There’s a saying along the lines of “a good compromise is when both parties leave without satisfaction.” The problem with that is that you can just over-exaggerate your suggestion and then negotiate a compromise that is what you actually wanted, making you seem like you threw some bones to the party you’re compromising with. Politicians are oh so good at doing this.

Take the recent political brawl about the FRA law. Proponents want it to pass. Opponents want to reject it completely (though mostly to change a few details and vote it through when they’re in power themselves). Proponents call names and say the opponents are bad at politics since they can’t come up with a compromise.

Some things are so stupid and dangerous that you should never compromise with them — that just make them slightly less stupid and dangerous. It’s the equivalent of suggesting “give me all your money” and then calling names when you don’t want to compromise and only hand over half of your money.

Today there was an article by Carl B. Hamilton (in Swedish), frowning upon us little people for “not understanding” why the FRA law is good for us.

This is the same deal the Moderates used when they got trounced in the 2002 election — “We must have failed to reach people with our information.” That they in fact did reach people, and people didn’t like what they saw, is of course a possibility that’s impossible to accept if you’re a politician. No, clearly the people misunderstood or never received the information.

The problem with Hamilton’s article is that it doesn’t make a case at all. All he says is that “there are reasons” for the FRA law, yet never stating them. If they’re secret, just say so. Don’t assume we’re too dumb to understand them.

Might it have something to do with the fact that then-minister of defense Mikael Odenberg on the 13th of April 2007 signed an agreement with USA to exchange information for “terrorism research”? And that a large part of Russia’s internet traffic is routed through Sweden, making it a handy place for some wiretapping?

The disconnect between career politicians and normal people just keeps growing.

There’s a long rant about the FRA law coming up later.

Unfortunately, sir, the Bush regime does not recognize the proper definition of the term terrorist. If you will examine the list of known “terrorist” organizations they released, you will see quite a few political groups that have never been involved in acts of terror, nor advocated them.

Furthermore, your suggestion that America is right to attack Iraq is ludicrous. There are only two types of people dying in Iraq: children who die because we have imposed harsh restrictions on the nation of Iraq, and criminals who die for violating the laws of Iraq. How is this any different from America? Where, in the month of March, nearly 300 men have been put to death in Texas alone. The primary difference, you might say, is that some of those criminals in Iraq are merely political dissidents who oppose the Iraqi regime.

This thinking is flawed in two regards. First, America itself has begun to jail political dissidents as part of their war on terrorism. I can think of no better example than of the three men who were arrested for donating money to help Iraqi citizens. Members of our government have repeatedly claimed that financial contributions are protected as political speech, and yet the same rights have been denied to critics of our government. We jail dissidents while Iraq kills them. Obviously, we are morally superior to Iraq, no? Obviously he’s a horrible despot who slaughters his citizens by the hundreds. Yet, from the perspective of nations like France or Britain, we are the morally depraved for we kill our common criminals. By the hundreds, we kill them. Should we expect the British or French to wage war against America to stop us from immorally killing our own citizens?

Of course, you may counter by reminding us of the Kurds, whom Saddam willfully exterminated. However, America has comitted a similar atrocity against its own people. You may suggest that that was long ago, and that it no longer matters; that we no longer butcher our citizens. This is true, but only because we instead murder the citizens of other nations. How can we claim, then, to be any better?

Despite your concerns about the loss of our civil liberties, you nonetheless advocate war with Iraq. I promise you that, once Iraq has been bombed and Saddam killed/deposed, that the loss of our liberties will continue, but at an increased rate, for the invasion of Iraq would further strengthen the resolve of the many anti-American rebels who remain in this world.

Another interesting thought: what would Uncle Sam say if Saddam is defenestrated and a democratically elected Iraqui government starts a nuclear program?