Michael Moore kritiserar Sverige och försvarar Assange

Michael Moore, som bidragit med borgen för den våldtäktsmisstänkte Julian Assange har nu också anklagat Sverige för att "älska våldtäktsmän", men att vi gärna åtalar folk som Julian Assange på ringa misstanke om vi pressas av den amerikanska regeringen.

Brevet, som Michael Moore postat på sin hemsida, lyder som följande:

Dear Swedish Government:

Hi there -- or as you all say, Hallå! You know, all of us here in the U.S. love your country. Your Volvos, your meatballs, your hard-to-put-together furniture -- we can't get enough!

There's just one thing that bothers me -- why has Amnesty International, in a special report (described in detail here by Naomi Wolf), declared that Sweden refuses to deal with the very real tragedy of rape? In fact, they say that all over Scandinavia, including in your country, rapists "enjoy impunity." And the United Nations, the EU and Swedish human rights groups have come to the same conclusion: Sweden just doesn't take sexual assault against women seriously. How else do you explain these statistics from Katrin Axelsson of Women Against Rape:

** Sweden has the HIGHEST per capita number of reported rapes in Europe.

** This number of rapes has quadrupled in the last 20 years.

** The conviction rates? They have steadily DECREASED.

Axelsson says: "On April 23rd of this year, Carina Hägg and Nalin Pekgul (respectively MP and chairwoman of Social Democratic Women in Sweden) wrote in the Göteborgs [newspaper] that 'up to 90% of all reported rapes [in Sweden] never get to court.'"

Let me say that again: nine out of ten times, when women report they have been raped, you never even bother to start legal proceedings. No wonder that, according to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, it is now statistically more likely that someone in Sweden will be sexually assaulted than that they will be robbed.

Message to rapists? Sweden loves you!

So imagine our surprise when all of a sudden you decided to go after one Julian Assange on sexual assault charges. Well, sort of: first you charged him. Then after investigating it, you dropped the most serious charges and rescinded the arrest warrant.

Then a conservative MP put pressure on you and, lo and behold, you did a 180 and reopened the Assange investigation. Except you still didn't charge him with anything. You just wanted him for "questioning." So you -- you who have sat by and let thousands of Swedish women be raped while letting their rapists go scott-free -- you decided it was now time to crack down on one man -- the one man the American government wants arrested, jailed or (depending on which politician or pundit you listen to) executed. You just happened to go after him, on one possible "count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape (third degree)." And while thousands of Swedish rapists roam free, you instigated a huge international manhunt on Interpol for this Julian Assange!

What anti-rape crusaders you've become, Swedish government! Women in Sweden must suddenly feel safer?

Well, not really. Actually, many see right through you. They know what these "non-charge charges" are really about. And they know that you are cynically and disgustingly using the real and everyday threat that exists against women everywhere to help further the American government's interest in silencing the work of WikiLeaks.

I don't pretend to know what happened between Mr. Assange and the two women complainants (all I know is what I've heard in the media, so I'm as confused as the next person). And I'm sorry if I've jumped to any unnecessary or wrong-headed conclusions in my efforts to state a very core American value: All people are absolutely innocent until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. I strongly believe every accusation of sexual assault must be investigated vigorously. There is nothing wrong with your police wanting to question Mr. Assange about these allegations, and while I understand why he seemed to go into hiding (people tend to do that when threatened with assassination), he nonetheless should answer the police’s questions. He should also submit to the STD testing the alleged victims have requested. I believe Sweden and the UK have a treaty and a means for you to send your investigators to London so they can question Mr. Assange where he is under house arrest while out on bail.

But that really wouldn't be like you would it, to go all the way to another country to pursue a suspect for sexual assault when you can't even bring yourselves to make it down to the street to your own courthouse to go after the scores of reported rapists in your country. That you, Sweden, have chosen to rarely do that in the past, is why this whole thing stinks to the high heavens.

And let's not forget this one final point from Women Against Rape's Katrin Axelsson:

"There is a long tradition of the use of rape and sexual assault for political agendas that have nothing to do with women's safety. In the south of the US, the lynching of black men was often justified on grounds that they had raped or even looked at a white woman. Women don't take kindly to our demand for safety being misused, while rape continues to be neglected at best or protected at worst."

This tactic of using a rape charge to go after minorities or troublemakers, guilty or innocent -- while turning a blind eye to clear crimes of rape the rest of the time — is what I fear is happening here. I want to make sure that good people not remain silent and that you, Sweden, will not succeed if in fact you are in cahoots with corrupt governments such as ours.

Last week Naomi Klein wrote: "Rape is being used in the Assange prosecution in the same way that 'women's freedom' was used to invade Afghanistan. Wake up!"

I agree.

Unless you have the evidence (and it seems if you did you would have issued an arrest warrant by now), drop the extradition attempt and get to work doing the job you've so far refused to do: Protecting the women of Sweden.

Yours,
Michael Moore

Michael Moores bild av Sverige är förstås synnerligen missvisande. Och han tycks i sammanhanget helt bortse från sitt eget lands sexuallagar (det trots att han vanligtvis är snar med att kritisera sitt eget land).

Sverige älskar inte våldtäktsmän. Däremot är det förmodligen sant att många våldtäktsanmälningar inte kommer till domstol. Så sker dock därför att åklagaren anser bevisbördan vara bristfällig - eller där sexuella relationer sker där det helt enkelt är omöjligt att veta vad som gällde eller ej.

Sveriges lagar fäller nämligen inga utan bevis bortom all misstanke, vilket knappast kan sägas om det amerikanska systemet där sexualbrott kan ge årtionden och livstid i fängelse på bevis svenska domstolar skulle betrakta som bristfälliga - och där juridisk hetsjakt förekommer på sätt som helt enkelt inte görs här.

Det svenska juridiska systemet är mycket mer välutvecklat än det amerikanska och andra föråldrade rättssystem som säkert var utmärkta för 200 år sedan när alternativet inte var något rättssystem alls, men idag känns något outvecklade - som te x tanken på att ens pengar ska kunna avgöra huruvida man behöver sitta i häkte eller ej (något vi i Sverige i princip skulle betrakta som en muta).

Julian Assange tycks ha tappat allt förtroende för Sverige - däremot skulle med stor säkerhet också han mycket hellre bli åtalad för våldtäkt här i Sverige än i USA. Gällande Assange bör Sverige göra en grundlig undersökning av fallet, och därefter avgöra om åtal ska väckas eller ej. Däremot ska Assange naturligtvis inte utlämnas till USA. Våldtäktsmisstanken har inget med Wikileaks att göra, och Sverige bör heller inte blanda ihop de två. Och oavsett vad Michael Moore än tror så brukar Sverige kunna göra sådana distinktioner, eftersom Sverige helt enkelt är lite mer sansat än det land Moore själv skriker och skränar från.

Michael Moores felaktiga kritik av Sverige säger en hel del om Michael Moore. Men det säger också en hel del om svensk media, som under alla år med George W. Bush betraktat Moore som någon slags sanningssägande hjälte - trots att han var lika korkad då, som han helt uppenbart är också nu. De svenska skribenter som då okritiskt förmedlade Moores bild av Bush, kan omöjligt ta Moores parti i synen på Sverige, vilket borde få dem att överväga att omvärdera sin sin på de saker Moore gjort också i tidigare sammanhang. För dem med det intresset rekommenderas mina artiklar om Michael Moore och dennes felaktiga skildringar av George W. Bush på länkarna nedan.

Se även tidigare inlägg:

--------------

Michael Moores propaganda - del 1 20081211

Michael Moores propaganda - del 2 20081211

Michael Moores propaganda - del 3 20081211

2010 - ett besvärligt år för Obama

2008 var Obamas år. 2009 var tänkt att också vara Obamas år. 2010 var definitivt inte Obamas år. RealClearPolitics har här en alldeles utmärkt sammanfattning av Obamas bekymmer 2010 - månad för månad. Ämnen varav i princip samtliga täckts utförligt på denna blogg.

Året började med kontroversen efter kalsong/juldagsbombaren på nyårsdagen. Ett terroristförsök som hade kunnat sluta i katastrof, men tursamt nog misslyckades.

Året fortsatte därefter med fortsatt hög arbetslöshet, ett bakslag i Massachusetts där republikanerna bröt in i det liberala högfästet - och därmed ett temporärt bakslag för sjukvårdsreformen, om Obama och demokraterna dock likväl rodde i hamn.

Andra problem skulle dock komma. Oljespillet i mexikanska golfen blev en lång utdragen process där Obamas respons skulle bli lika kritiserad som Bushs respons på Katrina i samma delstat 2005. Sommaren skulle bli en "recovery summer" - men det amerikanska folket upplevde ingen återhämtning. Obamas stimulanspaket hade nu fått god tid på sig att verka, men arbetslösheten hade inte sjunkit.

Under hösten visade te-party-rörelsen sin styrka genom stora segrar i de republikanska primärvalen, vilket indikerade ett stort motstånd mot Obamas politik, och i november vann republikanerna Representanthuset med en av de största svängningarna i amerikansk politiskt historia. Därtill tog man också över delstatskongresser och guvernörsposter runtom i hela landet.

I december blev Wikileaks ett allvarligt problem för administrationen, och i lame-duck-sessionen tvingades demokraterna/Obama svänga i te x sin kärnfråga om skattesänkningar och acceptera att republikanerna snart skulle ha makt inte bara att prata utan också att bestämma, varför Obama valde en bipartisansk kompromissande inställning snarare än den konfrontativa hans liberala vänner önskat.

Källa: RealClearPolitics

MtP: Joe Biden om de dagspolitiska frågorna

Meet the Press intervjuar denna vecka vice-president Joe Biden som talar om godkännandet av skattekompromissen som förlänger Bushs skattesänkningar, återkallandet av DADT, START, Afghanistan etc:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Se även tidigare inlägg:

Senaten debatterar det nya START-avtalet 20101219

Senaten avskaffar DADT 20101219

Obama signerar fortsatta skattesänkningar 20101219

FNS: Bob McDonnell om kampen mot ObamaCare

Virginias republikanske guvernör Bob McDonnell intervjuas denna vecka av Fox News Sunday om sin delstats kamp mot Obamas sjukvårdsreform:



Se även tidigare inlägg:

Ken Cuccinelli om ObamaCare 20101219

Juridiskt bakslag för ObamaCare 20101216

Capitalism and the environment

Nedanstående inlägg skrev jag nyligen till min blogg på Rightosphere. Det handlar om kapitalismen och dess påverkan på miljön, och inspirerades av en diskussion jag hade med en vän från den lokala kyrkan på Irland där jag studerar (det är alltså ingen av mina bekanta i Sverige med vänstersympatier som åsyftas):

Recently I had a discussion with a kindhearted yet uneducated friend with economic ideas that are simply not the kind of ideas any thinking man would agree on: He claimed that economists have it all wrong since we assume that an economy can grow forever, and that natural resources cannot end.

He's wrong on two counts: We're not saying an economy can grow forever, as a matter of fact the whole marginal utility theory says that growth gets slower as an economy gets richer - something we can see when we compare growth in the US and China. Poor countries converge and grow fast at a start, but later on growth gets slower, until it reaches it's steady state (which is a theoretical concept, a level which is really hard to calculate). That doesn't mean no growth, only a steady growth.

Also, he fails to see the difference between natural resources and materia. Materia is finite, but natural resources are infinite. A natural resource is materia that we can use for something. If we found a way to use clouds, clouds would become a natural resource. But we don't, so right now they are just materia. Oil used to be materia for thousands of years, because we didn't know what to do about it. It's when we found out oil can be used for fuel, heating, plastics etc that oil became an actual natural resource.

Capitalism doesn't consume natural resources. Consumers consume them. Capitalism creates them.

Materia is not a natural resource until an entrepreneur comes up with a way to use it to create a product which consumers want, and capitalism is the only system which gives entrepreneurs any incentive to do so. What incentive? They get to keep the profit! Socialists like to talk about how entrepreneurs must share with the rest of us, that they must contribute to society. My answer to that is: They are already doing that! By providing us with new technology and goods that we want, better and more goods than we had before! Why should they be punished for that?

Oil became a natural resource in the 19th century. Before that (though there were some limited use of it earlier as well) it was materia. And it would have stayed materia if we hadn't allowed people to profit from turning it into a natural resource.

But capitalists don't care about conservation, do they? They'll just flood the market with all the oil there is, with no thought about tomorrow? No. Capitalists maximize profit by minimizing the use of natural resources. The reason why the ham you buy in the supermarket is something like 50 % water is because capitalists don't want to use more natural resources than they absolutely have to - in this case pigs. Yes, I hate that too when the ham is watery, but you certainly can't accuse capitalists for wasting natural resources. That wouldn't give them any profit, using more oil than they absolutely have to. How do you think a CEO would explain that to the shareholders? "Yeah, we could have given you twice the dividend you'll receive this year, but we bought a bunch of oil we really didn't need... why? Well, we felt for wasting some natural resources. Sorry guys!"

That CEO would be fired immediately.

But aren't capitalists only thinking about the short term? No, absolutely not. Well, they are, but only if politicians screw things up. Imagine you own a forest with a certain number of deers and mooses. You could shoot them all this year, but then you wouldn't have any deers/mooses next year. In the long run, you're better off shooting maybe 10 % of all your animals each year, so that the population may recover and you'll be able to hunt and have meat year after year for eternity.

Now, imagine that you fear that your forest will be nationalised by the government next year. What do you do? You shoot all your deers and mooses of course. Next year they'll be gone from your ownership either way, so you'll shoot all of them, sell the meat that you can't/don't want to consume yourself and then use the money to buy something the government won't nationalize - or just move abroad. The fear of communism and nationalisation causes short-sightedness. Unstable and unpredictable governments (like the ones we see in Africa and... well, lately also the US) is causing capitalists to think about short-run returns instead of long-run returns. Shares are usually treated as perpetuities - meaning they are assumed to exist and deliver a return forever. If shares are instead treated as annuities - bonds which have only a limited life - their price falls remarkably.

Capitalism also gives us an effective signal, like a red flag which tells us that we need to find new natural resources or use less of the ones we are currently using - the price goes up! That's what happened to the price of copper a few decades ago when China were building phone lines (which were made of copper back then). They wanted phones, which according to the environmentalists was an outrageous idea: "Why do they need phones? Can't those chinks just use smoke signals instead? Hey, we NEED phones here. Otherwise we can't call each other and plan our anti-racist manifestations..."

However, capitalism provided the solution to this. When the price of copper started to rise, entrepreneurs realized that whoever invented an alternative to copper would make a lot of money. The alternative came fast (and, trust me, it was not invented by a politician): Fibre optics! A new, cheap material that you can make phone lines from. The environmentalists stod there dumbfounded; they had already written their five-year rationing plans and this bloody entrepreneur ruined all the fun for them!

I am confident capitalism can also provide cheaper materials for water pipes - I know my confused friend is feels strongly for those seven millions who die each year because of lack of clean water (he's a good guy really, just a tad confused when it comes to economics). This will make clean water available for more people; all you have to do is to reassure the entrepreneurs that you won't steal their profits through taxation and they'll solve the problem in a minute.

Capitalism has a proven track record of creating growth an abolishing poverty anywhere its been applied. Why wouldn't we trust it with the environment?

John Gustavsson

Se även tidigare inlägg:

Presidentvalet 2012: Vem vann valet 2010? 20101216

--------------------

GOP avskaffar Pelosis kommitté om global uppvärmning 20101202