Miss Kolka

Sitting in a restaurant the other day, I was very involved in a discussion about marriage - why people get married - how life has changed nowadays exc. I have been maybe a bit silly during the years but I've told anyone who want's to hear it that I don't plan to marry when I grow up. Of course I would love a big family and all but since I was a child I didn't really see a point in getting married, It wasn't something I was aiming for personally and I don't consider marriage more of a commitment than having children lets say or a pet. Also I consider that it would be more of a contract between two people today,obvioulsy quite easy to break, that an actual commitment for life  (maybe there I'm wrong) and that in our day and age marriage is not the same it was a only a century ago when it really was "until death do us part". But only stupid people never change their minds...

That evening at the restaurant, there was a stranger sitting at the next table. A good looking man with white hair and a white beard eating by himself with headphones in his ears, maybe listening to music, some news or whatever else people listen to when they eat alone in restaurants, he didn't seem to pay much attention to us. When leaving the table - long after the famous marriage discussion - he pauses for a second and turns to me, adressing me with a perfect american accent:

"young lady, let me tell you something. I was married for 46 years and there is only one reason in the world to get married - you simply are swept away by the other person."

And then he left.

Well, maybe its because I am a child of divorced parents, maybe its because I don't like disappointment (who does?) or maybe I have been so naive to think that I could avoid it by not getting married - I don't know...I sure like wedding parties.. and beautiful white dresses, that's for sure. Whether I will ever have both the same day is another matter...

Do I need words?

Burma has been our top story for a week now. Burma I say a bit confused because everyone else, all the media and even the United nations call it Myanmar - its the name the military gave the country in english after it seized power in 1989. It changed the name of the capital (until 2006) Rangoon into Yangon - but strangely enough France 24 seems to be the only network that refuses to use the term chosen by the military regime... On France 24 you will only see Burma or Birmanie in french with Rangoon and Rangoun. (this has caused problems in our online version since wires from news agencies AFP and Reuters are published there with the Myanmar name while on the screen we never use it)

Looking for more details I found that the original name, chosen by British authorities at the time of the independence in 1948 was Burma. Then the military regime who wanted to distance itself from the former British rulers, decided to change the name in english into "Myanmar" to reflect the official name in burmanese which is Myanma, or Bama on occasion. Also according to Wikipedia "the military thought that the name Myanma was more inclusive of minorities than the name Bama".According to an anthropologist cited by the BBC the "formal term is Myanmar and the informal, everyday term is Burma. Myanmar is the literary form, which is ceremonial and official and reeks of government. [The name change] is a form of censorship. If Burmese people are writing for publication, they use Myanmar, but speaking they use Burma".

But it is a problem because minorities in the country had become used to the english name Burma over the years - and opposition parties have argued that the new name "Myanmar" reflects the policy of the ruling regime where the ethnic Burman majority rules over the minorities. Burma is made of many different racial groups coming either from India, China and Cambodia or descending from other groups formed many centuries ago from Siamese and thai tribes - so the racial mixture is important.

Its strange that the international community accepts the terms the military chose (at least for the name of the country - but not the choice of the new capital, Naypyidaw) and still does not recognise the power in place. (Musharraf in Pakistan came into power also after a military coup).
Since the violence began in Burma a week ago - The whole world has been condemning and warning the military of using force - and it also recognises Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been in house arrest for most of the last 18 years, as the rightful winner of democratic elections in 1989.
Is France 24 by using these terms taking sides with the burmanese opposition? Isn't that a little bit unprofessional?
This whole thing is confusing.

And not only the nomenclature. The interest the world media have showned in the clashes from day one are clear. Its a little bit like waiting for disaster to happen. I believe we have seen huge protests in other countries before - somehow here because of the oppression and the difficulties of getting information out if the country I think the media see the opportunity of testing their limits. They all want to be the first with the story - and have exclusive access to it - so as soon as a journalist witnesses what happens it becomes breaking news. All the images coming out thanks to the internet and account of ordinary people make this a differently reported revolution. And the Internet has become one of the main factors to illustrate the difference between the crackdown in 1988 and now. Its strange how self-obsessed the media can sometimes be. Of course by this I don't mean that the events in Burma are of none importance but it is still intruiging how quickly it got the world's attention. Without anyone asking any questions how we were reporting it.

AFP 27/09/07 22h20 GMT+1
"Security forces swept through Myanmar's main city Thursday, killing nine people including a Japanese journalist, and arresting hundreds more in a brutal crackdown on anti-government protests."

9 killed - among those a japanese and probably a german...

In gaza - Israel killed 12 persons in air strikes during the last two days

In Iraq, 27 died in different bomb attacks around the country.

It does matter where you live.

a warm welcome!?

Ahmadinejad has spoken.

But only after a rather humiliating introduction by Columbia president Lee Bollinger.
It was quite surprising to hear the University scholar make so direct remarks about The Iranian President while "welcoming" him as a guest speaker, saying that he behaved like a "petty and cruel dictator" and was either "provocative or uneducated" when he talked about the Holocaust. Of course Ahmadinejad was rather surprised by this and said that where he came from, people did not make assumptions about their guests or insulted them before they spoke. Then he went on with a religious rhetoric for quite a while, saying that Science was a gift from god and that Knowledge was the most important element for human beings. He mentioned the nuclear, Isreal and Palestine - and from what I heard (and I listened to the whole speech) he asked there to be more research on the Holocaust and that he was for a wider debate on the matter - without banning "revisionists" from expressing themselves - making there a little wink to the so much appreciated freedom of speech of the Americans. He also said that it was unacceptable for Palestinians to suffer the consequences of the Holocaust 60 years later.

Ahmadinejad answered his critics saying that Iran did not want to develop a nuclear bomb - that it was outdated and had never really served anyone. (whether they are trying or not is besides the point) He also answered Bollinger's remarks about Iran executing homosexuals in front of the public. He simply said that there were no homosexuals in Iran like in the Us, that this phenomenon did not exist there. By phenomenon I dont know whether he ment homosexuals or their execution. It was nevertheless an intriguing answer to a strange question - I have never heard about those executions and I don't think the United states can lecture anyone on inappropriate executions.

Ahmadinejad may have his views and to some they might sound foolish and ignorant. My experience is that he is well-spoken, well educated (he is a senior lecturer at Tehran University on regular basis), intelligent and follows a rational line of thought. He might though on occasion say things that appear bizarre, provocative or mention god a little too much for my taste. But he does come from a different culture and I find it astonishing how the media portray him as a madman and lunatic. When what he does is get attention to his point of view - which is clearly different from the usual political crap we are used to hear. People saying things they dont mean and doing the opposite of what they preach. We are of course capable afterwards to make our own judgement. He at least is not as "bad" in his choice of words as I would have imagine nor does he say "evil" things or threaten other countries (not even Isreal this time).

To Condelezza Rice's comment that it would have been a "travesty" if Ahmadinejad would have been allowed to visit the world trade center because "I think this is somebody who is the president of a country that is probably the greatest state sponsor of terrorism", I can only say this:
Because the United stated have never sponsored terrorism?? What about Cuba in the 1970's, the Contras in Nicaragua in the early 1980's, the early Saddam years and Bin laden before he decided to turn against his previous sponsors? What is Israel doing in the Palestinian territories? Many would argue that their actions are the biggest example of modern state terrorism today and remind us again who is their most loyal ally? Nonono the US NEVER sponsor any kind of terrorism...

Whatever was said I think it was very rude and disrespecful of the audience to boo the guest speaker who is after all the president of a country that has over 70 million people.

• very classy | 05-09-2008
• Im not seventeen anymore | 02-09-2008
• The word is out | 01-09-2008
• What's beneath the Iceberg? | 30-07-2008
• Im back! | 29-07-2008
• Það er komin 17. júní | 17-06-2008
• In memoriam | 09-06-2008
• Noh Það er bara svona! | 22-05-2008
• Remember 5 fruits and vegetebles per day! | 21-05-2008
• How much is enough? | 09-05-2008
• Where is Iceland's money coming from? | 06-05-2008
• There's no way out | 19-04-2008
• Sendi it back to China | 07-04-2008
• Poisson d'avril | 01-04-2008
• Wish I was | 30-03-2008