Sometimes Football isn’t everything

I was going to write about the disappointing defeat against Trelleborg in Allsvenskan today. But something happened earlier that night that made the match and result irrelevant.

Six people died yesterday in a fire in my old neighborhood, and five of them where young girls between the ages 1 to 16. We know people die every day, but it only affects us when it’s something that relates to us. Why is that? Is it because we think that it could be us? Are we that self oriented?

Many of my earlier writings comes back to the same thesis: that we(human beings) are selfish and mainly think of ourselves. But why is that? And is it impossible to change that?

Meanwhile my condolences goes to the family of the people lost in the fire in Rinkeby, Stockholm and all the other lives lost way to early……

Mild On Fire

3 New players in 1 week, Stiller from Qviding which can be seen as a backup to Hysen, Bjarnason from Lyn which is a little of joker. The Icelandic international was predicted to be the new star behind Eidur but has not fulfilled his potiental according to critcs. Last but not least the Finish U-21 defender Turunen. How all this changes will affect the upcoming form will be interesting but I dont think it will be any major changes in the starting eleven. Bjarnason and Turunen will be the ones closest to get some playing time. I hope Bjarnason arrival wont affect Barkroth chances of some time on the pitch to much.

The two matches next week will be really interesting in many different ways, like i said earlier In Mild we trust!

Other than that i wonder how Eto’o and Hleb are feeling.

World 2050 Part IIII

The technologic progress is not enough to create one united world culture, but it will be the most important factor of integration of different cultures. Over the past week I have seen videos from 3 different continents on the internet. I receive information that could be sent from anywhere in the world, everyday. The progress of the internet and how it has developed everyone to take part of the global news feed without really taking notice of it is crucial. The information revolution was silent and fast and was as emphasized on two things: flexibility and speed. Globalization will not create a universal culture or universal ethical guidelines, it may lead to a deeper understanding between different cultures when different cultures are forced in interact with one and other to achieve the most important thing today; progress and revenue. I agree with Huntington who states that there always will be conflicts between different groups, but globalization can be a factor that creates fewer conflicts between different groups.

Many people claim that globalization causes poverty in the world to rise and more people are starving today than hundred years ago, I belong to the optimistic group in this question and believe that the world is slowly becoming a better place to live in, and that the people living in decent environment is rising. Unfortunately the percentage of poor people doesn’t change because of the constant population increase, but I still want to see this as something positive. The problem is the way the wealth of the world is divided out.

Multinational corporations are competing out local companies and developing countries with bad economy which currently is having has a hard way finding its place in the global world and global economy. The problem arises when the economic growth of a developed country often happen of the cost of the undeveloped country’s living standard, large corporations who sells cheaper products compete the smaller businesses out and as a result the countries production stops which leads to less jobs, and no incentive to develop a infrastructure, and as a result the economy falls and the inflation rises. What if the large multinational countries move their production to a developing country? That is also something that’s not beneficial for the developing country; the production is made for a very cheap cost. The corporation and the working conditions are often inhuman and this is just another form of slavery, which cripples the developing country economy. When the demand of production rises, the demand on environment rises as well, which will not affect the developed country when the factory is another country, this will only affect the poor country’s environment and the condition for the population in that country.

Democracy and globalization seems to go hand and hand, but the fact is that most of the undeveloped nations don’t see the United States as a model for progress but rather looks and relates more to China, which now is an open market but not a democracy. I believe that democracy will eventually prevail and be the global government form but that won’t happen until all nations have a larger population of middle class citizens than lower class citizens. And if that will ever happen or if that is even possible I don’t know.

These changes ahead of us will lead to different kind of conflicts in our society, conflicts between nations will now affect a larger the globe in a larger scale and conflicts will be primarily over resources. While other nations are developing and a global middle class is rising and the standard of living is going up, this will cause a heavy strain on the world resources, when for example oil is virtually tapped out it will lead to conflicts between different nations that are competing for the last resources. The transformation and the development of Information technology have been tremendous the last couple years. However the need of the World does not necessarily need more information or better ways to acquire it, but more energy and better creation of alternative fuels.

The distribution of resources and the difficulties that comes up with this task, gives nations with a developed infrastructure for alternative fuels an advantage that will set the tone of the new world. Nations that invest in researching and innovating new ways for energy and are successful will essentially control the world. Imagine if a country like China produces a fuel that nobody yet have the “know-how” to produce. That would mean that China within 50 years would be the only super power, the question that arises is would the rest of the world let that happen? This is not a scenario picking on China but we could take any country for that matter, which is able to produce a new kind of fuel. It will be captivated by its own resource in a way. It will be like creating gunpowder all over again, it could be used for financial gain, or it could use it for imperial motives. Regardless it would be a very unstable scenario in many aspects and would lead us towards a very dangerous path.

The chance of reaching a equilibrium point and setting a limitation of using certain natural resources, and creating an agreement between states, is a very hard thing to for me to imagine to be something realistic, but if the situation escalates to a point where the everyday man feels like a change has to be made, there is a chance that could be happen. The moment 22 in this tough is that it probably will be to late when the everyday person realize that a change and sacrifice has to be made. Democracy’s have a problem in this aspect, not being able to create radical changes even do it’s the right changes because of public majority’s opinion.
Globalization will lead to a lot of changes when a large amount of phenomenon is internationalized and integrated all over the globe. This will involve all aspects of society. The technological progress is pushing this move towards more and more globalization, it is also changing the way we conduct business and make decisions to satisfy the demands of speed and flexibility of today and speed and flexibility will be crucial for a business in the future.

When it comes to individual needs of the future, I believe information technology will be the key, as we know information is power and someone who can localize and use relevant information will be successful in the future. Communication is something that also will be valued in the future, the skill of being able to speak with the person in their native tongue, or world is becoming more and more interconnected over different nations and in a more globalized society we are going to expect someone to be able to speak and be able to communicate in a different languages. The energy field as I stated earlier will the primary field of focus these upcoming years, and I’m also noticing more people educating themselves in to this field so we will probably notice an upswing in this field the number of educated people. Biology and genetics are two other fields I have a feeling will excel in the near future. As our world is becoming more interconnected and globalized we are also becoming more vulnerable towards epidemics and diseases. The Swine flu epidemic is an example when an outbreak in Mexico basically reached the whole world. Some parts of the world were prepared for a situation like this others were not, but the swine flu serves as a great example of much smaller our world has become.

We are seeing some major changes coming are way and I believe many older people will soon miss the cold war, when you at least knew and understood how the world was structured and divided.

World 2050 Part III

Most countries have either developed or are starting to create a niche, something they do better than any other nation, some have a sustainable niche other do not. Places like United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia will have a lot of problems in the future because their production and niche is not something sustainable. South Korea is a great example of a successful nation equipped for the new era of global economy. South Korea lacks natural resources and has the smallest territories within the G-20 nations but is still the 4th largest economy in Asia. And this is all because of their focus in a specific niche, which is high-tech. This enables the government to specifically invest in high-tech infrastructure. The government is also investing in the robotics industry, with the goal to become the world’s leading nation within financial service, and biotechnology.

Friedman argues that United States should take the leadership and create a green revolution, which will affect this country positively in the long run. Friedman states that it will be hard but the payoff will be worth it. I agree with Friedman but don’t see this happening in the near future, simply because the people are not willing to pay the price for a change in this magnitude. If Untied States don’t invest a lot of their resources in to researching and developing alternative fuels and becomes one of the leading nations in this field, it will have a lot of problems in the near future.

But that’s not all that has to change to whole mentality of overconsumption needs to change, investments in public transportations has to be made by the government, investments in education and funds for institutions researching in energy. Corporations have to be involved with larger tax cuts for company’s going green, it needs to be something expected rather than something glorified and unexpected. A lot of things need to change for United States to take the leading role in this problem. I’m not sure that this country is prepared giving away its position in the world to become more environmental friendly, even if it’s only for a couple a years.

I foresee a future where United States is no longer the dominating force in this world. The future power resource will be “know-how” technology which is something we are seeing many Asian nations investing in, and the “four Asian tigers” are steadily moving ahead and are passing all the competition. These countries will eventually challenge United States of being the leading consumer nation in the world. We are already seeing a shift of the power moving towards east from London and New York towards Japan and Kina.

Versatility and being able to adjust to different cultures is other thing that will be valued in the future, both when it comes to individuals, corporations and states. As we are becoming more integrated and cosmopolitan there are still forces in many nations that want to keep their culture and values. Conflict will rise when the dominating western world modernity and values clinch with the local traditions and cultures, which is also argued by Huntington. So when we interact with these forces it’s important to respect the customs and adjust to the given playing field.

New trends and entertainments from the west are still imported in large quantities but they are still interpreted with something internally so that the domestic culture and values are still involved. So the result become sort of a hybrid mixed entertainment culture, in the future this flow of entertainment will not go one way as it is today. The concept that the western world is influencing the rest of the world but not being influenced will soon have to be abounded. This will change with new strong economies emerges and especially India with its Bollywood and Japan and China with its animated industry are trends that are influencing rest of the world. In fact Bollywood movies are more popular and create more revenues in cinemas in Africa than productions from Hollywood, and have been doing so for a while.

As Friedman also stated oil revenue has hindered democracy to take place in certain places of the world, because the government does not have to charge tax of its citizen because of the income of the oil they are exporting. Once the oil revenues collapses many nations that don’t have a democratic government and relied on income from oil export for the function of the nation will be in huge political problems and will probably see major political reforms.

In the future there will not to be enough to have economic strength, political power and military capacity to influence other nations. And it’s obvious that relationship between the developing countries is increasing in importance and they are not any longer searching for an external expertise from their old colonial powers. China is today the developing countries role model and example of how to successfully fight poverty, and to develop a good economy.

World 2050 Part II

The United States is today the only remaining super power, but without Soviet to compete with it, the rapid development it used to have stagnated. The U.S today is not the leading power as it used to be, it’s still the leading consuming nation, but in all the fields that used to be dominated by U.S influence and research is now dominated by other nations. I believe there are two reasons for this; the first is because of the lack of external threats, there is void of competition that the Soviet Union used to provide. The external threat of the U.S today is not competing in terms of financial progress and technological development.

The second reason is the many dividing forces within this nation and conflicts of interest, without Soviet to use as external enemy to unite all the different internal factions, the enemy has now have became internal which is causing problem for progress to take place.

This has indirect lead for everything to become average, rather than what used to be world leading. This is especially noticeable when it comes to technology, the internet service providers here in the U.S are often offered as a telephone, cable, and internet service provider in one package which probably is convenient and cost effective. The problem is that it leads to a very broad and average kind of quality when it comes to bandwidth and performance, it’s not bad but it’s not good either. And this is something you can see as a pattern when you look around in different aspects, of the technological infrastructure of this nation, which is getting behind in many different areas.

There will not be any super power in hundred years; the term super power will be a thing of the past, like the great Roman Empire, the British Empire and the great Ottoman Empire. The way of the future is small operating countries that have a niche in a specific field. One of Zakaria’s guidelines also argued to choose priorities rather than to try to have it all. That’s the problem for a superpower they constantly have to try to have it all, which in the long run will not work, regardless of how long head start you may have been given.

World 2050 Part 1

When the word Globalization comes to mind I think about the world as a whole single entity. Globalization can be described as the process in which people of different ethnicities and nationality’s, around the world function as a whole single society, change and progress to be summarized in two words. But the changes we are confronting in our present time are also potential causes for changing the political power structure in the world. Globalization is changing the current power structure between producers and capital, and a new a power structure will emerge as a consequence. There are many different interpretations of the word globalization. But the common factor of all the different interpretations is that our world is becoming smaller because of globalization. The size of our globe is something that has changed dramatically over the last hundred years, and is continuously changing in a faster and faster speed. And with these changes comes great challenges and conflicts but it also creates great opportunities.

These changes in our world have made it necessary for different civilizations to interact with each order to stay successful and keeping up with the constant change and development. Importing, exporting, trading, researching, outsourcing, off shoring, and collaborating, is today something that forces within a nation are involved in. International corporations are today something very usual. Friedman also noticed that corporations like McDonalds, Coca Cola have markets today where they would never dream they would have 20 years ago. The main factor that has accelerated the globalization is the development of information technology, which allows the same information to spread out in the world with speed and flexibility.

Other factors that have accelerated globalization are the fall of the Berlin wall, which basically meant the end of the cold war. Global supply-chaining is another factor; Wal-Mart is great example of a store in the U.S that has products from all over the world. With the development of internet a local company can easily become a global company. Yahoo and Google are corporations that should be underestimated in their role in globalization. The western world have not always been the more “developed” part of the world, but different circumstances and some specific key inventions gave it a edge towards other areas of the world and that’s the way it been for a while now. I believe however that the power structure will shift in the near future, countries that were categorized as undeveloped will be surpass some of the developed countries.

Allsvenskan AIK-IFK Gothenburg

What can i say…it was expected, a 1-0 loss against AIK away hurts..a lot. AIK played decent, they were aggressive didn’t let IFK play their passing game. IFK played under their capacity but at the same time AIK kind of destroyed their attempts by fore checking and putting heavy pressure as soon IFK had possession. IFK was unlucky though and when Tobias Hysen missed a penalty, this was simple not our day.

Now Bjarsmyr is gone, the u-21 swedish captain have signed with Panathikos and I wish the best of luck, even though the way he left was kind of bad ( Bosman pressure). However I’m not worried about him leaving the 17 year old Dyrestam showed today in his first cap in Allsvenskan that he is a good defender and IFK also have Karl Svensson to use in that position. Karl Svensson was predicted to be the next big Swedish defender but after a couple bad years at Glasgow Rangers and Caen has returned to IFK to get his game back again.

I’m more worried about the hole Wernbloom has left, and I can guarantee that IFK wouldnt have lost this game if he was still around. It feels like we are missing a class player with power inside the box Wernbloom was that player. IFK still leads the league with one point but has shown a decline in form the latest matches. I hope Mild finds a class player if not it will be hard to win the league this year, Elfsborg are looking though even if they lost against Helsingborg this round. This couple of weeks will be deciding in my opinion both when it comes to transfer market and matches. Hopefully the team will bounce back in the next match.

The Worlds future…which direction are we heading?

The enlightenment’s most important idea was the faith on human beings common sense; all human beings are believed to be capable to think for themselves and make their own decisions. That’s why you shouldn’t have to believe what the people in power claims or what the different religions and churches states, we are all humans and we can all believe and make our own judgments. The enlightenment builds on the theory that progress within science and technology will lead to an improvement and growth both when it comes to materialistic needs, and social improvements. It will also lead to larger insight to human needs and desires.

Rousseau had a negative view and opinion towards science and the influence it had on human beings. He thought that science had influenced our lives too much and its influence has turned us to be more artificial. Rousseau thought that science would make us corruptible and make us feel that we accomplished something when we in reality did not, it would bring out the vices and it would make us dependent on things other than ourselves. Science has taken us away more and more from our natural habitat and our ancestry. The result of this has been a society controlled and directed by money, material things are now our ambitions and goals we strive for. The world and human beings relationships have also changed and we are more distant with each other, which leads to more conflicts. Rousseau states that science will eventually destroy the civilization either from an external threat or internal threat.

These thoughts was very different if you compare to the other French philosophers at the time (Voltaire, Diderot) more progressive and scientifically ideologies was according to Rousseau false enlightenment that only excited the people, but didn’t change the basic injustices in the world. His intentional separation against church, other philosophers of his time made him famous but unpopular at the time. The focus on the individual, separated from the full picture, separates the human from its natural habitat: other human beings. Rousseau’s very individual ideas and critic towards the modern society and the development of science can seem backwards but a lot of his thoughts actually circulate in today’s society. A lot of the predictions he made has been fulfilled but does this necessarily make his beliefs true?

Condorcet’s view was very different from Rousseau; he was positive to progress and change and believed that conflict will lead to it. A more technological and scientifically enlightened human being will be a better person morally according to Condorcet. He states that progress, based on enlightenment, gives human beings: more equality between the nations, removal of the class differences, and an improvement of the mental and moral state. Condorcet counted on less racism, improved commerce, abolishment of all war, elimination of poverty and luxury, equal rights for all human beings and public education with equal opportunity for all. A utopia like that is after hand easily to criticize even though its ideal is very appealing. The scientifically, technological and economic progress Condorcet believed in and hoped for, has today been surpassed by miles. Nuclear power, genetics, and information technology are only a few examples that you never could foresee two hundred years ago.

The world’s total wealth has evolved in a speed that exceeds all estimation and international economy and commerce has
developed. The practices of democracy and public schools have been a reality for a long time, and even though all these changes and improvements have been made, we are still not a step closer to a world free from war, diseases, and injustice. The separation between rich and poor – both when it comes to nations and individuals- is still comparable to the end of the 17th century. Equality between men and women is still in large areas of the world only a dream, and racism is still something that exists every day.

So do we give up on the world Condorcet was counting on? When the progress that is a historical necessity just is a chimera, are you then naïve if you work to make these ideals reality? Condorcet belief that enlightenment would lead to less racism, is actually correct as in my opinion, the more intellectual you are and the better education you receive the less risk you have and tendency to discriminate or have racist views. Racism is something that has stagnated since Condorcet’s times but it is a still reality in almost every society in the world, the reason for this is lack of education, and the culture. I think even if we extract the culture of being raised in a racist household and lack of education, this phenomena will continue to exist in our society due to the separation of different racial groups geographically that exist in the world. Some human beings will always be suspicious to things they are not accustomed to, and people will always will have prejudice thoughts and leap away from rationale thinking. However if these two criteria’s (education, and growing up in a racist environment) and separation between different racial groups would be removed in the world, I believe racism would basically be removed as we see it today in our world both when it comes to gender discrimination, racial discrimination and economic discrimination.

Many people claim that poverty in the world is rising and more people are starving today than hundred years ago, I belong to the optimistic group in this question and believe that the world is slowly becoming a better place to live in, and that the people living in decent environment is rising. Unfortunately the percentage of poor people doesn’t change because of the constant population increase, but I still want to see this as something positive. The problem is the way the wealth of the world is divided out, we could be closer to Condorcet Utopia if this was handled more equally. Multinational corporations are competing out local companies and developing countries with bad economy has a hard way finding its place in the global world and global economy.

The problem lies with the greed of western developed countries that no matter what strive for economic growth. A developed country with economic growth generally has it pretty well, and good economy means happy citizens, so it is not strange that these governments want to see this as well. That’s what the people want, and the politicians in the majority of these developed countries are elected by the people. The problem arises when the economic growth of a developed country often happen of the cost of the undeveloped country’s living standard, large corporations who sells cheaper products compete the smaller businesses out and as a result the countries production stops which leads to less jobs, and no incentive to develop a infrastructure, and as a result the economy falls and the inflation rises. What if the large multinational countries move their production to a developing country? That is also something that’s not beneficial for the developing country; the production is made for a very cheap cost. The corporation and the working conditions are often inhuman and this is just another form of slavery, which cripples the developing country economy. When the demand of production rises, the demand on environment rises as well, which will not affect the developed country when the factory is another country, this will only affect the poor country’s environment and the condition for the population in that country.

But where does this “right” of captivity of economic slavery, by the developed nations, seem to think have come from? Why do we choose to ignore the suffering we cause on our enviroment and other human beings? The problem in my opinion is that we think to short term and that’s something Kant would agree with. All economic growth is in first hand short term, what we need is sustainable growth but how do we reach that?

This is a very unjust spiral that’s been going on for centuries, but it can be broken through negotiations and change in the mentality of the general population of the western world. But I feel a little bit pessimistic that this would ever actually happen in our lifetime, I don’t think that we would be ready to sacrifice our wealth and standard of living today if we were guaranteed a more equal world. Human beings are in general selfish, we want more and more, and I don’t think that we are ready to make that kind of sacrifice today. So our hope for Condorcet Utopia to become reality is that science will develop so that the western world can have its economic growth without using the developing countries as “workers” for their wealth. However, this needs to happen before it’s too late and before we made unchangeable damages to the environment. What are we going to do with the wealth if we don’t have any soil to stand on? Human beings have a tendency to wait until the catastrophe is almost there to make real changes in their behavior. We wait until the cost of the conflict is not worth it anymore, to declare change, and hopefully we will be able to make these changes in our world before it’s too late.

Best Michael Jackson tribute yet!

Silly Season and IFK Gothenburg-Halmstad

Gothenburg failed to finish the match and currently I’m worried that the missing players may have left a to big hole to replace.
Feels like we are missing some quality and power in the box right now..I hope the staff know what they are doing not signing a replacement yet..If IFK Gothenburg don’t win the Swedish league this year it really feels like a year wasted both for the league as whole and for IFK. No other team in the league today has the ability to start a continuous and successful campaign in Europe and that’s what’s missing today to take the league as whole to a higher level.

On other notes Ronaldo made a great entrance today at Bernabaue, I however want to left a finger of warning to Madrid I don’t think you can buy your way to success, maybe for a year but it will evuantelly come back to hurt you. Maybe should look in to some defenders…defe huh?

And its been really quiet about Arsenal this silly season.. aren’t they the team that need some quality signings the most? Is Arsene scared to buy something expensive? I don’t think he has done a good expensive buy since Bergkamp and Henry and they were relatively cheap if we are going to talk money.

This far i feel like Ferguson has made the best buy with Owen, Nothing to lose and everything to win with that transfer and maybe Mourinho did the best deal by saving Zlatan for another year.