Did he ask them to kill her?

”Hillary wants to abolish – essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”

Those who defend Donald Trump have been wrestling over these words.

”It was a joke!” That was the first interpretation, and probably the most true one, from a former, now fired, campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski.

”This is a political movement. This is a strong political movement, the Second Amendment, and there can be no other interpretation … I mean, give me a break.”

This is what Trump now told his favorite pundit Sean Hannity, and it’s the version that is explained over and over by his supporters.

What we’re talking about is political power, there’s tremendous political power to save the Second Amendment, tremendous. You look at the power they have in terms of votes and that’s what I was referring to, obviously that’s what I was referring to and everybody knows it.”

I just have to poke around a bit among the sentences.

First of all: He didn’t actually tell them to kill her. So in order to prove that’s what he said, every other interpretation must be ruled out.

Who are ”the second amendment people”? Well, since not even Donald himself denies that he referred to the gun owners, that is a given.

Now, the interpretation he has provided, that he wanted them to vote, is not valid, simply because he starts with an ”if”, and what follows depends on that ”if”.

”If she gets to pick” places us in a situation where she was already elected. You can’t continue that sentence with ”we must make sure she wasn’t elected”, unless you’re in possession of a time machine.

Everything that follows ”if she gets to pick” must be based on the assumption that we’re in a future where Hillary Clinton is the president.

So, let’s simplify the sentences. What he said boils down to:

”When HRC has been elected president, gun owners can still do something about it”.

What can they do? Certainly not vote, for another four years. I would really love to hear any of DJT’s supporters provide alternative interpretations to ”shoot her”. Here are some suggestions:

  • Sulk and hide
  • Move to a war zone like Syria
  • Buy an island and fund a new country
  • Protest in the streets singing anti peace songs like ”We shall undercome” and ”Imagine all the people living life in war

If I were on his side, I would have stuck with ”I made a bad joke”. It’s probably half true. The other half of the truth is most likely that he is so into his poisonous rhetoric that he thinks suggesting to shoot her is an acceptable thing to say, like the next step after ”lock her up” and ”she should be shot by a firing squad”.



Plagiarizing the President

Next TeeDonald Trump Jr. is making a ”he did too” attempt to accuse President Obama of plagiarizing his speech during the RNC, since both contained the sentence ”that’s not the America I know”, which apparently to him is the same as Melania Trump’s quite lengthy sequences that were almost word by word copied from Michelle Obama.

If using this very short sentence could be called plagiarizing, which most people would agree is a bit ridiculous, then they are both plagiarizing George W. Bush.

”The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what islam is all about. Islam is peace. [Muslims] must not be intimidated in America. That’s not the America I know. That’s not the America I value.”

However, I think copying the entire statement above, especially if done by anyone named Trump, would be quite welcome.

Please go ahead!

The Bully that will start a War

Like a nine-year-old bully being brought before the teacher, he defended himself with the oldest excuse there is: ”He started it.”

This is not true. Mr. Khan didn’t start it. Donald did, when he suggested to ban all Muslims from entering the U.S. and when he suggested that every American Muslim was somehow responsible for not stopping the Orlando shootings. The really weird part is he doesn’t even see it.

I have been contemplating why, and the answer seems to be that he doesn’t understand that his words matter to other people. However, he is extremely sensitive about what is said about him, to the point where it becomes ridiculous.

Does it matter?

Does it matter to me, personally, living on the other side of the Atlantic that this man lacks the empathy to leave a grieving mother alone? That he can’t control himself, even though advised to shut up, enough to just drop an insult?

Yes, it does. Because what happens when a narcissist with no empathy has nuclear weapon at his disposal? What happens when he has the power to send troops?

Well, we’ve seen it before. More than once.

I am afraid. I mean. I am really, really afraid. Horrified.

Internet of the dead

I brief through Linkedin, and find a contact that is deceased.

I read the profile, and there is nothing there to suggest he is no longer with us. Obviously, even if a wife, parent or child would want to let his digital identities go to rest, they probably don’t have the credentials to actually make it happen.

It often feels like the Internet has been around always, but it’s actually so little time, altogether. While communities are completely focused on finding new members, no one seems to worry about cleaning up in the other end.

In thirty, fourty years, the Internet will hence be full of profiles whose owners fertilize the daffodils, as Robin Williams called it.

Then what?

Will there be a ”Please report to us if you find a dead man’s profile”?

Will there be false reporting? People getting even with their ex by claiming he is dead?

Will there be special sites for the deceased? With profile collections in memoriam?

I don’t know. But it seams social sites – blogs, Facebook, what not – will reach a point where they will need to deal with this, or their sites will be but graveyards – statements from those who once were, pointing to those that still live, telling us… them to carpe diem.

”Look what great grandma said in 2010!”


I must somehow give my creds to my kids.

I don’t think I want my digital me to haunt the living.

My New Year’s Wish

For this New Year, I wish that the winds will turn towards more tolerance and acceptance in this country and this world for those that don’t share our skin color, sexual preference, religious beliefs or ethnic background.

Less ignorance, more understanding.

Less hate towards the group, more respect for the individual.

Assange and who is the hero

I cannot grasp the mindset of people that call themselves freedom fighters, and then hack the website of a defense attourney whose job is to ensure that two women who claim to have been raped are treated in accordance with the law in their country.

I obviously have no clue as to whether Assange actually committed those crimes. However, if both he and a woman had alcohol, it could well be that he thinks she was OK with what happened while she actually wasn’t. Since there are two women, who didn’t even know eachother, who tell the same story, I can understand that the attourney wants to at least interrogate him.

The Swedish legal system is not perfect, but it is completely separated from the Swedish government, and hence untouchable by political interests. Hence, there is no way the US governement could ever influence the minds of the handful of people who are working this case – especially since Sweden is one of the least corrupt countries in the world.

So what does that make all these people that are shouting, hacking and accusing our legal system?

Pro-rape? Or at least against a legal system where women that claim to be raped are taken seriously? Or is that just in case the said rapist is famous? Are they pro-famous-people-being-above-the-law? Anti-democrats? Or are they just downright stupid?

The difference between terrorists and real freedom fighters is actually quite thin.

It’s all about the nobility of the cause.

AB, SvD, SvD, DN, Exp, SvD

Between minds

There are people that can go really far into fine philisophical reasoning and put forth theories around stuff you never thought about… for a reason.

Then they look at you and say ”do you understand?”. There is hope behind this question, and what you really understand is that they are really eager you see their point.

Yes I do. Sort of. But I would never spend two seconds thinking about what you obviously have been pondering about for months. Or maybe I don’t understand. Maybe there is some hidden importance in what you say that escapes me, so I think you’re babbling while in fact you’re stating something really clever…

Then there are others who are just so shallow that everytime you have a glass of wine and try to go a little deeper into life’s secrets and provide some thoughts around topics that have kept you awake at night their eyes go blank and they say ”yes, I see”, and change the subject.

Thing is the blank look on the face of the second type is probably exactly the look you have when changing the subject with the first type.

Most people need some training before they can follow you into the dark and dusty corners of your mind, but on some rare occasions you meet someone that not just immediately follows you there, but also takes you a few steps further.

When this happens, it is always very unsuspected.

Events and unlimited choices

We are event-driven.

Most of what we do are reactions. Outside events trigger us.

I read a political article, I get upset, I write a blogpost to comment.

You feel a need to talk to someone, so you call a friend.

Your car needs gas. Your kid needs food. Your bed needs making. You are hungry, thursty, tired.

Very rarely do we reflect and create out of nothing but our own minds.

My job regularly forces me to create and communicate visionary plans and strategies. On some level I don’t like it much. On that level it’s so much easier to just respond to customers and colleagues. ”So you need this? The answer is yes. So you need that? The answer is no, maybe, later, yes if…”

We should be forced to create and communicate a visionary, strategic plan for our lifes. Put it in writing, ask friends to review and comment, create a corresponding action plan for how to reach the goals, set by the strategies.

Only then will our choices be unlimited.

Otherwise they are just a series of yes/no/cancel.

Blasphemy – the joke’s on us

”Are you a Christian?” I was asked by a colleague over lunch in Shanghai last week.

”Eh eh well…”

That’s the million dollar question. For someone raised a Christian, still beleiving in God as a Force of Good and a great listener (at least I hope so), but nowadays having serious doubts about Mary’s virginity, God’s omnipotence and almightiness, and a heaven where you have dinner with angels assuming you’ve been sufficiently good and said your prayers, this is not an easy one to answer.

Neither is the one about Islamic jokes.

There’s now a huge debate regarding what should be named ”The right to commit blasphemy”, though no one uses that term.

Christianity has been joked about for ages – Life of Brian, Dave Allen, numerous others have emptied all jokes that could possibly be made about Jesus as a person, angels on clouds, demons with red tails and what not. We have become adjusted to ”blasphemic” jokes and statements – and very few care, even though this of course varies between countries. There is a limit to what is allowed, see Piss Christ. We Westerners typically agree censorship by religion is not OK.

Hence, the Right to ”Commit Blasphemy” is simple in a sense.

Defamation is a criminal offence only if committed between humans. No God is human. Hence, insulting a God is OK. This means you can say and write anything about any God, and it’s OK according to the law.

One problem is obviously that to a lot of people, their God is in fact in a sense a person that is able to be offended. This God person will judge those that don’t fight to protect his name and reputation, and will reward those that do. Hence, every joke is a call for arms – sometimes literarily.

Another problem is that a lot of racists now have discovered this right to make fun of Islam as a means to bully Arabics and Africans and get away with it.

So should offenses against the Islamic God be allowed?

Yes. The Freedom of Speech is far more precious than the offended feelings of Muslims or others. Undoubtably. And I am completely convinced that whoever God is, she has better things to worry about than to be offended just because someone cracks a joke. Dave Allen once said something like: ”I believe God has a sense of humour – otherwise I’m in serious trouble.”

Still, we Westerners should ask ourselves why it is so much fun to hurt the feelings of those that do believe their God cares. Then we should commit one similar act of blasphemy against the Christian God for each against the Islamic God, and ask ourselves: was this really funny, useful, or to the point (whichever the purpose was)? If it was, then so be it.

Imho, that’s the only way the act can be justified. If it is not reversible, it is just bullying.

Links: AB, AB, SvD, SvD, SvD