratic system. Maybe not in theory, but certainly in practice, at least in a capitalistic society.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 13:55
|
|
|
Great new initiative against Paludan.  https://www.facebook.com/freejazzmodpaludan/videos/326073498354374/
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 14:46
|
|
|
Democracy doesn't work in the long run because eventually rich people realize that they can just give money to important politicians to get what they want. Some politicians might say no but the majority probably wouldn't. It's just a job, after all, and getting a cool mil to have a slightly different opinion on things is an easy sell
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 15:02
|
|
|
democracy is incompatible with private property in the long term, is a better way of phrasing that critique
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 15:06
|
|
|
Katt posted:I read a book about the Finish war with the Germans at the end of WW2. The Fins were forced to kick the Germans out of a Finland but a bunch of Finish officers were like "They're our mates!" so it was a really half hearted effort. The Fins pursued German forces very slowly to not risk having to actually fight them. Giving the nazis ample time to demolish any bridges they passed. Figuring that the Fins could replace them with smaller bridges which would make it harder for the Soviets to move tanks around Finland afterwards. This isn't really the case and I wonder what book you have read. It's true that Finnish commanders were less than keen to go full Blitzkrieg on Germans, but there were reasons for this. Finnish army had just survived through a big Soviet offensive and everyone was looking forward to going home. Dying at this point wasn't big on the 'To Do' list. The peace terms also forced Finnish army to demobilize to only 42 thousand men, and most of these were fresh conscripts as the veterans were sent home to rebuild the country and solve their PTSD issues. The German 20th Mountain Army actually outnumbered Finns due to this (though only a part of them were facing the Finns), and they were defending several more or less fortified defense lines along the long way to Norwegian border with very few roads to advance on. So yes, Finnish field commanders early on tried to negotiate it with Germans, and things were going smoothly. Then the Soviets in the Allied Control Commission heard of this and got furious, demanding Finns to intern the Germans or else. Now a more hostile attitude was taken and some surprised Germans were taken as prisoners who then saw captivity in Soviet camps, which in turn got German General Rendulic furious and who started using tactics he'd previously employed during his time fighting against Yugoslavian partisans: taking civilian hostages and burning down all villages. Finnish advance was speeded up a bit by an audacious marine invasion of Tornio, but the further north the campaign advanced, the harder it was to push the advance because the lack of proper roads made logistics or use of artillery a pain in the rear end, and Germans spread mines everywhere, and the mentioned demobilization. In the end the last Germans withdrew from Finland a couple of weeks before Hitler shot himself, so the gentleman agreement would definitely have worked better for everyone. The whole war was fought and Lapland burned down to please Stalin, nothing good came out of it.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 15:23
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:Democracy doesn't work in the long run because eventually rich people realize that they can just give money to important politicians to get what they want. Some politicians might say no but the majority probably wouldn't. It's just a job, after all, and getting a cool mil to have a slightly different opinion on things is an easy sell No political system gets better over time - entropy is inevitable. Power corrupts may be a trite saying, but it's true. Most of the corruption is more subtle than bribes - it's a steady flow of privileges, gifts, invitations and being allowed to mingle with the elite. It takes a surprisingly short time for most career politicians to lose any ideological back bone and start to believe in the system, and restrict all change to happening within the established system of power. It doesn't help that most people want to be led, want to believe that politicians are wise and selfless shepherds and want to believe in the fairness of it all so strongly, that they never see beyond fighting over which political tribe should hold power. We're somewhat helped by that fact that outside factors such as technological paradigm shifts, geopolitical/environmental/economic crises and epidemics, can sometimes force a house cleaning and burning out some of the rot. Sometimes populism is the result instead, but even that can have a cleansing effect, as the populists crowd out the existing elite, and then inevitable fall from grace as their inability to deliver on promises manifests. But entropy is ever-present and the changing of the guard is just a count-down to the pure of heart descending into corruption and nepotism. One of the more disgusting things about modern capitalism is that the collusion of political and economic power has become so strong that politicians will intervene to save the oligarchs from ruin when the uncaring market forces threaten to bankrupt them. Socializing risk and privatizing profit. Capitalism used to be a dog-eat-dog world of eating their own, and the Darwinist struggle for survival was more than accepted, it was lauded. Now the culture of the elite has changed to prioritize stability above opportunity for climbing the ladder in the clouds. Politicians want to be paid for this stability, and are increasingly merging with the corporate nobility. This will hasten the downfall of both groups, but I'm not expecting a utopia to take the place of this world order. We'll get a new lovely system. Doesn't matter if it's socialism or capitalism: Those at the top inevitably turn to the dark side. e: This sounds very pessimist. But I'm an optimist in that I believe the inevitable progress of history, technology and culture will give the people increasing power over their own fate. But it will always be in spite of their leaders. I'm optimistic on behalf of mankind, I'm pessimistic on behalf of any political-economic system. Systems will fail and humanity will suffer in a never-ending cycle, but with life getting slowly better seen in the very long run. PederP fucked around with this message at 15:29 on May 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 15:25
|
|
|
PederP posted:No political system gets better over time - entropy is inevitable. What the hell are you talking about? This is the kind of grand statement that reveals itself to be completely untrue under any sort of scrutiny. I can't imagine any reasonable definition of political system that would make this statement true. As an example: I would say the system of democracy in Norway has improved significantly since it was implemented in 1814.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 16:02
|
|
|
military cervix posted:What the hell are you talking about? This is the kind of grand statement that reveals itself to be completely untrue under any sort of scrutiny. I can't imagine any reasonable definition of political system that would make this statement true. As an example: I would say the system of democracy in Norway has improved significantly since it was implemented in 1814. Of course, I'm not arguing it's a simple rot in practice. It's not like the founding day of a state it's at it's peak and then it declines. Of course there will be periods where a state prospers and things change for the better. That's in addition to the outside forces acting to counteract entropy. I'm not arguing that it's a simple linear decline. My point is that no political system is going to be stable and last forever, power corrupts and if it wasn't for paradigm shifts and crises governments would much more quickly turn corrupt. We've been incredibly lucky with the prosperity and stability in recent history. But I have no illusions that Western democracy is forever. I don't know when - if it's decades or centuries. But it will fail, and what comes after will also fail. We shouldn't expect a stable utopian state. And the entropy is real - politicians and leaders have to be constantly kept in check or they turn corrupt and/or autocratic. But as my closing remark stated - I believe it will get better over time. What we have now is better than what we had in 1814, which was better than what we had in 1214, etc. But the road to progress involves suffering and the corruption of systems. In Denmark democracy is significantly worse today on many parameters than it was in the 80s or 90s. There are saving graces, but from where I'm standing I can see the entropy destroying the democracy we have. The corruption, the collusion and the populism.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 16:19
|
|
|
PederP posted:Of course, I'm not arguing it's a simple rot in practice. It's not like the founding day of a state it's at it's peak and then it declines. Of course there will be periods where a state prospers and things change for the better. That's in addition to the outside forces acting to counteract entropy. I'm not arguing that it's a simple linear decline. My point is that no political system is going to be stable and last forever, power corrupts and if it wasn't for paradigm shifts and crises governments would much more quickly turn corrupt. We've been incredibly lucky with the prosperity and stability in recent history. But I have no illusions that Western democracy is forever. I don't know when - if it's decades or centuries. But it will fail, and what comes after will also fail. We shouldn't expect a stable utopian state. And the entropy is real - politicians and leaders have to be constantly kept in check or they turn corrupt and/or autocratic. If you fully agree with scandinavian political systems getting significantly better over a period of centuries, then the statement "no political systems gets better over time" is just plain wrong as a practical analysis of politics. I will say that I sympathize with the analysis of decay of political systems unless put under significant outside pressure to improve. Still, I do for the most part think that the current political systems in Scandinavia are reasonably well functioning. Not necessarily in terms of the policies that are being produced, but as a democratic system. The extent of lobbyism is certainly in need of curtailing, but commercial interests playing a big part of politics is hardly a new development. I do think there is a tendency to view party politics as hopelessly compromised by outside influence, but believe that most parties hold the positions that they hold because they believe them. Those positions can be wrong, but that is because systems of thought and worldviews can be fundamentally misguided, and not necessarily a product of malice. This is not to say that incompetent media, corruption and lobbyism plays no role, it clearly has an impact.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:57 |
|
|
military cervix posted:If you fully agree with scandinavian political systems getting significantly better over a period of centuries, then the statement "no political systems gets better over time" is just plain wrong as a practical analysis of politics. This is a good and balanced take. I do agree Scandinavia is currently a singularly good place to live (at least for many people, there are disenfranchised individuals for whom it is far from a paradise), and I count myself extremely lucky to have been born in this time and place. But I am also worried about our robustness in the face of crisis. I think there's a huge risk that Corona will cause serious damage to Denmark, in one or more areas of: economy, politics, civil liberties, solidarity and public health. One of our weak points is that the new public management trend completely butchered some of our core public institutions - tax collection, health care, elder care, etc. Not so much at the level of the people working in it, who are generally highly motivated and skilled, but by the challenges imposed by successive governments - among other issues, they are understaffed and burdened with a toxic organizational culture and an arrogantly technocratic leadership layer. Hopefully this will not be the crisis that sends our society on harsh decline. As awesome as they may be on many levels, Scandinavian countries do suffer from exceptionalism and arrogance. Coming back to lobbyism - I think the effects are surprisingly visible during this epidemic. Lars Løkke acts like he's on more than lobbyist payroll. RV are getting some of that lobbyist money once again and pressuring the government to reopen faster. Media have been strongly biased in favor of reopening and not having restrictions on businesses - some have been actual "flu bros" in their staunch optimism. To me this reeks of lobbyist money picking up the tab from the missing ad revenue.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 18:26
|
|