First, the government suggests that several of the assertions in the intelligence documents are reliable because they are made in at least three different documents.  We are not persuaded. Lewis Carroll notwithstanding, the fact that the government has “said it thrice” does not make an allegation true.  See LEWIS CARROLL, THE HUNTING OF THE SNARK 3 (1876) (“I have said it thrice:  What I tell you three times is true.”).  In fact, we have no basis for concluding that there are independent sources for the documents’ thrice-made assertions.  To the contrary, as noted in Part III, many of those assertions are made in identical language, suggesting that later documents may merely be citing earlier ones, and hence that all may ultimately derive from a single source.  And as we have also noted, Parhat has made a credible argument that — at least for some of the assertions — the common source is the Chinese government, which may be less than objective with respect to the Uighurs.  Other assertions in the documents may ultimately rely on interview reports (not provided to the Tribunal) of Uighur detainees, who may have had no first-hand knowledge and whose speculations may have been transformed into certainties in the course of being repeated by report writers. 

Hopefully this is a step further in the direction of closing down the Guanatnamo Bay facility, or at least stop its illegal status of no-law zone. This is the 21st century and democratic countries should no better than to tolerate this abuse of basic principles of the rule of law.

“The EU is completely against all kinds of totalitarianism,” European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said. “We reject totalitarianism, including Soviet totalitarianism.”

If we started the EU from scratch today, it would be much different, but we have to look at the historical context in which it developed and make best of the system we already have in place. The voters are indirectly represented in two ways, the Lisbon treaty has been approved by the European Parliament, which consists of representatives of EU citizens, and it has been represented by 18 member state parliaments, which have also been democratically elected by the people.

It is interesting to note the comments section for my article, where there is actually quite a lot of meaningful debate on what is the meaning of democracy in today’s world (along with the usual name-calling and personal insults).

Fortunately I can borrow another MBP at work and restore my documents to that one until I get it fixed. Also, my MacBook Pro was within warranty period, so I do not suffer a financial setback, just an inconvenience.

Populist rightwingers can continue their lies and misinformation about the European Union.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights, abolishment of the pillars and streamlining lawmaking process are now all on hold.

I do not understand who say that this was a democratic vote. It was not. 3 million Irish people decided to hold back 500 million Europeans. The No campaign was based on misrepresenting, fearmongering and unashamed populism, which muffled the Yes vote. The whole situation is absurd.

Even so, from an early date it was understood that the King, too, was subject to the law. As the writers said of Magna Carta, “it means this, that the king is and shall be below the law.”

The most important paragraph:

Accordingly, for purposes of our analysis, we accept the Government’s position that Cuba, and not the United States, retains de jure sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay. As we did in Rasul, however, we take notice of the obvious and uncontested fact that the United States, by virtue of its complete jurisdiction and control over the base, maintains de facto sovereignty over this territory. 

The smackdown:

The Government’s formal sovereignty-based test raises troubling separation-of-powers concerns as well. The political history of Guantanamo illustrates the deficiencies of this approach. /—/  And although it recognized, by entering into the 1903 Lease Agreement, that Cuba retained “ultimate sovereignty” over Guantanamo, the United States continued to maintain the same plenary control it had enjoyed since 1898. Yet the Government’s view is that the Constitution had no effect there, at least as to noncitizens, because the United States disclaimed sovereignty in the formal sense of the term. The necessary implication of the argument is that by surrendering formal sovereignty over any unincorporated territory to a third party, while at the same time entering into a lease that grants total control over the territory back to the United States, it would be possible for the political branches to govern without legal constraint. 

Our basic charter cannot be contracted away like this. The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply.  Even when the United States acts outside its borders, its powers are not “absolute and unlimited” but are subject “to such restrictions as are expressed in the Constitution.”  Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 15, 44 (1885).  Abstaining from questions involving formal sovereignty and territorial governance is one thing.  To hold the political branches have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will is quite another.

Bush is not happy:

It was a deeply divided court and I strongly agree with those who dissented. We’ll study this opinion to determine whether or not additional legislation may be appropriate.

Kenneth Roth from the Human Rights Watch praises the judgment:

The Supreme Court decision has stripped Guantanamo of its reason for being: a law-free zone where prisoners can’t challenge their detention. The ruling is not only a landmark victory for justice, it’s a big step toward establishing a smarter, more effective counterterrorism policy.

Barack Obama also issued a statement:

Today’s Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court’s decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus.

Compare this with Barack Obama, who not only knows how to use computers, but who’s campaign was built and sustained largely thanks to the volunteer support and donations, which were coordinated effectively using internet-based social networking tools. Obama early on embraced Silicon Valley. His proposals are good as well: he wants to protect the open nature of the internet, provide more access to government online and help the US to bring about technological achievements that are much more common in Europe (3G+ mobile, true Broadband, etc). 

P.S. As an Estonian I found funny that last Colbert Report made fun of Estonia as a technologically backward place, whereas I am enjoying 10M internet connection + Digital Television for 20 euros / 30 dollars per month.

UPDATE: EMT has uploaded a page where you can sign up for updates.

It look promising, looking at the trailers. Visit disbeliefnet as well.

Here is the victory speech:

Update: Here are thr lyrics, transcribed by me:

Sam Sparro - Still Hungry

 

Last night a songbird sitting outside my window,

He sang a song for me

Last night all the stars in the sky they twinkled so brightly

It really was a sight to see

 

Today I spent two hundred and fifty dollars

Two hundred and fifty dollars on a pair of jeans

They really looked nice on me

 

But that means, (ooh) that for the next two weeks 

I’m gonna be scrounging, I never save my money, you see

I finished all the food on my plate, I’m still hungry

And I enjoyed all the food that I ate, (ooh) but I’m still hungry

 

I’ve lived a realtively full life

You should’ve seen some of the things I’ve seen

I’ve lived around the world, 

Been a lot of places, I really am lucky, I am really lucky, 

But sometimes I just can’t take it, I just can’t take it, (noo), I feel so lonely, 

I’m not ungrateful, I just want more from the life I lead

Oh won’t you give it to me, (ooh)

 

I’ve finished all the food on my plate

But I’m still hungry, still hungry

And I enjoyed all the food that I ate

But I’m still hungry, I’m still hungry

But I enjoyed all the food that I ate

And believe me when I say it tasted great

But I’m still hungry

 

I finished all the food on the plate 

And I enjoyed it, yes it really tastes great, 

But I’m still hungry, I’m still hungry,

I’m still hungry

I’m still hungry

I’m still hungry

Kes? Johan.

Mis? Jalutas.

Millal? 1995. a jaanuaris.

Kus? Tallinna südalinnas.

Ja nägi kiviseinal valimiseelset müürilehte, millel seisis: “Eesti eestlastele!”

Johan võpatas, tardus paigale, vaatas üksisilmi ja tundis, et kaotab teadvuse või tasakaalu või mõlemad.

Kujutluspilditormis polnud võimalik orienteeruda, Johan kaotas aja- ja kohataju. (Ta nägi teisi aegu ja kohti, ammuseid – aga siin.)

Ja siis, murdosasekundi möödudes tundis ta, et peab pakkima kohvri, kui veel jõuab, ja lahkuma.

Järgmisel hetkel suutis ta meenutada, et kuulub ise samasse rahvusse, kes kõneleb keeles, milles silt seinal ja see kiri siin.

Seejärel kahtles Johan, kas ta ikka kuulub rahvuse hulka, kelle sekka ta seni oli teadnud end kuuluvat.

Edasi mõtles ta: kui mina lähen, kuhu jäävad või lähevad siis Maria, Jüri, Joosep, Hanna, Andres, Mihhail, Debora, Cornelius, Anna ja teised?

Ta küsis. “Vastu oma saatusele” – vastati.

Rough translation:

Who? Johan

What? Walked

When? January 1995

Where? Tallinn City Centre

And saw on the stone wall pre-election pamphlet, which stated: “Estonia for Estonians!”

Johan stumbled, froze, gazed and felt losing consciousness or balance or both.

In the storm of imagination it was not possible find one’s way, Johan lost sense of time and place. (He saw other times and places, distant - but here.)

And then, when a fraction of a second passed, he felt he had to pack as soon as he still could, and leave.

In the next moment he could remember that he himself belongs to the same nation, which speaks in the language in which the sign on the wall and this letter here were written.

After that Johan doubted whether he truly belongs to the nation amongst whom he had until now known himself to belong to.

Onwards he thought: when I go, where will stay or go Maria, Jüri, Joosep, Hanna, Andres, Mihhail, Debora, Cornelius, Anna and others?

He asked. “Toward one’s fate” - he was answered.

The planned Victory Monument of the Freedom War (Vabadussõja võidusammas) is being built without regard to the principles for which Estonia stands for me. I will not honour the monument and will use any and all means reasonably possible to discredit this antithesis to freedom or the memory of the victory. I love Estonia, but I hate the monument the way it is planned. I was not always against it, I am a great believer in the power of the arts so I welcome any new development that would enrich our public space in my home town of Tallinn. But everything changed when I saw the design and found out more about who and why is building it. For some reason the monument is being built under the auspices of the Ministry of Defence, which as far as I know does not deal with planning of public areas in Tallinn.

Here are the reasons for my decision to disown the monument:

1. The cross: Estonia has never been a Christian country, we are mostly atheists/pagans and proud of it. The cross has for Estonians the meaning of oppression and foreign conquest rather than victory. The teutanic cross is also very similar to nazi regalia, which might confuse some people.
2. The process, which ran against all good governance principles. The monument process was politically driven and hasty. It did not take into account any of the principles of inclusion, instead it showed that in 2008 democratic Estonia it is still possible to make decisions like in 1978 Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic. Dissenting opinions are disregarded and democratic dialogue discouraged with classic excuses (not the right time to raise questions, it is unpatriotic). It seems to me that the people who decide are motivated by the need to be written in history as the ones who finally managed to conclude a project which was in the making since 1918.
3. It is unsuitable. The general consensus among those who are educated in the field of arts is that artistically it is not suitable to the area. 

Obama has not been to Puerto Rico recently, but addressed the island in Spanish:

and sent his wife Michelle there:

will.i.am has also produced this music video in support of Obama:

So today I decided to sunbathe a little bit while reading some thesises I am supposed to review. I lost track of time and therefore am now red and aching all over my body. I am also mildly dizzy and should probably go to sleep.

The lesson of the day: do not sunbathe around noon and do not stay in the sun for too long. High exposure to UV-radiation is the leading cause of skin cancer.

12. Emphasises that alternative gas pipeline routes, which do not disturb the marine environment, should be analysed first, and notes that it is possible to run such routes to the Russian border overland, solely through European Union Member States;

14. Supports the Swedish Government’s Decision of 12 February 2008 refusing to grant Nord Stream AG permission to build the gas pipeline due to significant procedural and substantive shortcomings and in particular the lack of an analysis of an alternative route and of the option of abandoning the construction of the pipeline; 

19. Expresses its belief that routing the North European gas pipeline through EU territory would enable it to meet the strategic and economic objectives set out in Decision 1364/2006/EC whilst avoiding extensive environmental damage; 

20. Calls on the Council and Commission to use every legal means at their disposal to prevent the construction of the North European gas pipeline on the scale proposed by the investor;

The Motion for a Resolution will now be considered by the European Parliament. Nord Stream has responded to the document as well, claiming that the Committee has misunderstood the environmental impact assessment study process:

The Committee has prejudged Nord Stream, without waiting for the information contained in the EIA which will address the concerns raised.

In my opinion, this project will never materialise, as there is simply no objective justification for it in light of where the EU is going. If one looks at the EU as a whole the project makes no sense as Russia could connect to EU directly by land without the need for an expensive and environmentally dangerous underwater pipeline. If the EU wants to diversify it energy supplies, then having another route to the already dominant provider is not going to help anyone.

The Nord Stream project as it is should be scrapped, and its TEN-E status removed due to change in circumstances. I am unsure how this is done procedurally, but surely there must be a way.

There are other ways people can waste their time, and these are pretty harmless things so why not belive in ghosts, God and UFOs? I choose to believe in other things, such as human rights, laws of nature and physics, evolution, science, rule of law, democracy etc. These things are for me far more uplifting and meaningful than some fairytales about a sky-god or people describing their ufo sightings.

Now Barack Obama, filling in for Ted Kennedy, made a commencement address to Wesleyan University graduating students. Some highlights:

Each of you will have the chance to make your own discovery in the years to come.  And I say “chance” because you won’t have to take it.  There’s no community service requirement in the real world; no one forcing you to care.  You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should by.  You can choose to narrow your concerns and live your life in a way that tries to keep your story separate from America’s. 

But I hope you don’t.  Not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate, though you do have that obligation.  Not because you have a debt to all those who helped you get here, though you do have that debt. 

It’s because you have an obligation to yourself.  Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation.  Because thinking only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs, betrays a poverty of ambition.  Because it’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential and discover the role you’ll play in writing the next great chapter in America’s story.

There is more:

We will face our share of cynics and doubters.  But we always have.  I can still remember a conversation I had with an older man all those years ago just before I left for Chicago.  He said, “Barack, I’ll give you a bit of advice.  Forget this community organizing business and do something that’s gonna make you some money.  You can’t change the world, and people won’t appreciate you trying.  But you’ve got a nice voice, so you should think about going into television broadcasting.  I’m telling you, you’ve got a future.”

Now, he may have been right about the TV thing, but he was wrong about everything else.  For that old man has not seen what I have seen.  He has not seen the faces of ordinary people the first time they clear a vacant lot or build a new playground or force an unresponsive leader to provide services to their community.  He has not seen the face of a child brighten because of an inspiring teacher or mentor.  He has not seen scores of young people educate their parents on issues like Darfur, or mobilize the conscience of a nation around the challenge of climate change.  He has not seen lines of men and women that wrap around schools and churches, that stretch block after block just so they could make their voices heard, many for the very first time. 

Here is the full video:

 

P.S. There was another commencement address I liked a lot and tried to heed to. Apple CEO Steve Jobs had a commencement address at Stanford in 2005 where he talked about his struggle with cancer, what drives him, etc:

I did not vote for Dima Bilan, as I thought the song was a little average. I do like his music and him, I have seen him in concert twice (once in Estonia and once in London at World Music Awards 2006). My votes went to France and Ukraine. Sébastien Tellier was a nice discovery for me and I am looking forward to hearing his new album Sexuality.

This year’s Eurovision Song Contest had a lot of good songs (I counted ca 10 I liked and the voting showed that more or less the same 10 songs were universally liked). Therefore there is no need to talk about geographic voting. The result was pretty universal, the only thing I would change is to have pan-European votes, where every vote counts the same (not voting by country). This would mix up the contest and make it a real song contest for European people, not nations.

My dislike of the Estonian commentator Marko Reikop cannot be quantified. He is just so incredible annoying. The hosts are also annoying, but not as much.

1. Iceland - They have sent a couple of disco-singing and dancing sexbots (himbobot + bimbobot). They try too hard, but it is simply too gay for me, and the song is not something nice either.

2. Sweden - At first it seemed like a singing corpse-bimbo, but then the colour emerged to uncover a not particularly Swedish-looking blond vixen (is that a good word to use here?). I like the lasershow, but the song is too generic and boring for me.

3. Turkey - Nice and good rock song. Sung in Turkish, the song was not particularly memorable, but not bad either.

4. Ukraine - Brilliant. Powerful, cool and encompassing. A probable winner of the whole contest. Kirkorov has done it again, Dima Bilan should take notes.

5. Lithuania - Nice performance, simple and focusing on the song itself. The whole thing has a bit of Phantom of the Opera feel. Not for me though.

6. Albania - Boring, I cannot follow the song due to it being boring, so my mind drifts to other things.

7. Switzerland - I like the piano and the song and the performer is kind of cute. But there is something missing, I don’t know exactly what. Above average.

8. Czech Republic - Cliché alert! The hooded DJ and the turntables are so not cool any more. The song is average, like so many songs this year.

9. Belarus - A slightly more macho Dima Bilan lookalike. The song is quite good, and there is definitely effort, but not overdoing it. The ending fireworks was cool.

10. Latvia - Pirates are also a bit out alread, but the song is somewhat entertaining. It reminds me of the one-hit techno-country group Rednex.

11. Croatia - Old guy is cool, but missed the song completely. 

12. Bulgaria - Cool long instrumetnal entry, I like the sound and the show, some of it is over the top a litlle (why are the turtables on fire?), but on the whole I would like them to on to the final.

13. Denmark - The guy looks a little like Gael Garcia Bernal, who I like a lot. Very cool song and performance. One of my favourites.

14. Georgia - Quite cool, I liked, although not my favourite.

15. Hungary - Nice ballad, it has certain quality I like.

16. Malta - Just because they sing about Vodka, they have to pass. Alcohol-hating prudes beware! Should go to the final.

17. Cyprus - Nice, but I do not like the song, it is too messy.

18. Macedonia - Nice style, cool song. A favourite, although the singing voice could be a little better.

19. Portugal - Her voice is nice, but the song I do not get at all. Might be a cultural thing.

So I hope that the following songs go to the final: Turkey, Ukraine (the best of them all), Belarus, Bulgaria, Denmark, Hungary, Malta, Macedonia.

—

Finalists are: Ukraine, Croatia, Albania, Iceland, Georgia, Denmark, Sweden, Latvia, Turkey, Portugal.

Here are my comments about the songs, because it is all about the songs and not countries or even perfomers:

1. Montenegro - OK performer (looks a bit like Pete Wentz gone a bit fat), boring, unremarakble song

2. Israel - Very nice performer, again a boring song;

3. Estonia - Peeter OJa’s voice had not recovered, but the song was so different from the regular Eurovision song so it might even work. It is catchy, but then again I have heard it too many times;

4. Moldova - I thought at first that she does not sing in English, because of the accent. The song is too complicated for me, a mess. She was very nice, though;

5. San Marino - Little David Copperfield. The voice is quite powerful, the song also has power. I quite like it, especially the guitars they put in there;

6. Belgium - Cool outfits, the song is strangely addictive, very melodic. The live instruments are a nice touch. Best song so far.

BREAK - Why are they performing in an empty hall? Where are all the people? Too expensive tickets, boycott? I hope there will be more people for the finale, otherwise it will be quite embarrasing.

7. Azerbaijan - OMG! This is what Eurovision is about. Angels and devils, soft pop-rock and gyrating dance girls. It is like a light musical version of Lordi. Brilliant and welcome to Eurovision, Azerbaijan!

8. Slovenia - Green woman in captivity, this is scene from some sort of S/M disco, is it not? I have not been so I don’t know. But no, everything turned all colourful and bright, a regular disco (I have been). Great perfromance, shame about the song not being very good;

9. Norway - Great song. The performance and the performer did the song justice. Classy, laid-back and pleasing. One of my favourites.

10. Poland - Too big cleavage and abnormal skin colour. I am sorry, but it disturbs and distracts me. Boring and empty ballad, the voice is too thin and weak. The whole things seems fake for some reason.

BREAK - The hall is completely empty! They should have given tickets away for free. “Large Eurovision family” which the hostess referred to seems not to be present (or were the tickets to Belgrade really so expensive?). Seriously, there are like 100 people watching the show in the hall.

11. Ireland - The singing turkey. I like it, it is catchy and not nearly as creepy as Kreisiraadio. Irlande douze points, indeed.

12. Andorra - Disco queen singing a disco song, and it is not such a bad song either (perhaps a bit generic). I guess it will go on to the finals, but not really my taste. The singer is really feisty an energetic.

13. Bosnia & Herzegovina - Really interesting, but it is more a conceptual performance than a song. It does not stop me liking it though, it is something really different and also strangely addictive. A favourite.

14. Armenia - Paula Abdul lookalike. Nice and energetic song, and properly sung. Decent performance, but nothing earthshattering (although the fireworks were great).

15. The Netherlands - Nothing remarkable. Generic arabic rhythm, especially after the more powerful and original Armenia.

16. Finland - The Finns have fallen into the let’s try what worked once trap. However, poppy hard rock is no longer a novelty and singing in Finnish does not help. Again, nearly not enough and the song is a bit boring.

17. Romania - There is always one sugary sweet romantic ballad. Too bad I do not like them, especially something so ordinary as this one. The more energetic midsection does not help, it feels out of place.

18. Russia - Dear Dima, what happened? You used to have great songs. Now you come with this mediocre Timbaland production. I expected more and even gyrating on stage barefoot and ripping open your shirt cannot hide my disappointment. It is better than much of the songs in this contest, but this is so selling out even by my very very low standards.

19. Greece - Nothing special, but not too bad either. The song was OK, but nothing too memorable.

I hope the following songs will go on to the final (in no specific order): San Marino, Belgium, Azerbaijan, Norway, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Ireland, Andorra, Russia (and Estonia).

Novak Djokovic seems nice, he will throw the huge tennisball at the audience to begin the vote. Is this really safe?

So the voting starts…

—

So the finals will include (my favourites in bold): Greece, Romania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Finland, Russia, Israel, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Poland and Norway. 

The premise is simple: Estonians as a nation are going to die out unless radical measures are undertaken. 7 Estonian men form a club called GEP with the simple intent to raise the birth rate by having as many babies with as many Estonian women as possible. It might be a great premise for a slapstick type of thing, but this is not what NO99 is about: instead it is a reflection and an observation of the issues faced by men and women in Estonia, and the underlying confusion about the changing nature of concept of a nation. 

The final provided an interesting debate between the cosmopolitan and the national points-of-view (in the scene where two club members try to sell the idea to businessmen for funding). I think that NO99 has done a remarkable thing with the play: they have provided social commentary and provoked thought about what it means to be Estonian, why and if we need to be Estonian and so on. 

It was never boring or uninteresting, it was serious when it needed to be serious, but at the same time provided a lot of laughs (especially at the start of the play when the twisted plot emerged).

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

Albert Einstein in a private letter to be auctioned soon, which leaves no doubt about his religious views.

• Seeing my friend Kristjan over a long time, meeting his friends;
• the London Zoo - must visit for everyone;
• sunbathing in Hyde Park;
• Visiting pubs and clubs at Soho;
• Kristjan’s new place and flatmates;
• not going shopping;
• canary wharf in the evening;
• taking 800+ photos (check my .Mac Gallery for a selection);
• fantastic weather;
• milk in a small plastic container;
• chai latte;
• etc etc

I guess I still need to clean the floor more throughly once a month, but running it once or twice a week keeps the floor reasonably clean (especially considering that I live in the city centre and there is more dust here than usual).

I have always been a person who is prone to rooting for the underdog. I do not exactly know why it is so, but something about being second has always appealed to me. I kind of resent winning, even if it is me who wins, because winning means completion, achievement, closure. Failure on the other hand does not, it provides better opportunities to grow, to learn, to be better. Winning makes you complacent, arrogant and careless, whereas losing makes you work harder, faster, better.

In Estonia (and I guess in much of the Western world) winning and success are celebrated and revered. Nobody wants to be a loser, nobody cares about the guy who finished second. Being a winner/successful creates pressure to keep it that way, whereas people who are the underdogs can take it easier and cooler. The pressure to be successful in terms of the society (meaning mostly fame and money), is big and people sometimes take desparate measures to achieve those things. That is why I have prejudice towards those who are successful.

I love underdogs and try to be one myself (I do not actually try to not succeed, I just do not work especially hard to succeed). I do not value much financial or societal success, but rather try to live on my own terms, in my own world, as much as it is possible. It means that I give up a lot of things and probably miss out on many exciting and interesting things in life, but it also means that I am honest and true to myself. This means that I act through others, try to keep myself in the shadows as much as I can. This also means that I have made the conscious choice not to appear or talk to the media or be publicly associated with a specific matter, even if there is a possibility for this, this is why I have so far not published any articles in the popular press. It is not that I do not think that I have nothing to say or that what I say might be worthless, I am just not going to play the game as much as I can and try to make my own playground where it is my rules. It is better for me that way.

That is why I have this blog as well. It is on my terms, nobody but me decides how the blog looks like, or what I write here or whether I keep writing at all. I can write small insignificant snippets about things that I am excited about or I can write longer, more reflective pieces. Nor do I desire a big readership for my blog. It is a blog for an underdog.

The next trip on Saturday took me to Pirita and beyond to Mähe, then to the edge of Lasnamäe and downhill from there, at which point I discovered that the back tire of my bicycle had been punctured and I could no go further. Thankfully, my brother helped to transport the bike back. I bought a new tire, but have not still had the opportunity to change it as it seems I caught a little cold as well. So now I am slightly medicated and silently suffering until I get better.

This also applies to ideas. Some ideas appear to be good, some not so good. Some events appear to be beneficial some not. The devil, however, is always in the details. It is how you execute that matters. How well ou achieve your goals and what you do that matter, not so much what you appear to be doing.

I personally have executed some projects: some of them well, some not so well. In some, I have put the emphasis on appearance, in others execution. The projects that have failed, are those where emphasis is put on appearance, the projects that have lived have focused on execution. This is nothing new I guess.

It is as simple as that.

One thing that irritates me is the constant name changes of this institution I am associated with. Concordia International University Estonia’s assets were bought by Audentes Mainor University (itself a result of several mergers), which was renamed Audentes University, with the international studies institution named International University Concordia Audentes. Then the two institutions were put together under the name International University Audentes, a name which I personally despised. So now a new chapter will begin, if everything goes according to plans.

See also these two clips featuring Jay-Z’s Dirt Off Your Shoulder.

The song is called Make Your Own Kind Of Music by Mama Cass Elliot.

Obama brings a new postmodern style into politics. The following in my mind are the most indicative of these:

It is not so much about the issues, it is the person that matters. Obama does not dwelve too much into the specifics of the issues: sure he has plans, but in today’s fast changing society, things can change. He is careful in what he promises: he makes a few concrete and achieveable promises (health care reform, Iraq) and is specifically non-commital on others as he understands that he cannot do everything for everyone at once. Instead, Obama focuses on who he is as a person and what are his values and also shows reason in adopting new views if these make sense.

No segmentation of voters based on polling. Polling is an integral part in politics today, but it has been allowed to drive some campaigns to the point of people being sick of it. You poll specific segments of the population (middle-age women, factory workers etc) and then analyse what you have to do and say to these segments. You buy their leaders with jobs, but nothing can be achieved because you have promised opposing things to opposing audiences. But this does not work anymore, because in long term people will no longer care what politicians say because they know nothing will be achieved. Obama’s approach is different: his message is essentially the same to everyone and he tells the hard truth also where it might not be politically convenient to do so.

Carefully managed media relations. Media is something that is hugely important to the success of any politician. Obama’s campaign has been very clever to use alternative methods, such as his YouTube channel to talk directly to the people. He has made reporters angry with his tightly controlled approach, but in today’s media space it must be a necessity, because any small soundbite might be taken out of context. He refuses to play the media’s simplistic game, he creates his own rules which the media has to accept.

The cool factor. Obama’s campaign is cool, there is no other way to say it. His cool, self-depreciating and easy-going approach is something really rare in politics today. His views are not the same old tired ideological views, but an uplifting and positive approach to motivate all people to get involved in politics.

Talk to the people as their are your equals. It seems to me sometimes that Obama is a politician who talks to people as they were actually adults, rather than the constant “salesman” techniques politicians usually employ. He not only seems honest, he has the extraordinary ability to convey complex policies in an understandable manner without making things too black and white. His “scandals” such as his pastor’s remarks seem to make him stronger as they give him reason to go into more details of the issue and deliver stunning, inspiring and honest arguments that make people think and might change people’s opinions or attitudes. They allow people to engage in a real and meaningful debate instead of spouting talking points at each other (something that has been missing a lot in US politics and which is starting to disappear also in Estonia).

Whether he wins or loses, his campaign has already had an enormous impact on the world. I am genuinely interested in what will happen if he actually gets elected (I can pretty much predict what will happen if McCain or Hillary get there). I guess it is up to the voters in US to decide, whether we will see that or not.

Photos of Tallinn, originally uploaded by Kari Käsper.

I got a new camera, so I made some test shots around the Tallinn city port area.

Political satire in my mind, when well done while being mindful of the consequences and responsbility, is an essential element of a democracy. In the US, this is very well executed by cable TV shows such as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report and Real Time with Bill Maher. They are witty and clever, they are critical, but they are critical of the right things. In Estonia, there is less of it, but it is a strong element in shows such as Ärapanija.

There is other kind of political comedy, namely when the people are either ignorant of their responsibility or afraid to be cast as partisan and therefore criticise and find fault with almost everything politicians do. They enforce the idea that all politicians are scum of the earth, they are there to be ridiculed. Any mistakes done by a politician is almost immediately applied to all other politicians etc. This applies to late-night shows in the US, as stated in the book:

“Topical comedians,” says Peterson, “keep finding new ways to tell us what we already ‘know’ about politicians.” And because they harp so remorselessly on candidates’ individual quirks — ignoring the hard, complex, often maddening substance of policy — they declare, in effect, that every choice is equally bad and that the system itself is “an irredeemable sham.” “Election after election,” Peterson writes, “night after night, joke after joke, they have reinforced the notion that political participation is pointless, parties and candidates are interchangeable, and democracy is futile.”

It also applies to the media in general, and Estonian media in particular. The media seems to be on a march against democracy, by destroying bit by bit any credibility or public trust the people might have for democratic institutions. Of course one can say that the politicians have brought it on themselves by being irresponsible and doing stupid things. To an extent it is true, but to an extent it is not. Politics is tricky and the decisions and choice politicians have to make cannot always be compressed to a soundbite. They cannot always put in one simple sentence a complicated policy.

Coming back to comedy, the saviour of political discourse can also be the media itself, but when it takes a more responsible approach. Political comedy is good, when it is targeted and nuanced enough not to brush all politicians with the same stroke. Good satire can save democracy, by pointing out the inconsistencies, the stupidity, the political BS, etc.

Here are some videos of this kind of excellent satire:

Stephen Colbert at White House Correspondents Dinner

A recent clip from The Daily Show:
From Estonia (Ärapanija on Mart Viisitamm’s election as Vice Mayor of Pärnu)