OS-ishockeyfinalen 3- 0 och Sveamammans småpojkar...

Sveamammans småpojkar gråter...

http://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/os2014/article18425237.ab

Efter presskonferensen fortsatte Pär Mårts att prata med de svenska journalisterna.
Han var förbannad över att Sverige fick beskedet två timmar före nedsläpp.
– Det känns som en lek det de håller på med, så här gör man bara inte, säger Mårts.
– Jag tycker att det är ett justitiemord. Nicklas har inte gjort det minsta fel, det är de andra. IOK har bestämt. De ska ta beslutet 36 timmar innan, inte två timmar innan.

Och gråter... sku nån hjälpa torka deras tårar och skicka tillräckligt med krishjälp åt dom stackars...

http://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/os2014/article18425017.ab

"Skulle ha spelat största matchen i min karriär”

http://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/os2014/article18427315.ab

Erik Karlsson vill sälja silvermedaljen
”Det kommer att ta tid innan jag kommer att kunna reflektera”

... och äntligen någon säger något klokt...

http://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/os2014/article18426524.ab

”Någon ljuger”
Mysteriet kring Bäckströms dopningsprov: ”Det är något som inte stämmer”
...
Både Tre Kronors ledning och Internationella Ishockeyförbundets medicinskt ansvarige Mark Aubry tog "Bäckis" i försvar på den efterföljande presskonferensen.
– Det är ingen dopning utan medicinering, säger landslagschefen Tommy Boustedt.
Men nu reser flera experter frågetecken för svenskens testvärde på 190 mikrogram/liter, 40 mikrogram över den tillåtna gränsen.
Arne Ljungqvist var delaktig i arbetet med att återinföra substansen på Wadas dopningslista igen hösten 2009.
– Eftersom det var kontroversiellt att ta tillbaka den på listan så sattes ett högt gränsvärde, och kommer man över det gränsvärdet så är det ett fall, säger han till Sportbladet.
...

http://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/os2014/article18428268.ab

"Stefan Holm oförstående till Tre Kronors anklagelser
Den svenska landslagsledningen har rasat mot IOK.
Men Stefan Holm, medlem i IOK:s aktiva råd, slår tillbaka.
– Bara för att det är en svensk idrottare som åkt fast riktas konspirationsteorier mot IOK. Det håller inte, säger han."

http://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/os2014/article18426055.ab

"Även från svenskt läkarhåll är kritiken hård.
I en inervju med Expressen i dag är han förvånad över Bäckströms testvärden.
– Oj. 190, det är riktigt jäkla högt. Han måste ha haft världens klantigaste läkare eller så tog han kanske två eller tre tabletter, säger Ericsson."

http://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/kronikorer/wennerholm/article18426753.ab

"Finns inga ursäkter
Wennerholm: Landslagsledningen har orsakat en av de största skandalerna i svensk idrottshistoria
SOTJI. Nicklas Bäckström åker fast i ett dopningtest i OS och det enda jag hör är ursäkter.
Det jag ville höra?
Att det inte finns några ursäkter.
Att en nation som Sverige klantar till det så fullständigt är helt obegripligt i mina ögon."

Who really are the most fooled by the Republican hypocrisy?

As there are interesting developments in the Arab world with probably Libya's and Bahrain's autocratic governments as next to go, there are also interesting developments in the USA. Developments that once again highlight perfectly the hypocrisy of the Republican - or Repuglican, rather - establishment. If you take at face value what they say instead of thinking and following what they really DO, you really are fooled. And the most fooled are the majority of Republican voters. Why? I'll get to that later...

This round of development has started in Wisconsin with their newly elected Repuglican governor Scott Walker opening the play. He is trying to muscle through a legislative bill that would strip worker unions of most of their bargaining rights and make their existence as difficult as possible. In other words, he's trying to make them disappear. He also demands some cuts to their entitlements and the unions have signaled they are willing to absorb them, but that is something he really doesn't care much. He really wants an end to labor unions.

When he acquired the governorship a few months back the Wisconsin budget was either a little on the surplus side (according to liberals) or seriously on the red (according to Repuglicans). As I did some googling I couldn't really discern the truth. I found out that the official budget two years back put the 2009-2011 budget shortfall at $5.363 billion and the then-governor's plan was to bring it at $245 million in surplus at the end of that budget period. I couldn't find out what the end result looked like. (Edit: Later it turned out that the current two-year budget was balanced, but the long term budget billions in the red, partly due to the economic recession of the last few years. Check the links and excerpts in the end of this article!)

Be it as it may, the governor's first order of business was to give tax breaks to the businesses to the tune of 120-150 million. After that, he sounded the alarm that there was a bugdet crisis! So, according to the Repuglican playbook, there is always room for tax cuts for the businesses and the wealthy. After that the usual move is to cut benefits from the poor and middle class families and make them pay for the shortfall. Pretty much what George W did after he inherited a massive projected government surplus from Clinton. He hammered through massive tax breaks for the rich and for the big businesses and so, in effect, gave them the surplus. He kept other big items out of the official bugdet so that it looked more rosy than the real situation and created massive debts with his wars and such and helped the economic crisis to come about by deregulating as much as possible. Idea here was to benefit certain wealthy interest groups and run the budget to the ground in silence so that the middle class and the poor would have to foot the bill. And when things get a little better economically, do it all over again - skim the cream of the cake for the wealthy through tax breaks etc and therefore create huge debts until the situation once again proves untenable and the taxpayers will have to foot the bill...

This is exactly the same pattern in miniature form in Wisconsin - the Governor either creates a budget crisis or makes it worse and immediately after that he tries to force the average citizen to pay one way or the other. This time, however, he is not only interested in making average citizens to foot the bill, but he also wants to strip labor unions of most of their bargaining power so that in the future they couldn't put up a fight. That way the unions couldn't annoyingly finance the Repuglican opponents in the future and the only campaign financing would be supplied by big business interests for the Repuglican benefit.

That is pretty much the plot in this play and other Repuglican governors are simultaneously doing exactly the same thing. And why am I saying that the majority of the Republican voters are the ones most fooled by this? That is because majority of them are more or less average workers and don't stand to reap in any benefits from the Republican policies that favor bigger earners at the expense of middle and low income earners. According to Pew Center, "Republicans have a median annual family income of $64,000; Democrats have a median annual family income of $46,000, according to a February, 2008 Pew survey".

That means that half of all the Republican households earn less than 64,000 USD every year, making them part of the majority that has to foot the bill. Just like they have to foot the bill for the economic crisis of 2008. Even then they still vote Republican for their own demise. So, either they don't realise that the politicians they vote for work to their detriment instead of for their benefit or they are just ideologically so driven that they don't care if they harm themselves. Either way that makes them the biggest fools in this game. Sad.

I've often wondered why the situation in Finland is not as extreme. The politicians and their tendencies are the same, but still I don't see the same excess here. I am sure there are a myriad of reasons for this, but I see a couple immediately. Here the big business hasn't been able to grab as much influence and is mostly in check compared with the US where they seem to run rampant and are gaining more and more influence each passing year. And the businesses here are not that BIG, so they may not have as vast resources of cash at their disposal. As the other reason I see the versatility and greater competition in our political landscape. In the US, they have in effect only two possibilities, the Democrats and Republicans and therefore limited choices and competition. Here we have three bigger political parties and lots of smaller parties, and soon we seem to have four bigger parties in our political spectrum. You know, like in business world there's monopoly, oligopoly and free competition. China is one-party-monopoly, the US has two-party-oligopoly and the real free competition happens where you have more than two dominant players. So, two-party-oligopoly is apparently only one step better than one-party-system...


Links and excerpts:

New York Times: Wisconsin Power Play

Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau: General Fund Tax Collection Projections

2010-11 General Fund Condition Statement
Based upon the November/December reports, the administration's general fund condition statement for 2010-11 reflects a gross ending balance (June 30, 2011) of $67.4 million and a net balance (after consideration of the $65.0 million required statutory balance) of $2.4 million. Our analysis indicates a general fund gross balance of $121.4 million and a net balance of $56.4 million. This is $54.0 million above that of the administration's reports.

New York Times: Wisconsin May Take an Ax to State Workers’ Benefits and Their Unions

But the plan in Wisconsin, which faces a $137 million shortfall in the current budget and a gap in the billions for the coming cycle, is among the most far-reaching of such proposals to be delivered to lawmakers. Mr. Walker expects swift approval.

Among key provisions of Mr. Walker’s plan: limiting collective bargaining for most state and local government employees to the issue of wages (instead of an array of issues, like health coverage or vacations); requiring government workers to contribute 5.8 percent of their pay to their pensions, much more than now; and requiring state employees to pay at least 12.6 percent of health care premiums (most pay about 6 percent now).
...
Mr. Walker made several proposals that will weaken not just unions’ ability to bargain contracts, but also their finances and political clout.

His proposal would make it harder for unions to collect dues because the state would stop collecting the money from employee paychecks.

He would further weaken union treasuries by giving members of public-sector unions the right not to pay dues. In an unusual move, he would require secret-ballot votes each year at every public-sector union to determine whether a majority of workers still want to be unionized.

He would require public-employee unions to negotiate new contracts every year, an often lengthy process. And he would limit the raises of state employees and teachers to the consumer price index, unless the public approves higher raises through a referendum.

Conservative mindset versus liberal mindset

Well, well. For long I've wondered about the fact-defying fanatic attitudes and beliefs that the right wing nut-cases and conservatives share. Now there's scientific evidence of a certain - at least partial - explanation.

Neuroscientists have found that there's a difference in brain chemistry between conservatives and liberals. In conservatives the emotional side was more dominant whereas in liberal brains there was more activity in the areas that deal with decision making and analysing of information. Conservatives were more reliant on emotions and more resistant to new ideas and tended to cling to what they had learned previously - therefore to what their emotions were telling them.

This explains a lot to me. I would consider myself more of a liberal leaning person than anything else, and it has often totally mystified me how some conservative people can so adamantly defy and deny logics, reason and facts. Now here we finally have some kind of explanation. They simply seem to be hard-wired that way and their learned beliefs and emotions are to them more important than facts and logic.

I've often wondered how e.g. GWB or the Dark Prince Mr. Cheney can live with themselves and what they've done, but apparently they believe so strongly in what they've done that no simple facts bother them. That would also explain why their off-spring is oriented in the same way - they have clearly been subjected all their live to similar ideas, beliefs and values than their parents and therefore their brains are similarly hard-wired.

Interesting, if a tad scary... Here are a couple of articles on the subject and some excerpts:

Independent: Konservatiiveilla on erilaiset aivot

Political affiliation could be all in the brain

Right-wing brains 'different'

Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain

Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.

In a simple experiment reported todayin the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.

Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.

The results show "there are two cognitive styles -- a liberal style and a conservative style," said UCLA neurologist Dr. Marco Iacoboni, who was not connected to the latest research.

...

Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a "flip-flopper" for changing his mind about the conflict.

Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.

...

"The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions."

This emotion-based decision making seems to affect everyday life as well. This fits well with my observation that there seem to be religious-like fervor and beliefs also in the area of economics. Some people tend to believe for instance in the free market theory so much in the extreme, that they seem to be ready to strip all regulations and let the free markets find their way.

I don't really know if these fanatic sounding free-market-theorists would really strip off all economic regulations given the chance, but apparently they would aggressively rush to that direction! That is also a bit scary thought, because I liken that situation to circumstances where you have little or no laws in place in a society. And in a more or less lawless situation, personal interests would conquer and I would expect a chaos to ensue.

Another interesting thought. What about the scientists, who have very conservative beliefs or background? When they practice science, and there's a major conflict between their beliefs and what the factual information tells them, which side will conquer? Will they let the facts and science win, or do their beliefs take over like in the case of Intelligent Design theorists?

The Russian Way in business - part 2

Just to verify my previous writing about the Russian Way, please check out this article in New York Times: Guilty Verdict for a Tycoon, and Russia

Here are a few delicious excerpts from the text:

But Mr. Putin’s line is just that — a line. In addition to tossing Mr. Khodorkovsky in jail on trumped-up charges, the Russian authorities also brought bogus tax claims against Yukos itself, shoving it into bankruptcy. Then the government created a dummy corporation to take over its assets, which it sold off, for far less than they were worth, to state-run oil and gas companies, primarily Rosneft, a poorly run company that is now the biggest oil producer in Russia.

“I have never witnessed a state steal such a large amount from investors,” said James A. Harmon, who, as president of the Export-Import Bank of the United States in the late 1990s, spent much of his time dealing with Russia. Said Edward Donahue, a Massachusetts accountant who had invested in Yukos: “They stole my investment,” Mr. Donahue was among a group of investors who tried to sue Russia to get their money back. (The case was thrown out of court.)

Even since the Yukos affair, corrupt Russian politicians and businessmen have routinely used arbitrary laws and regulations to grab assets that didn’t belong to them. Royal Dutch Shell was the majority partner in a group that included the state-owned monopoly Gazprom to develop a giant oil and natural gas field. Suddenly, in 2006, it ran into severe environmental and regulatory problems — problems that disappeared as soon as Shell ceded majority ownership to Gazprom.

A few years ago, BP was the controlling partner in a huge joint venture, amounting to 25 percent of its reserves, with a Russian company called TNK. TNK wanted to control the venture — so, naturally, BP suddenly had visa and other problems. Its business began to be disrupted. Robert Dudley, an American who was running the venture — and is now the chief executive of BP — had to flee the country and go into hiding for a time. Needless to say, the joint venture arrangements were rewritten.

And here's an another interesting piece. This is pretty much the same argument I floated in my writing...

To put it more bluntly, assets that were stolen from Yukos investors like Mr. Donahue six years ago are now being recycled to a new group of investors via Rosneft. Plainly, this doesn’t bother the Russian government, and it probably won’t bother whichever investment bank handles the Rosneft deal. But it should bother the rest of us — a lot. After all, if you can steal the assets once, what’s to prevent you from stealing them again?

So, by all means, go and invest in Russia. Your money's perfectly safe... not.

The Russian Way in business

Russia seems to have a peculiar culture in business and politics, probably the heritage of communist years mostly affecting it. What I find mostly abhorring is the culture where the powers-to-be can twist everything the way they want with no regard to justice, human rights or other aspects of democracy.

In Russia, this culture is clearly thoroughly ingrained in the society and its structures, where most frightening is the way even the judicial system is subjected to the will of the ruling class. Most abhorrent examples where how, for instance, Mikhail Hodorkovski was sentenced to a lengthy imprisonment and stripped of his wealth just because Vladimir Putin wanted it so. And the judicial arm of government rushed to do his bidding, quite probably out of fear of falling out of his favor. I am also more than a little bit suspicious that the government might have its hand in Anna Politkovskaya's murder as well. If not, at least it is very clear that the government was behind the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006...

Well, that is the darker side of the Russian way of handling things. It is not always that tough in business life, especially in international business, where they can't always use as absolute methods of solving a problem. However, they know how to extort and use dirty ways to get their way.

Concrete examples, you say? Ok, let's start from the big ones, where foreign businesses have been blackmailed into submission. The Royal Dutch Shell's project called Sakhalin-2 springs to mind. You can read about it here. It was one of the biggest oil and gas projects in the world, and the Russians wanted control of it. They had made a deal with Shell about developing this area that gave Shell the majority ownership and control over the project. Shell had started the project in 1994 and had invested something in the area of 10-20 billion euros in it. So, the Russians let the Shell invest and build the field, and when it was nearing completion and it was time to collect the fruits, the Russians grabbed it. The operation was camouflaged as environmental problems and certain environmental permits were suspended to up the pressure and prevent production in the fields. Putin's boys also used some legal threats and in the end Shell had to submit. Suddenly all the environmental problems disappeared after the power-and-wealth grab was successful...

This is the way Russian government operates. They invite foreign companies to invest in Russia and when those foreign companies are hostage to the investment they have made, Russians take what they want by blackmail. And then they are surprised when foreign companies are a little reserved in investing in Russia? Go figure...

Let's take a couple of smaller examples, where we Finns have also tasted the rotten culture of our dear neighbour. First, import of Russian birch. Russia is mainly an exporter of raw material and their forest and paper industry is rather primitive. In comparison, Finland is known for its high tech forest and paper industries over the world and exports lot of its knowledge, technology and machinery abroad.

Vladimir Putin wanted Finnish companies to invest in Russian forest and paper industries and, supposedly, to develop them to the same high level as in Finland. He decided to force them to create paper mills etc. in Russia and do the refining of raw materials there, instead of exporting the materials and doing the added value work elsewhere. Vladimir decided that he would make the Finns to bring the high tech know-how and the capital required into Russia for free. After they would have made their investment, he could once again hold them hostage and demand what he wanted. Birch was what the Finnish forest industry required, so he decided to set big export tolls on birch. This way he would soon have the technology and the Finns would fix their primitive forest industry into a global success. And naturally, the Finns would pay for everything. Brilliant thinking!

However, Vladimir's plan backfired. The Finns didn't want to be held hostage and adjusted to the situation by stopping birch import from Russia. Finnish forest industries were forced to close a few factories to do so. So, Vladimir didn't get his way but lost the birch export to Finland. He tried to rectify the situation by promising to postpone the tolls by a few years, but it was too late. Finns didn't want to invest in opening anew the already closed factories, especially when the trade partner was so unreliable. What guaranteed that Vladimir wouldn't pull the same show all over again?

Here, things would be different, if Vladimir had tried to buy the technology and consultation and had formed a partnership with Finnish companies to that end. He would have gotten what he wanted in the first place, but he would have had to pay for it. Instead, he decided to get it for free by blackmail. Russians really would need to learn new, honest ways of doing things. Coercion and manipulation only works to a certain extent.

Examples can be found in abundance, but let's mention two more, briefly. First, the Russians took most of the export and import traffic on wheels by these same sort of tactics a few years back. Much of the export from Europe to Russia goes through Finland and 5-10 years back Finns did most of the transportation on wheels. Finns had great quality trucks and everything required, Russian trucks were very unreliable and oftentimes down right dangerous on the roads. However, Russian authorities at the border started to make things so miserable for the Finnish trucks, that soon Russians started to take over. Russian trucks got through the border with no problems, but Finnish trucks had to wait days on end, were punished with arbitrary and changing extra costs and regulations etc. At times the Russians authorities even demanded that Finnish trucks had to have an escort to drive to Moscow. With horrible costs, of course.

With all this happening, Finnish transportation suddenly became much more expensive and slow and business started to move to Russian firms. This even forced many Finnish companies to move their company's official headquarters to the Russian side to acquire Russian plates for their trucks. After that, they could circumvent the difficulties and costs that Finnish trucks had to absorb.

Finnish department store chains have also had their share of problems. Stockmann had to move one of it's department stores in Moscow after having no help from the police in a row with the owner. Stockmann had rented a building, which was later sold. The new owners wanted to extort a huge rent and cut off electricity when Stockmann didn't give in to their demands. The police was of no help, and eventually Stockmann had to find another location and move its store.

So, this seems to be the Russian way in business and I am afraid it's going to take decades before that changes. One thing that helps this change is the transparency provided by internet and other means of instant communication. It is no longer so easy to hide things, so even the Russian bureaucrats have to respect publicity...

Nuclear deterrent and game theory exemplified

Speaking of North Korea's case and the bilateral nuclear threat some interesting questions emerge. For instance, I've asked myself questions like "would North Korea have the 'courage' to strike with nuclear arms" and "would US be forced to retaliate or what would happen afterwards"?

Game theory can give you precise answers to these questions posed here, but as well you can figure out the answers by yourself. I have to believe that North Korea would never take the risk of nuclear strike, unless it thought it has been struck first with nuclear arms. And why is that, then? That is because the US would be forced to strike back with no other alternatives and the Mad Emperor of North Korea wants to live, not commit suicide.

And why would the US be forced to strike back, you ask? Why couldn't they just leave it be and negotiate a peace with North Korea, because the damage is already done and striking back won't alter that? This is where the game theory comes into play. The US would be forced to retaliate because otherwise their nuclear weapons would no longer work as a deterrent. If they did not retaliate, other rogue countries with nuclear weapons might think they can strike with no fear of US retaliation. Even North Korea would probably think they can do it again with no consequences. That's why the US would have no other choice than to strike back. A deterrent is a deterrent only as long as the other parties BELIEVE that you will strike back regardless.

So, the BELIEF that you will strike back is essential here. In other words, the CREDIBILITY of the fear of retaliation is everything. This fear of retaliation also works in business life, in price wars for instance. Credibility is the key word, whether it is about the fear of retaliation or your good business reputation or something else. That's why organizations and people cling so desperately to their good reputation and try to keep it untarnished. It is not because they are such decent people or decent organizations as much as it is the fear that business or other possibilities in the future are in jeopardy if they lose their credibility. If someone cheats once and it becomes known, nobody wants to do business or anything important with them any more out of fear of getting cheated, too. Because this is about the future possibilities, sometimes businesses getting out of business altogether cheat in the end. That's because they have no fear of retaliation and losing a reputation doesn't mean anything to them any more.

That's also why people want to have a good reputation in business life as in real life, too. You might find it very difficult to land a good job, if it came known to the employer that you occasionally cheat. Even if you do it once, it is a strong deterrent enough against hiring you, because your credibility as a trustworthy person is compromised. However, if the employer doesn't know it and you look the part, you're fine. So, in the end it is once again about beliefs. BELIEFS and CREDIBILITIES.

Back to the nuclear issue. What about Iran's run for the nuclear arms? Iran must have certain motives to pursue the nuclear issue so adamantly, as Israel and the US must have certain motives to try to stop that from happening. I'll not discuss the Iranian motives as I am more interested in the other side, for now.

Israel and the US strongly state that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a threat to the whole international community and Israel explicitly states that Iran might want to totally destroy Israel. Is that a credible statement? I don't think so, even if all the free thinkers in the US seem to also describe it as the real reason. I suspect they just don't want to voice the real reasons.

Let's examine this in some detail. Would Iran's nuclear arms pose any more threat than some of those little pre-Soviet countries with nuclear arms? I don't think so. Bear with me and try to follow my logic a bit. Let's try two different scenarios here. In the first, Iran would try to strike Israel with nuclear arms itself. Let's call this scenario A. In scenario B Iran would provide some terrorist organizations with nuclear arms.

In scenario A, Iran would strike Tel Aviv and/or Jerusalem with nuclear missiles. Or they could try to "wipe Israel off the map" with all their nuclear arsenal at once. What would happen? Even if Israel was totally destroyed, its submarines in the Mediterranean would launch a devastating counter-strike with nuclear weapons at Iran. Also the United States would nuke Iran, so Iran would stand to absorb terrible destruction from these two countries' armies. The first priority of Israel and the US would probably be to make sure that Iran never again fires another nuclear missile. Second priority, at least to the United States, would probably be to make sure that there would be as little damage to the oil fields as possible. Therefore the US would probably want to limit the nuclear strikes to some of the biggest cities in order to not to make the whole country uninhabitable so that no oil production could take place afterwards. Iran is one important producer of oil and that happens to be of great importance to the world economy. Anyway, all the bigger military installations inside Iran would probably be totally wiped out with conventional weapons by Israel and the US. They would not want to run the risk that Iran could strike again with nuclear weapons.

To complete the picture, it is good to notice that Israel and the US would also quite probably want to immediately take out the highest leadership in the country. Those who made the decision to use nuclear weapons in the first place. So the leadership of Iran would vanish amazingly fast either vaporized by nuclear arms or destroyed with conventional weapons.

Now, if you have followed my reasoning this far, I think you're ready to answer if Iran would ever dare to try the scenario A and strike Israel with nuclear weapons? My logic tells me that Iran would never dare, because it would amount to national suicide as well as personal suicide for the leadership. They would not dare.

What about the scenario B? No, they would not dare to sell nuclear arms to terrorist organizations for if those weapons were used and could be traced back to Iran, Iran would be held responsible. I happen to believe that the consequences of that would be quite identical to those in scenario A. So, I really don't believe Iran would try this alternative either because it is suicidal as well.

If you're still not convinced enough think about the economic repercussions on Iran's economy. What would happen economically if Iran ever struck first with nuclear arms? Even if we assume that the US and Israel would not retaliate for some reason and would even leave the Iranian leadership in tact, what would happen? Not many countries would want to trade with Iran any more and their economy would collapse. Even now they are importing about half the gasoline they need because they don't have the capacity to refine enough of their own oil. That import is plummeting right now because several international companies have recently stated that they have stopped deliveries to Iran due to the new economical sanctions approved by the United Nations. They are also having great troubles at this time with foreign investments and foreign capital and expertise they desperately crave, because international companies are less and less willing to invest in Iran because of the sanctions and the volatility of the situation. If Iran's exports and imports would plummet totally due to a nuclear strike, it's economy would collapse fast.

So, I think we have concluded clearly, that Iran would never strike first with nuclear arms for obvious reasons. Therefore I don't buy the official reasons that both Israel and the USA offer us. Israel and the United States probably have quite different motives for their efforts to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but they obviously don't want to state their real reasons.

Comment if you agree or disagree, that would be interesting to read. I would also be intrigued to learn of your opinions on what are the real motives of Israel and the US? As well as what are the motives for Iran to try to acquire nuclear arms?

North Korea - the disobedient and misbehaving child of international community

North Korea and its notorious and cruel leader Kim Jong-il tends to pop up every once in a while, usually when NK is throwing a fit or having a tantrum as the Washington Post so eloquently put it. While I watch the show, I can't help but think about the psychology behind the North Korean behaviour. Or how the game theory, especially behavioural game theory, is a useful and applicable tool in appreciating what is happening in this international show. Or how this setting reminds me of a disobedient and misbehaving child trying to manipulate his or her parents.

This is how the son of a gun behind all this looks like. And of course his father was similar in all aspects and raised his son to have a serious character flaw of which we all now get to enjoy. Not.

As I don't have enough information on the objectives and interests of the important players I won't even try to do an analysis of the situation game-theory style. I'll just list some thoughts on the subject.

North Korea is a poor country and its economy is in shambles. It can only manage with food aid from foreign countries and even so its people go malnourished and starved - the ruling class excluded, naturally. At this time China is its main food supplier due to the fact that South Korea finally understood the foolishness of giving massive amounts of free food aid to North Korea to no avail. North Korea's conduct has usually been like the disobedient and ungrateful child - after it gets its way it reneges on its promises and is never grateful for received free help but demands more. It's like a child stamping his/her foot to the ground and making never-ending and unreasonable demands.

For a surprisingly long time it has gotten away with it, but it can't continue indefinitely. As long as the parents - the international community - is divided it easily gets its way. As a cunning child tries to drive a wedge between his/her parents and thrives when the parents don't have a unified front and a unified voice, the same way North Korea manipulates the international community wiggling and squirming any which way it can. China still seems to adamantly back the mad emperor, but it will be interesting to see if Obama can manage a successful approach. In many a fight Obama has proved in my eyes to be a master strategist with great knowledge of human psychology and I wouldn't be surprised if he could manage to pull it off. He may need another term for it even though North Korea might crumble in just a few years. I believe Obama is the greatest president the US and A has had for several decades and I hope he might get even this North Korean problem at least on the right track if not solve it.

These two photos show well who is doing the starving and suffering in North Korea. In the first picture you see a North Korean mother and the other picture portrays the fat cat himself...





Back to the psychology. It is intriguing how well and analogously these two entities of a disobedient and manipulative child and a misbehaving and manipulative country - or its regime - compare. Even though the country is a much much larger entity, it can be seen to act as an individual entity much like the child. The way this country acts and tries to milk every possible benefit is very much like the child. In this case the child has been given his/her weekly allowances despite not keeping his/her side of the bargains made. Perhaps now is the time the parents finally wake up and take notice.

In all this, most surprised I am of China's attitude. Even though China has been fairly recently humiliated as North Korea in the nuclear debacle took action contrary to China's public suggestions and later North Korea has been caught red-handed in the sinking of Cheonan, the South Korean warship, still China seems supportive of the mad emperor. The most obvious reason stated for China's attitude is the fear of massive stream of fugitives from North Korea to China if North Korea was to fall. However, I find this hard to believe. I believe it wouldn't be a total catastrophe for China if it was to take care of 10-20 million North Koreans. Maybe it's more probably the fear of a nuclear capable government succumbing to total chaos if the government and communist system was to totally unravel in North Korea? And maybe even the communist pride not wanting to see a communist fellow country falling apart? And maybe North Korea is a convenient little buffer between China and the US forces in South Korea? Who knows? Anyway, it will be interesting to watch what happens in the near future...

Read more of the situation here: www.northkoreanrefugees.com