> It is contradictory to first criticise Sweden for anti-enviro behavior
> ("hydroelectric and mining development") and then in the next sentence
> applauding the EU for its anti-enviro bullying against Sweden.
Chris, you left out a sentence in which I said that the Swedes are well able
to look after themselves. That's all I said. I didn't applaud the EU.
Throughout history, the Swedes have always looked after themselves very
well.
> Ed Weick's "defense" of the _Samis_ does not make sense either, because
> the effects of the EU bullying are negative for the Samis too: A worse
> environment, financial drainage to Brussels, more crime and inequality,
> increased immigration and the EU's cultural "harmonisation" (read:
> assimilation) will *harm* if not destroy the Sami culture.
> Also, the EU forces Sweden to reduce the price of alcohol (its very high
> alcohol prices have been the most effective means of limiting consumption
> and the injuries caused by alcohol). Guess what effect this will have on
> the Samis ? According to several international researchers, the eventual
> price reduction to EU levels will lead to an increase in alcohol-related
> injuries by at least 50%, and 3,000 more alcohol-related deaths per year
> in Sweden.
>
> So, Ed Weick once more revealed his political illiteracy, by reveling in
> schadenfreude about Sweden's subjugation to the EU. Actually, the fate
> of the Samis is a point *against* the EU system, and in favor of the
> different model of Europe I mentioned earlier.
No way! I was not reveling in anyone's schadenfreude. The Swedes have to
make their own peace with the EU. And, I suppose the Saams have had to make
their own peace with the Swedes. I have no idea of where that relationship
stands now. What I witnessed took place thirty years ago. At the time I
also visited northern Norway and Finland, both of whom had a much better
relationship with their Saamic populations.
>t seems that Chris is the
> > > one who has the data. I even shout encouragement when something you
or
> > > he says that challenges my prejudices. That is the fun of this type
of
> > > aggressive dialogue.
> >
> > I would be more willing to argue points and facts with Chris if he
didn't
> > suggest that I swallow PR whole or am a reactionary. I felt he
overstepped
> > it a bit.
>
> What a cheap excuse for failing to provide data to support his claims.
> Ed W. failed to do so already long before I made the above compliments.
Chris, do you like being called names? Does it really improve the tone of a
dialogue?
Ed
