Olympism

Olympic Charter, Fundamental principles

"1. Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.

2. The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.

3. The Olympic Movement is the concerted, organised, universal and permanent action, carried out under the supreme authority of the IOC, of all individuals and entities who are inspired by the values of Olympism. It covers the five continents. It reaches its peak with the bringing together of the world’s athletes at the great sports festival, the Olympic Games. Its symbol is five interlaced rings.

4. The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play. The organisation, administration and management of sport must be controlled by independent sports organisations.

5. Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.

6. Belonging to the Olympic Movement requires compliance with the Olympic Charter and recognition by the IOC."

Finland: Thought crime or not?

(please follow this link to read more)

"Yesterday a Finnish blogger, Mikko Ellilä, was convicted of what could be called, despite all the political and legal jargon, a thoughtcrime. What he did was tell several hardly disputable facts: that, on average, white people have a higher IQ than Africans (this difference may be due to nutrition, education and/or genetics but that's beside the point), that crime rates are exceptionally high for Africans (or their offshoots such as African-Americans) and that immigrants consume more of society's resources than what they contribute, i.e., that immigration is a net loss, at least in a welfare state such as ours." (Sandt's Observations )

I don't think that all this thoughts are without dispute. For instance:

- "on average, white people have a higher IQ than Africans" how did they conclude that? Did the studies picked persons from the same level of degree and social background? What I am saying is that you can only conclude that if you pick two persons who are equal and the only diference is the race (one thing that is almost impossible)

- "that crime rates are exceptionally high for Africans" again you have to exclude all things besides race to reach this conclusion. Mixing factors will not allow you to reach a valid conclusion.

- "immigrants consume more of society's resources than what they contribute" my doubt goes if the study did valued the benefit that all Finish have for having lower wages workers? And the jobs they have, don't they create value to Finland?

For me the hard part to believe is that a lawyer could not say that what this blogger said wasn't true, because the hard part is to prove that that claims are true and not the opposite. It is nearly impossible to single out race as a factor for having less IQ or being more prone to violence. There is no cientific proof for this claim. Is this a thought crime? I don't think so.

But this imposes a big and diferent question: Where is the limit for freedom of speech?

What is the Olimpic Spirit

"China views the demonstrations as contrary to the Olympic spirit because the torch belongs to the world." (Bloomberg)

With everything that is happening with this olimpic games, I have a doubt: What is the Olimpic Spirit?
If by chance any generous soul drops here I would like to know what does "Olimpic Spirit" means to you!

Where is going the freedom of speech

UN rights council passes Islamic resolution on religious defamation (From Herald Tribune)

I could not believe these news, I am yet trying to find the full text of this resolution. But if this is true we just took one step back in terms of freedom of speech. I think that religion is a very sensible subject. It is about our own beliefs and it has a strong emotional component.

But religion is also becoming an excuse to allow behaviour that is not normal, and not aceptable in our society.

I think that defamation is always bad, no matter if it is religious, personal or political. But this is diferent from criticizing. My doubt is if a law can trully sepparate both in this subject. For instance the movie that I posted below is it defamation or criticizing? Or saying that some islamic pratices are bad a critic or a defamation?

For instance "The document, which was put forward by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, "expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations.""

My question is in this matter: This concern is about our newspappers, some videos or does it extend to Bin Laden and other terrorist leaders? From my point of view this link is more strongly defended by the terrorist themselves when they kill in the name of Allah!

Another example: ""urges states to take actions to prohibit the dissemination ... of racist and xenophobic ideas" and material that would incite to religious hatred."

Does this mean that Bin Laden movies will be banned? Or that some programs (like a lebanese program for kids that promote hate against Jews) are going to end?

One example of what can be misunderstood is: "The pressure to protect religions from defamation has been growing ever since a Danish magazine published caricatures of Muhammad, provoking riots across the Islamic world in 2006 in which dozens of people were killed. The publication of a different caricature in a Swedish newspaper last year again led to protests from Muslims."

I think that the reaction to that cartoons was complete non-sense. I saw all the cartoons, and the truth is that there was no defamation to Islam. I know that Islamic law does not allow representation of Muhhamad (may Peace be Upon Him) but Dannish do not live under Islamic law. And I think this separation has to be clear. For instance Islamic view of whoever eats pig is that it becomes a pig. Should this be considered a defamation of our society? I don't think so, and I am not offended at all when someone said that.

Tollerance and respect is a two way street!

Freedom of showing...

Because freedom of speech must be defended and not be an argument of extreme-right movements to gain power.

I decided to show this movie (from T. Van Gogh) because:

a) Shows a reality that some women go through and must be condemmed by everybody so it won't be repited.

b) Shows how much we have changed in four years.

P.S. This is my second time that I try to comeback. Sorry for not being writing...

Benazir Bhutto Assassinated

Benazir Bhutto was assassinated today. This is perhaps one of the worst things that could have happened to Pakistan at this time, as she was the best chance of getting rid of Musharraf. I'm interested to hear what people think will happen now. I think it is likely that Musharraf will declare another state of emergency and postpone the elections indefinitely.

You can read the NYT story here.

Letter to Santa Claus...

Hi Santa Claus,

I know that last year was impossible for to you to give me any present. I thought it was too easy, but it seemed it was the other way around.
So this year I will try to ask something simpler. This year I will be more selfish and I will only ask some gifts for myself.

First, I would like to be able to move around in December without being steeped, kicked and pushed around. Probably you don’t know, since you are extremely busy this time of the year, but people get crazy in December. You cannot buy anything without having the sensation that you are in the savannah, in the middle of a stampede.

Second, as you already know I love to travel, so I would love, as a present, to be able to travel around the world without feeling afraid or feeling that there are people around me that live a more miserable life than mine.

Finally, since I want to travel, I just would like you to replace me over the next year on my job. That way I can travel as you will be working for my salary. Don’t be afraid, my job is easy. If you can manage to deliver all presents to the world in only 24h, for sure you can do my job easily.

Hope that you receive my letter on time,

Best Regards,

Stran

Life without Christmas presents…

Responding to a challenge here is my view of life without having to buy presents.

What would I do with the money I would save if I did not buy the presents for Christmas?

When she first asked me this I had no answer. I never thought of this question in my entire life, so I had no answer. I thought, and thought, and thought until smoke came out of my head. I though that I would give a Social Institution. Or that I would buy something to myself, etc…

But as I thought of this, something in my mind told me that this would not happen. Well it is not that I do not wish to do that, but rather that I would not do that.

Then it stroke me. Really nothing of that would happen. If I did not spend the money on these presents, nothing significant would change in my life and in the world. I would just spend on little stuff like a coffee, or one more magazine, or a drink in the rest of the year. Just that! Why? Well, because I would not have in my mind that I had to buy presents in December, so I would be freer to spend it in insignificant stuff.

So, it is good that someone created Christmas so we can buy a present to the ones more close to us.

In our fast pace world we need this mandatory stuff to make us stop a little bit and appreciate the people around us. It is sad, but true…

Congratulations Europe

It is not a perfect union, but, nonetheless, it is a successful one. After many wars, countries that were almost historical enemies taught a lesson to the world a created this space that we now call European Union. Some generations don't know how it was before, and how we progress with this Union.



Yesterday in Lisbon we took another step forward, and everything considered it is a good progress. Only the future will tell what it is going to happen next but I am looking forward to reach what this treaty points to - a True Union!

Without net...

This last two weeks I have been without Internet.

I do not remember the time I was that long without the possibility of going to the net. Normally when I go on vacation I do not miss it, don’t even think about it, but being here (and being too lazy to go to a net cafe), doing my normal life but without the possibility of blogging or surfing the net was, without a doubt, a very odd experience. It was like something was missing, like I have been cut out of the world.

It made me realize that this little tool already gain its own importance in my life. Not a vital importance, but nonetheless a importance.

A Question to You All...

Hi everyone!

Just a question to everybody here... should I carry on with my chronicle?

I'm not trying to sound silly (although I might do anyway!) - but I've noticed a huge lack of response to my chronicles! Am not guilting anybody into commenting, of course, but they do take a large chunk of my time to write....

Let me know, lovelies!

And In Tonight's News...

(See my previous entry for a brief explanation to this two-part chronicle!)

Part Two - News and Media

Think about the last time you saw, heard or read the news? How much of what was reported was good news that put a smile on your face? My bet is, unless it was the local newspaper you were reading there was very little in the way of happy stories.

I can't claim to know a lot about American news broadcasts, as I have only seen it a handful of times in my life when visiting New York - but the news that I did see really opened my eyes to the way they don't just inform people of the news, but they make them fear the news.

Compared with UK news (which I will talk about in a moment) their style is faster - with headlines issued in dramatic bullet points. If you went by some of their news alone, it almost seems that the USA is constantly under threat by some way - be it terrorists, dangerously faulty products or animal attacks!

But again, I stress that I have only seen a handful of news broadcasts in America, so these could all be isolated occasions - I am happy for people to prove me wrong!

Also, this does not mean I am sitting here saying that the news in the UK is any better - whilst not as edgy and fast-paced as out American counter-parts, it is still made into a dramatic event to watch the news. We are constantly told our homes, health, family, money and country all could be at risk from various elements.

Don't get me wrong - having access to the current events and knowing what is going on is very important, and I am not arguing that at all, what I am talking about is the way the news is presented. One could argue that it needs to be dramatic to get our attentions and make us sit up and notice.

I also put to you the newspapers - once more, I don't know what newspapers outside of the UK but many of the newspapers here sensationalise everything sometimes I often think more time is spent on eye catching headlines then the story and facts itself.

Another point I would like to raise is how can we trust 100% what we are reading, seeing or hearing? In the UK there have been notable scandals in print - what is to stop this happening again? Here are a couple of examples:

In April 1989 at Hillsborough football stadium in Sheffield, England, a tragedy occurred when a human stampede occurred resulting in the death of 96 people (all Liverpool football fans). However, The Sun's report on this event was grossly altered with the addition of shocking facts to, presumably, sell more copies of their publication. This backfired on them terribly, and people in Liverpool to this day hardly buy the paper. For a more detailed account:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster#The_Sun_newspaper_controversy

Piers Morgan, former editor of Daily Mirror was fired in 2004 for a scandal that rocked the country and everyone talked about - he authorised the publication of faked photographs of Iraqi prisoners being held and abused by British Army personnel. The Daily Mirror countered that it had fallen victim to a "calculated and malicious hoax" and apologised for their publication.

Of course, all this is my personal view and once again I am not 'slagging off' the news as such, just the way it is presented to us, the general public.

What do you think? How is the news presented where you live? And do you agree or disagree with any of my points?

A concerted effort !

Life has been extremely busy in the last week, plus I am hitting the high road again for a week to all points south, so will try to get some photos posted of my travels. Then off to the Baltic for three days.


I feel the need to pass comment on the man of very little honour, Sir Ian Blair, who feels no sense of personal shame in his role in the shooting to death with Dum Dum bullets a totally innocent man.


I feel the need to comment on the 'requirement' to keep innocent men and women locked up pending enquiries for upto three months.


I feel the need to oppose the authoritarian ravings of 'Balls' dragooning the next generation with threats of Court action if they fail to obey.


Being so busy I feel I have taken my eye off the ball, and let another two weeks of the State grabbing more power without me noticing.

I'm Ready For My Close-up, Darling...

In light of the recent rantings and ravings of Heather Mills-McCartney against the UK press*, I decided to do this chronicle about the media, both here in the UK and what we actually get see of the press from around the world. I'll make this over a couple of chronicles otherwise it will be a very long entry....!

Part One - Celebrity

I decided to start with one of the most obvious things we think of when we consider the media and the press - celebrity. It seems today you can hardly switch on the TV, open a newspaper, browse a magazine or surf the Internet without being bombarded by stories, pictures and quotes from these people.

More common than not, nowadays, are quotes from celebrities complaining about the way paparazzi treat them. Many well known faces and names continually bemoan how the press focus on how they look, where they go, what they do and how they live. They urge people to not by the tabloids which - according to them - always contain false stories and quotes.

Whether you are interested in celebrity gossip or not, it is hard to get away from the fact the world seems to be obsessed with them.

Should the paparazzi leave them alone? Just because they sung that song, acted in that movie or wrote that book does that mean that we have to see pictures of them in their daily life? Why shouldn't we relish photographs of them looking rough - after all it shows that nobody's perfect...
But the trouble is, do we really - deep, deep down actually care? Could the obsession with fame be simply a way of avoiding looking at our own lives? Celebrities aren't perfect - we all know that, but why do some people need the round the clock, daily evidence of this?

Why do people hero worship these men and women, who in reality have as many - if not more - flaws than we do! Their rise to fame is closely monitored, they have praise and adoration lavished upon them and then eventually the world relishes in their eventual downfall.

Perhaps you think that they should, if not embrace, at least tolerate the attention they receive? After all - you can't possibly become famous and not expect to see your picture in the newspapers or attract interest when you pop to your local corner shop!

So - what do you think, should they stop complaining and actually use their positions to become role models for the younger generations, or do you think they have a right to 100% privacy when they are not purposefully in the spotlight?

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

*External Links re: Heather Mills McCartney

GMTV - http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=27356
BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7070634.stm

Jingle Bell Rock

Well, it's officially started over here. The UK is buzzing with thoughts of Christmas... in October!

Nearly every person I've spoken to feels the urge to mention "x number of weeks till Christmas". Great, thanks a lot - that makes me feel really fabulous. I don't know about you, but the thought of Christmas sends me into a panic, but normally I can to wait until December 1st to to have a meltdown over presents, gift wrap, gift tags, sellotape and ribbon. Don't even mention the food!

Switching on the television last night I was greeted by an advert for a well known catalogue singing out "I wish it could be Christmas every day...." and more toy commercials then you could shake a tinsel covered stick at!

Why do they feel the need to sell Christmas to us? Why do supermarkets pipe the smell of freshly baked mince pies through the air ducts to tempt us into buying them? Why bombard us with adverts telling us that their product will make it the best Christmas ever? Surely it goes without saying most people will spend a ton of cash on Christmas without making us start two months early!

I also wonder how they get away with it - after being warned against showing the Union Jack in England during the football World Cup in case it offended people I wonder why is there isn't a similar rule? Don't get me wrong, I love Christmas and by no means am I a Scrooge, but if you personally don't celebrate Christmas - for whatever reason - do you really want to be reminded of it everywhere far earlier in the year than is really necessary?

I read recently that some smaller towns have has their local Council banning Christmas lights and a tree going up in the town centre in case it offends people with other beliefs. Is that political correctness gone mad or a reasonable step to take?

Christmas is a lovely time of the year for spending time with the family, eating lovely food and having time off work, but as we all know it is a religious celebration - so why don't we have the similar mass advertising on other religions festivals? One could argue that Christianity has been the main religion of England for many hundreds of years - many people belong to the Church of England - and therefore we have that 'right' over other religions, but is that fair?

Who draws the line between what might offend other people and what wouldn't?

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

Sorry that this post is late, by the way! The area where I live has been having major cable issues and I have only just got my Internet connection back!!!

Elisabeth

Europe?!?

It was said that last week was an important week for the future of Europe. Under Portugal’s presidency, the main figures of power finally agreed upon a common text that will change European Union!

Saying this, I some questions arose in my mind:

Which Future?

It seems now that is the fundamental question. We have to find out what is our vision for E.U. in 5, 10 or 50 years. Being a federalist it is easy to guess my vision for the future, but it is not a peaceful view, and I don’t know if there are many supporters of a Federal Future.

Where is the document?

I tried to find out over the Internet but I could not find it. Probably I did not search it right. I read a lot of comments, news, people who form opinion, but I can not find the actual document, proposal, or a glimpse of paragraphs of the future treaty. So how can I formulate a position? How do these leaders want the public opinion to have a mature opinion about it?

It seems that for most leaders that is irrelevant. They conduct the policies and we have to prey that they are doing the right choice. I don’t like to be kept blindfolded in a subject that will affect my life in the future and most important I, a voter, would like to have the same importance as reporters, since it seems that they had the chance to read the document to formulate their opinions…

When do we get involved?

It is important to bring the debate to the people. At the same rate that E.U. grew, population grew apart E.U. It seems now that E.U. is a bunch of bureaucrats that everyday try to find a way to complicate our lives. I think that everyday that passes a new Euroceptic is born and in a few years there will be no space to E.U. to have a future…

Dream a Little Dream of Me.

I became inspired to write a small piece on dreams following a rather peculiar dream I myself had a couple of nights ago. It made me think about dreams in general and the way they affect us.

I am aware that dreams, as a whole, seem to be a bit of an ongoing mystery amongst the science wizards. Taken from Wikipedia:-

"There is no universally agreed-upon biological definition of dreaming.

General observation shows that dreams are strongly associated with REM sleep. REM sleep is the state of sleep in which brain activity is most like wakefulness, which is why many researchers believe this is when dreams are strongest, although it could also mean that this is a state from which dreams are most easily remembered.

During a typical lifespan, a human spends a total of about six years dreaming, (which is about 2 hours each night). It is unknown where in the brain dreams originate — if there is such a single location — or why dreams occur at all."

So, as one of those mysteries of life, many people speculate about them and why we have them. A high percentage people believe in dream symbolism - that dreaming a certain thing means that a good or a bad event is likely to occur in your life

Other theories I have heard include that dreaming is a way for the mind to "clear up" unwanted information or "data" whilst we sleep. Freud even went so far as to suggest that dreams protect our sleep.

Whatever the reason is, I personally love having dreams and hearing about other peoples dreams and listening to their interpretation of the dream.

I wonder - can dreams create a feeling of adoration, or even love, for someone? If you have a romantic, happy or even sensual dream about a person you know - whether you are close to them in life or not, could that dream mean you have feelings towards them, whether consciously or not?

On the other side of that, if you have a dream about a close friend or a loved one hurting you, either emotionally and physically, would you feel any differently about that person the next day? I know I have had a dream like that before and the next day I felt unreasonably stressed and irritable at that person and it actually took me until the evening of that day to realise why.

I also think that if you have a really quite frightening dream, be it violent, a horror movie scenario, or just featuring a personal fear, it is often difficult to completely get rid of that spooky feeling when you wake up - whether you wake up naturally or as a result of the bad dream.

I believe that dreams are an amalgamation of various components. A series of random images, events, noises, people and places which the brain tries to put in some sort of logical order as it 'unwinds' ready for sleep. For example, have you ever had a dream that has had a 'plot' similar to a storyline on a TV show or move that you watched recently? Do you ever dream about a person who you saw and spoke to that day?

I would love to hear your views and ideas on this - what do you personally think dreams are? Have you ever had a dream affect you outside of sleep?

Elisabeth

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

Thank you for taking the time to read my first chronicle!

I appreciate my posts will be different to what you are normally used to seeing on here, but I do hope you'll enjoy them! I'll be writing on a different topic, idea or event every Friday; I am aiming to entertain as wide an audience as possible and I would love to receive any comments or suggestions you may have!

I look forward to many happy Friday's here!!

Elisabeth's Chronicle

The Wall of Speech (WoS) is not a static wall. It tries to improve itself as time goes by. Some changes were already madeand it is now time for another one.

A few days ago I came up with the following site (Wine Glass Logistics), and while I was reading I immediatly came with a new idea. So I asked the author to join and, lucky for me, she accept it. Starting tomorrow, Elisabeth will begin hers weekly chronicle.

Hope you'll enjoy it

Stran

The Material Brain

Salon.com has a great interview with Steven Pinker and Rebecca Goldstein in which they discuss, among other things, the idea of consciousness going beyond the physical mechanics of the brain.

Virtually all religious believers think the mind cannot be reduced to the
physical mechanics of the brain. Of course, many believe the mind is what communicates with God. Would you agree that the mind-brain question is one of the key issues in the “science and religion” debate?
PINKER: I think so. It’s a very deep intuition that people are more than their bodies and their brains, that when someone dies, their consciousness doesn’t go out of existence, that some part of us can be up and about in the world while our body stays in one place, that we can’t just be a bunch of molecules in motion. It’s one that naturally taps into religious beliefs. And the challenge to that deep-seated belief from neuroscience, evolutionary biology and cognitive science has put religion and science on the public stage. I think it’s one of the reasons you have a renewed assault on religious beliefs from people like Dawkins and Daniel Dennett.
The neuroscientific worldview — the idea that the mind is what the brain does — has kicked away one of the intuitive supports of religion. So even if you accepted all of the previous scientific challenges to religion — the earth revolving around the sun, animals evolving and so on — the immaterial soul was always one last thing that you could keep as being in the province of religion. With the advance of neuroscience, that idea has been challenged.

This question has always been fascinating to me, partly because I know a lot of progressive people who see the hypocrisy of religion, and the brilliance of scientific thinking, and yet have such a hard time with the idea that everything you think and feel can be reduced down to material mechanisms in the brain. Some are even offended by the notion that feelings such as love don’t have some sort of extra-physical existence.

To me, complexity does not mean that we need to step out of the realm of the physical to attempt to explain something. The brain is truly a remarkable organ, and every day we learn more and more how remarkable it is. People have always turned to religion, to spirituality, to explain what they could not understand - and the workings of the brain are perhaps the last refuge for these people. It’s the last pillar of religious belief to fall.

Something to think about it…

When I was younger I would always look forward to the future. My main Idea was that in future we would be in power and so all the injustice that we felt those days would end. It was as simple as this: once we reach the years to make decisions (political, economical and social decisions) would change because we would do the right decision.

Well reality is now different and no revolution came, little changes happened but nothing worth enough to be proud. Well a pessimistic would say: “That is life!” but my eternal positive view of the world does not allow me to support that view.

For now I only would like to know this:

If you had a chance what would you change in this life?

Well just something to think about the weekend …

(If you want please leave a comment on this question)