Politik

Utan Kondom i Texas

Published by:

Reuters har en skakande artikel om precis vad det nya moraliska USA kommer att betyda för världen i övrigt. Här är ett exempel på hur Sverige skulle kunna hjälpa till att skapa opinion mot de nya moralisterna i USA.

Moralisterna är emot den mänskliga sexualiteten i alla dess former, och håller redan nu på att förhindra att ungdomar i Texas får information om preventivmedel!!

Resultatet kommer att bli att amerkanska ungdomars kunskap om sexualitet och speciellt om könssjukdomar och hur man skyddar sig mot dem kommer att urholkas. Detta i sin tur betyder att könssjukdomarna kommer att tillta i USA och att därifrån sprida sig bl.a. till Sverige.

Amerikanska bokförlag har stort inflytande i världen, inte minst i Sverige, så vi kan vänta oss ett tryck från dem att även svenska bokförlag slutar att ge information om preventivmedel.

Vi kan skratta åt sånt och tycka att det är ännu ett exempel på hur löjliga amerikaner kan vara. De prgressiva här i landet skrattar inte. De är vettskrämda över hur USA har förändrats bara ett par dagar efter valet.


The battle in Texas has national implications because the state is the second-biggest market for textbooks in the United States. Books approved by the state’s school board are typically marketed nationally.

The 15-member Texas Board of Education approved four books, all of which promote a birth control program based on abstinence. Three make no mention of contraceptives, while one makes passing references to condoms.

State regulations require information on contraceptives to be included in the sexual education curriculum, but board members said the books meet state standards because contraceptives are mentioned in separate supplements or in the teacher’s edition.

Critics said the board bowed to social conservatives and their approval will leave Texas teens with inadequate information about their health.

“Instead of doing the responsible thing and providing high school students with life-saving information about sex and health, the Board of Education has left them to fend for themselves and get information from each other and sources like the Internet and MTV,” said Samantha Smoot, president of the Texas Freedom Network, which battles social conservatives.

The texts are likely to appear in classrooms in August 2005 — where they could be the standard text for about 10 years. The publishers of the books are Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Glencoe/McGraw Hill and Thomson Delmar Learning, which is owned by the Thomson Corp . Holt is owned by Reed Elsevier PLC and Reed Elsevier NV .

Chadie NU om homolagarna i USA

Published by:

Chadie NU tar som jag tror enda svenska bloggare – förutom jag själv – upp de rent skandalösa homofobiska lagar som har röstats igenom i Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon och Utah.

Det är viktigt att vi förstår de fulla implikationerna av detta. Först av allt är dessa lagar inte enbart begränsade till sydstaterna. Det faktum att Oregon, som länge har ansetts som en av USAs mest progressiva delsater röstade igenom ett sånt här förslag är skrämmande. Och Michigan och Ohio är nordstater som man aldrig skulle ha trott skulle ge sig in på förföljerse av minoriteter.

Men som sagt, den fulla implikationen är inte enkel att förstå för en svensk. Det har med försäkringar och laglig rätt att göra. I USA är all försäkring baserad på det företag man arbetar på. Så vad dessa lagar försöker göra är att straffa homosexuella par rent ekonomiskt. Dvs en partner får inte täckning av den andre partnerns sjukförsäkring. Samtidigt får en partner inte laglig rätt att företräda den andre partnern om en av dem blir sjuk. Och de får inte ens besöka dem på sjukhuset eftersom sjukhusen här endast ger en direkt släkting eller make/maka automatisk rätt att besöka en person på sjukhus.

Så detta är ren ekonomisk krigföring mot en minoritet.

Det finns två intressanta aspekter på detta. Delstaten Ohio har, som jag tidigare bloggade om, utökat det ekonomiska kriget att omfatta även sambor. Vi kan anta att andra delstater kommer att fortsätta på denna linje. Liksom att t.ex. homosexuella och sambon inte kommer att få vara lärare. Man har redan framfört att det är skadligt för ett barn att läras av en kvinnlig lärare som är havande med en sambo som hon inte är kyrkligt gift med. Hon är helt enkelt en sjöka.

Samboskapet är på ett visst sätt ännu mer hotande än homoäktenskap eftersom om de tillåts så skulle även de heterosexuella äktenskapen hotas i grunden.

Det här är alltså ett rent kulturellt religionskrig.

Men lyckligtvis är företagen emot det här. De vill ha homosexuella och sambon som anställda. Så vi får se om de religiösa fanatikerna kan tvinga företagen att upphäva de förmåner som de redan har för homo-par och för hetero-sambon. Vi måste komma ihåg att alltid tala om båda i den här vevan, för de religiöra är som sagt ute efter båda folkgrupperna.

Jag vet inte hur många av mina läsare är sambon, men det kanske är bra att ni besöker USA nu medan ni kan. Om några år kanske ert syndiga liv kommer att hindra er från att få visum. Det skulle säkert vara djupt moraliskt stötande för de fromma amerikanerna att se syndiga svenska sambon vandra omkring på gator och torg.

Nu ändras skolböckerna i USA

Published by:

Bara ett par dagar efter de amerikanska moralisterna vann valet går nu USAs ledande läroboksförlag med på att ändra de läroböcker som används i USAs skolor för att reflektera den nya verkligheten. Än så länge är detta begränsat till Ttexas, men vi kan räkna med en liknande offensiv i alla delstater.


AUSTIN, Texas – The Texas Board of Education approved new health textbooks for the state’s high school and middle school students Friday after the publishers agreed to change the wording to depict marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The decision involves two of the biggest textbook publishers and represents another example of Texas exerting its market clout as the nation’s second-largest buyer of textbooks. Officials say the decision could affect hundreds of thousands of books in Texas alone.

Yuck

Rightwing State Board of Education member Terri Leo, from Spring, Texas, speaks during a meeting of the board on Thursday, Nov. 4, 2004, in Austin, Texas. Leo led the effort to pressure the publishers to alter the textbooks. (AP Photo/Harry Cabluck)
On Thursday, a board member charged that proposed new books ran counter to a Texas law banning the recognition of gay civil unions because the texts used terms like “married partners” instead of “husband and wife.”

After hearing the debate Thursday, one publisher, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, agreed to include a definition of marriage as a “lifelong union between a husband and a wife.” The definition, which was added to middle school textbooks, already was in Holt’s high school editions, Holt spokesman Rick Blake said.

The other publisher, Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, changed phrases such as “when two people marry” and “partners” to “when a man and a woman marry” and “husbands and wives.”

“The board expressed an interest in having us” make the change,” Blake said. “We thought it was a reasonable thing to do.”

But Blake said the publisher does not plan on adding its definition of marriage in books that will be sold outside Texas. A spokeswoman for Glencoe/McGraw-Hill did not immediately respond to questions.

Gramsci och USAs politiska språk

Published by:

Meteor Blades har en bra analys på Daily Kos om hur viktig det är att äga det språk i vilket den politiska debatten formuleras. Detta går tillbaks till den italienske marxisten Antonio Gramsci. Idag äger det republianska partiet det politiska språket i USA och det är underligt att det inte verkar ha förekommit någon analys av hur det republikanska språket anammas av den svenska högern och adapteras till svenska förhållande.


In the 1930s, Antonio Gramsci – a communist, but don’t let that stop you from considering his analysis – argued in his dense, some would say, turgid Prison Notebooks that the power of those who control a society is founded not merely on the force of the state but on beliefs and ideas having broad appeal.

Ideology becomes most powerful when it is accepted as common sense, that is, when it is not seen as an ideology. Out of this comes hegemony. Ideas are seemingly contested, but because so much of the debate is coded in the language of the hidden ideology, the rulers gain hegemony.

People consent to being ruled even if deeper analysis shows it is not in their best interests. Intellectuals – including elite media – contribute to this hegemony, both wittingly and unwittingly. What’s needed to defeat it, Gramsci argues, are counter-hegemonic cultural institutions, including media. As many Kossacks know, George Lakoff provides a more accessible version of similar arguments plus practical advice in in his wonderful Don’t Think of an Elephant reframe-the-debate book.

One matter requiring careful consideration is the divide between the PR/propaganda/advocacy wing of journalism and truly fair and balanced reporting – a divide blurred practically into oblivion by the rightwing machine.The left clearly needs to work in both realms. And do what the right has not done, keep the two separate.

Robert Parry, who wrote Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, has a media lament worth reading over at Consortiumnews.com. The issues are ones that many of us here have been harping on since … well, since before political blogs were even a gleam in the eye of their progenitors. But within his complaint are the seeds of some answers:

Vem äger den politiska terminologin?

Published by:

Texas Observer har en bra artikel om hur republikanerna idag har monopol på den politiska terminologin i USA. Alla som har läst Wittgensteins Traktatus vet att språket sätter gränser för vad vi kan och inte kan tänka.

Idag är det republikanerna som sätter dom gränserna med terminologi som “partial birth” och “kriget mot terrorismen”.

Eftersom det republikanska partiet kontrollerar ett stort TV-nätverk, Fox, har stort inflytande i två andra, CNN och Sinclair, liksom en majoritet av alla radiostationer, så är det det republikanska partiet som idag bestämmer hur hela de politiska debatten forumuleras.

Hillary Clinton och valet 2008

Published by:

Låt oss börja med kongressvalen 2006. Det kommer att vinnas av republikanerna som kommer att befästa sin ställning ännu mer eftersom det är flest demokratiska senatorer som skall återväljas då. Så republikanerna kommer att få en ännu större majoritet i senaten.

Låt oss sen titta på presidentvalet 2008.
Juan Cole har en bra analys av demokraternas chanser i det valet. Vi vet idag att endast en manlig sydstatsguvernör som är babtist och som har ett starkt militärt förflutet har den minsta chans att vinna valet. Hillary Clinton har inte en chans på jorden att vinna, det är helt och totalt uteslutet.

Hon står för allt som den kristna högern hatar mest, och skulle hon försöka skulle det bli en ren ohämmad katastrof. Den republikanska kandidaten, kanske Rudy Guiliani, skulle vinna med över 60%.

Jody K. Biehl: Varför jag inte kan återvända hem

Published by:

Der Spiegel har en mycket viktig artikel av Jody Biehl, en amerikansk medborgare som bor i Tyskland, om varför hon inte kan återvända till USA. Läs artikeln, den är mycket bra.

Precis som under förföljelserna under McCarthy-perioden så planerar nu flera tusen amerikaner att lämna USA och bosätta sig utomlands. Hur vet jag det? Därför att två personer redan har ringt mig och frågat hur de kan flytta till Sverige! Plötsligt ringer folk efter katastrofvalet och frågar hur de bär sig åt för att emigrera! Om det inte får en att förstå den djupa shock som det progressiva USA befinner sig i just nu så kommer ingenting att göra det.

Hur många som verkligen kommer att göra verklighet av det vet jag givetvis inte. Men om jag personligen känner två som vill emigrera så kan siffran som tänker på den utvägen knappast vara speciellt låg.

Chris Bowers om USA efter valet: "Bered er på helvetet"

Published by:

Chris Bowers har en ypperlig artikel om USA efter valet:


As many books as we write about them, our enemy is not Bill O’Reilly, or Rush Limbaugh, or even George Bush. Further, as much griping as we may do about them over the next few months, our problem is not Terry McAuliffe, or Bob Shrum, or any of our candidates. Individuals are neither our enemy, nor our problem.

Instead, our enemy and our problem is conservatism itself. Yesterday, John Kerry won among self-described Independents and “moderates” by greater margins than George Bush won among the nation as a whole. Yesterday, we improved on our 2000 vote by 10%, more than twice the 4.7% increase in the national population since 2000. Our activism kicked ass.

Our ability to appeal to the center kicked ass. Our problem is that we are in the minority. Our mistake would be to start blaming individuals and creating scapegoats.
Instead of either individuals or the way we run campaigns, our problem is conservatism itself.

Yesterday, John Kerry and our Congressional candidates, including my beloved Ginny, lost because a far greater percentage of the electorate identified themselves as conservative (33%) than as liberal (21%). Had the numbers of liberals and conservatives been equal, then John Kerry would have won with 54%+ of the national vote, and well over 379 electoral votes (Bill Clinton’s highest total). Ginny would have won in a landslide. Our problem is that there are more conservatives than there are liberals.

This is not always about campaigns. This is not always about how much money we raise for candidates, how many volunteers we provide for candidates, how many news stories we manage to break, how good our media is, and how well we do in picking the most electable candidate as our nominee. Instead, this also must be about defeating conservatism itself, something conservatives long ago realized about defeating liberalism.

For nearly forty years now, the national electorate has been decidedly tilted in favor of conservatives, who at any given moment have outnumbered us by anywhere from 50-80%. It has been proven time and time again that liberals can win among moderates. In fact, 1984 and 1972 were probably the only two elections over the past forty years when Democrats did not win among self-described moderates. John Kerry is a liberal, and he won convincingly among moderates. Not only does our ground game kick ass, we sell ourselves to moderates just fine. These are not our problems.

When conservatives are 33% of the electorate, and liberals are only 21%, we start twelve points down in every campaign. The solution to this problem is not to move to the center and take the left for granted. The solution to this problem is not to simply energize the base so completely that our activism and energy alone carry us over the top. Unfortunately, the debate we will see over the next few weeks and months will probably be framed by these two positions.

In the end, both are unfortunately temporary and purely tactical. Also, both ignore the fact that we do an excellent job at both. However, even if one or the other occasionally works, they both fail to take account the difficulties of governing a country where we start twelve points down in every approval rating poll, and twelve points down in every legislative proposal we wish to pass.

The solution to our problems, the only solution that actually addresses our problems rather than criticizes us for not doing well at tasks where we actually excel, is to increase the number of liberals in this country at a more rapid pace than the number of conservatives are increasing. We must grow liberalism. Personally, I do not even like the term “liberal”, as it has a connection to laissez-fare economic and trade policies that I find abhorrent. However, if that is the term we are stuck with, then so be it. It is a large and empty word anyway, but maybe it is something George Lakoff can work on over the next few years.

Our activism and ground game crushed Republicans this time around, even more than it did four years ago. We brought millions more to the polls than we did four years ago, largely because we had so many people on the ground. We did six points better among independents than we did four years ago. We had much more airplay than we had four years ago, due significantly to our massively increased small-donor database. According to exit polls, we sold ourselves to moderates and Independents much better than we did four years ago.

However, because we decreased in size, because the Democratic advantage in name ID dropped from 4% to zero, and because the deficit of liberals to conservatives at the polls increased from 9% to 12%, we got beat. We worked much harder and much better than ever before. We sold ourselves much better than before too, but we lost because we decreased in size.

We have to define liberalism according to positive semiotic frames. We have to be willing to take these frames to every corner of the nation, and run candidates in every single race in every single district (preparation for which begins today). We have to be willing to spend tens of millions of dollars not to win elections, not to help “worthy causes,” but simply to sell liberalism. We cannot be reconciliatory, since the conservative reactionaries never have been, and never will be.

This has worked to their advantage. Being conservative must become a dirty word. We must become willing to insult people for being conservative. We must recognize that this struggle is permanent, and does not only happen in campaign years, and must not only be waged against specific individuals or policies. It is a permanent ideological war.

Our growing activism and ability to sell ourselves, when combined with equivalence in ideological self-identification, would make us nearly invincible against the current reactionaries in the Republican Party. If we had a 12% advantage in ideology at the polls, then Republicans would be forced to scrap their reactionary ways altogether.

If 33% of the electorate had been liberal, and 21% of the electorate had been conservative, then John Kerry would have won by 20 points. He would have won not only the Dakotas, but also every southern state except Alabama and Texas (which would have been very close). That is the America I would like to see–an American where reactionary politics have no chance of national victory.

Our growing activist strength was a sight to behold this time around, and I will write more about it in part two of this “memo.” However, in 2008, we could become even more active and do even better on the ground, but still lose because we have kept shrinking. We have to grow the left wing.

We have to sell liberalism. We must crush conservatism itself. This will be accomplished by activism alone. This will not be accomplished by “moving to the center.” In fact, this will not even be accomplished by the combination of the two. Instead, we can only win by moving the country itself to the left.

I am not sure how we do this, but our task begins now. The reactionaries have finally achieved what they have fought decades to achieve: a government that will completely destroy every last remnant of the New Deal, make us a worldwide colonial power, and be able to institute to most frightening aspects of the “culture war.” Despite our best efforts, the reactionaries have achieved total victory.

Prepare for hell. While I believe that selling liberalism and clawing our way out of the minority is the only way to reverse this trend, I am not sure how we go about doing that. However, I do know it is time that we at least start talking about it. We are in the minority, and that must end. It is time for us to grow.

Tom Engelhart om katastrofvalet i USA

Published by:

Den som vill känna en liten fläkt av den skräck som det progressiva USA idag känner efter katastrofvalet bör läsa Tom Engelharts artikel i Mother Jones.


Now, I look at my son and I imagine a draft. I look at him and I think of the young Americans who should never have been but are desperately in harm’s way in Iraq. I think of the Iraqis and try to wrap my brain around the next 100,000 of them who will die in the urban killing fields of that country, while the second Bush administration pursues its mad, murderous policies. I think about those northern glaciers and the polar ice, and try to imagine them gone in a globally warmed world. I think about being in the heart of the heart of a vast (possibly failing) empire and my heart sinks — and so, unfortunately, does Tomdispatch’s.

I think of the possibly dying Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist and of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who has held on these extra years by the skin of her teeth, and I remember all too well what it meant in the years of my young manhood to search for a back-alley abortionist, and then I wonder what the Bush court of 2006 will say when the next set of Guantanamo-like cases reach it, or when other U.S. citizens, even perhaps some without names like Hamdi, find themselves jailed on the President’s whim. I think of the hideous and useless new weapons systems on which our money will now be squandered. I think of the administration’s race to militarize space, as if there weren’t enough advanced weapons on our own planet. I think about the neocons, hidden away these last months, who will undoubtedly return oh-so-eager to take a whack at Syria or Iran or North Korea or who knows where else.

I think about the very concept of governing checks and balances — inexorably slipping away these last decades — in a world in which the Bush administration controls the White House, Congress, and the courts, and in which the President now has his own political people running his own secret armed intelligence agency, the CIA. And I think about that greatest check and balance of all, the one between our government and a country which, in its relatively short history, has often enough been convulsed by spiritual awakenings and — yes, what other word can we use — crusades of every sort, now that the political and religious are increasingly combined in the body of a single man, our President.

Barack Obamas seger

Published by:

I den mörka natt som nu sveper in allt i USA så finns det små små ljus som brinner med svag, fladdrande låga. Ett av dessa är Barack Obamas seger i Illinois. Republikanerna ville till varje pris besegra honom men misslyckades.

Obama är svart, han är ung, han är progressiv, och han är utomordentligt karismatisk. Hans pappa kommer från Kenya, hans mamma är amerikan. Kolla hans websajt , ni ser framför er USAs framtida president.

Läs hans tal:


I stand here today, grateful for the diversity of my heritage, aware that my parents’ dreams live on in my precious daughters. I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that, in no other country on earth, is my story even possible. Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our nation, not because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy. Our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
That is the true genius of America, a faith in the simple dreams of its people, the insistence on small miracles. That we can tuck in our children at night and know they are fed and clothed and safe from harm. That we can say what we think, write what we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door. That we can have an idea and start our own business without paying a bribe or hiring somebody’s son. That we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution, and that our votes will be counted–or at least, most of the time.

This year, in this election, we are called to reaffirm our values and commitments, to hold them against a hard reality and see how we are measuring up, to the legacy of our forbearers, and the promise of future generations. And fellow Americans–Democrats, Republicans, Independents–I say to you tonight: we have more work to do. More to do for the workers I met in Galesburg, Illinois, who are losing their union jobs at the Maytag plant that’s moving to Mexico, and now are having to compete with their own children for jobs that pay seven bucks an hour. More to do for the father I met who was losing his job and choking back tears, wondering how he would pay $4,500 a month for the drugs his son needs without the health benefits he counted on. More to do for the young woman in East St. Louis, and thousands more like her, who has the grades, has the drive, has the will, but doesn’t have the money to go to college.

Don’t get me wrong. The people I meet in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks, they don’t expect government to solve all their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead and they want to. Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don’t want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or the Pentagon. Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can’t teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can’t achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. No, people don’t expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice […]

A belief that we are connected as one people. If there’s a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there’s a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandmother. If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It’s that fundamental belief–I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sisters’ keeper–that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. “E pluribus unum.” Out of many, one.

Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America–there’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America […]

In the end, that is God’s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation; the belief in things not seen; the belief that there are better days ahead. I believe we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to opportunity. I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across America from violence and despair. I believe that as we stand on the crossroads of history, we can make the right choices, and meet the challenges that face us. America!

New York Times: De fattiga i USA röstade för miljardärerna

Published by:

Nicholas Kristof i New York Times har en bra artikel om hur de fattiga i USA röstade för skattelättnader för USAs miljardärer och för kaftigt försämrade eknomiska villkor för dom själva.

Kristofs åsikt kommer att få återverkningar också i Sverige, För det demokratiska partiet ligger nu i spillror, och det traditionella liberala samhället i USA har nu gått till historien. Talibanerna regerar.


One of the Republican Party’s major successes over the last few decades has been to persuade many of the working poor to vote for tax breaks for billionaires. Democrats are still effective on bread-and-butter issues like health care, but they come across in much of America as arrogant and out of touch the moment the discussion shifts to values.

To appeal to middle America, Democratic leaders don’t need to carry guns to church services and shoot grizzlies on the way. But a starting point would be to shed their inhibitions about talking about faith, and to work more with religious groups.

Otherwise, the Democratic Party’s efforts to improve the lives of working-class Americans in the long run will be blocked by the very people the Democrats aim to help

Göran Rosenberg om USA och världen

Published by:

Göran Rosenberg har en bra analys av dagens USA

Däremot tror jag att han har litet fel om hur mycket bättre världen skulle bli under Kerry. Inte att Kerry inte skulle vara milsvida bättre, men vad Göran Rosenberg inte tar upp i sin analys är att kongressen fortfarande kommer att kontrolleras av republikanerna och utan deras stöd skulle Kerry inte kunna göra någon fundamental kursändring.

Och nu när den kritiska swingstaten Ohio starkt lutar åt Bush så är det litet svårt att se Kerry vinna.

Vi får se, men Ohio är nog tyvärr nyckelstaten. Inte så att Kerry inte kan vinna utan den, men hans svårigheter blir enormt mycket större utan Ohio. Och Florida tror jag att republikanerna helt enkelt kommer att stjäla.

"Du får bara slå kristna tjejer"

Published by:

Det här är en alldeles sann historia om min älste grabb Nils-Erik som nu är längre och betydligt smartare än jag. När han var 5 år så bodde vi i New Jersey och hans mamma brukade köra honom till skolan i Lawrenceville, en grön liten stad strax norr om Trenton. Fast man sa aldrig “norr om Trenton”, man sa alltid “söder om Princeton”, som var och är en ***mycket*** finare stad.

Så Nils-Eriks mamma körde honom till skolan, men hon var snäll, så hon körde också tre små flickor som bodde på samma gata. Så en dag så frågade hon de små flickorna vad det skulle göra? “I morgon skall vi till kyrkan och höra Guds” ord sade en av de små fromma flickorna, vars föräldrar var bokstavstrogna och som trodde att Jesus hade gått på vattnet och mycket annat. Det var då som Nils-Erik såg mycket förvånad ut. “Men hur kan ni göra det” frågade han förundrat, “det finns ju ingen Gud?”

Det var ett misstag han aldrig har begått igen. Flickorna exploderade. “Han skändar Gud” skrek de små femåringarna och började slå Nils-Erik där han satt i baksätet. Dom slog honom med sina knytnävar, med sina skolböcker, med sina biblar, med sina dockor, de pucklade på honom så att hans mamma blev tvungen att stanna bilen och skrika “sluta bråka era dj-vla ungar”, eller något liknande. N-E fick flytta fram till mamma i framsätet och de kristna djihadisterna fick baksätet till sig själva.

“Men varför slog du inte tillbaks” frågade N-Es mamma? “Ja men du har ju sagt att jag inte får slå tjejer” kom det logiska svaret. “Hmmm, det är rätt, men om du råkar in i något nytt religionskrig så har du nu tillåtelse att slå tillbaks. ”

Lyckligtvis har N-E noggrant undvikit religionskrig efter den gången. Han pluggar nu data och kommer att rösta på Kerry.