Some thoughts on alcohol..

It can be no doubt that the Norwegian alcohol laws are quite strict. Alcohol is generally very expensive, it is only sold at certain times, and stronger alcohols such as spirits and even wine are sold only through special alcohol outlets (Vinmonopolet). Also, in traffic, there is a zero-tolerance towards alcohol.

This stands out in stark contrast to the country where I currently live, the UK. Here alcohol is sold any time, at low prices, and even heavily discounted. Very often, the person behind the counter in the corner shop will inform you that there is a 8 cans of beer for 6 pounds offer if you pick a less cheap alternative from the shelf. And what's more; you will often see people getting behind the steering wheel after a drink or two.

A couple of years ago, I spent a year in Germany as an exchange student. During that time, I got into the habit of drinking wine with my dinner at night. Coming back to Norway, I got a little annoyed when I "re-discovered" that wine is not sold in regular grocery-shops. To get yourself a bottle of wine for dinner, you'll have to go to the alcohol-outlet. I do still think that is a little over the top; why making getting a bottle of wine such a hassle? But having seen all the problems with alcohol here in the UK, I think the Norwegian alcohol legislation is mainly a good thing. There is a clear correlation between price and availability, and consumption - making alcohol less readily available reduces consumption. Alcohol (and stronger alcohols in particular) should be rather expensive and not too easy to get hold of.

Of course, alcohol abuse is a complex problem, both on an individual level and sociologically. As the drunkard Jeppe said in Ludvig Holbergs play Jeppe on the Hill, "Everyone says that Jeppe drinks, but no one asks why". To be sure, even with very strict alcohol legislation, a lot of Norwegians get pissed out of their brains too. But compared to the Brits, that's Sunday school. And it certainly would not help to reduce alcohol consumption to make it cheaper and more available.

Another aspect of it is that the legislation is helping to shape the norms and attitudes towards alcohol. For me, it would be almost unthinkable to get behind the wheel and drive after even only one beer. I think that goes for most Norwegians. Drinking and driving does not go together, full stop. That attitude is greatly helped by the strict non-tolerance laws when it comes to alcohol and driving.

I do not mean to present Norwegians as particularly good drinkers - we certainly are not. Many Norwegians drink too much and too often. The steep prices on alcohol (particularly in bars and discos) makes us drink more before we hit the town, so that we won't have to drink so much after going out. This of course just makes us drunker earlier in the evening. But having seen the attitudes towards alcohol here in the UK have made me a little more wary towards the problems associated with alcohol, and I would not want Norway to resemble the UK any more than we already do in this respect.

Scandinavian Gentlemen?

In this post, I would like to pick up the lead from one of my May posts, "Norwegian "politeness"", and continue on that. The other day, I had a little discussion with some of my colleagues at work about gentlemen. It might be said that we Scandinavians are not truly behaving like gentlemen, at least not in the classical sense - e.g. like a Frenchman. We often don't help the women put on their coats, hold their chairs, open the doors for them, etc. - all the things that would be expected from the classical gentleman.

Personally, I think the 1970s did a great deal of harm to the concept of being a gentleman in Norway. That probably holds true in some other countries as well. The 70s were of course a time of great liberation for women, and we (both women and men) should be very thankful of that. Still, the gentleman in the classical sense was largely sacrificed on the altar of equality at that time.

In the biological sense, the reason women need men at all after the act of conceiving their child is protection. Men are stronger than women, and particularly when the woman is pregnant, they are better equipped to gather food for her and care for her and her offspring. And when the family was faced with danger, the man is of course better equipped to ward off those dangers. To me, the classical gentleman embodies a lot of that strength and that ability to take care of his woman, albeit in a slightly more sophisticated form than the neanderthal club-wielding brute.

In the 70s, with the women's liberation, women seemed to not need men to take care of them any more. They could get jobs of their own, earn their own money, and take care of themselves. When men were trying to take care of them, that was seen as reactionary and as if they wanted to turn the clock back to the time when women were chained to the kitchen - which was not necessarily true.

It seems to me that the Norwegians (especially women) see equality as being the same. Instead of cherishing the difference between the sexes, we want men and women to be the same, and to be doing the same things. We want the same number of female truck drivers as male, the equal number of construction workers, electricians, computer technicians etc., and we want the same number of female and male nurses and kindergarden teachers.

Thanks to the developments from the 1970s, the Norwegian society is one of a very large degree of equality between the sexes, but at the same time one that does not seem to appreciate the virtue of gentlemanliness. Although I do appreciate the fact that men and women do have equal opportunities, I think it is a little sad that being a gentleman is not really something that is valued in our culture. Personally, I think we should celebrate the fact that men and women are different. Of equal value and with equal opportunities, but still different.

There is nothing wrong with men taking care of their women and children. Still, I think it is true for a lot of men that our culture have not instilled in us a sense that this is an important value (living with a French woman, this is something I get pointed out all the time). Our women are capable of taking care of themselves, so what do they need us to do that for? What do they need us to hold the door for them, or hold their coat, or bring them flowers? Of course they don't need us to, but how nice is it not when we do?

Tom Waits rejected by us?!?

This summer, Tom Waits is doing a European tour, which doesn't happen all too often. And Oslo was originally planned as one of his stops. But alas! he was rejected! How about that?! Isn't that just grand? One of the worlds most famous, and - in my opinion - greatest artists was rejected when he finally had us on his program. I want to cry.. The last time he held a concert in Norway was 23 years ago, in 1985.

Tom Waits is a bit particular about which venues he plays at. At his planned concert in Oslo, he wanted to play at the new opera building in Bjørvika, which he found suitable. But as the Opera needed to do some maintenance in preparation for Porgy and Bess, which will be on stage from August 9, and thus could not find any time for Waits to play.

The building of the opera has been criticized as a cultural elite-project which would only benefit a few. To its defense, the opera has as one of its objectives to focus on rock, jazz, and world music, particularly in the summer. In accordance with this objective it would have been appropriate to do everything possible for mr Waits to hold his concert at the opera. Waits is hugely popular in Norway, and him playing in Norway (after 23 years) would have been appreciated by many.

As a curiosity, I'd like to mention the "Tom Waits race". Every spring, hundreds of women aged 12 and up gather in the Frogner Park in Oslo to take part in the Grete Waitz-race, instigated by the Norwegian runner Grete Waitz. As a male alternative to this very healthy and wholesome race, the Tom Waits race was established. This race is mainly a pub-to-pub crawl in Oslo, taking part at the same time as the Grete Waitz race. During the race, the bars and pubs on the route will of course play mainly Tom Waits tunes.

The Bear and Us - Russia and Norway

This week, the Norwegian foreign minister, mr Jonas Gahr Støre, held a speech on Russo-Norwegian relations at the Norwegian Insitute for Foreign Policy (NUPI). The main points in his speech was that the relationship between Norway and Russia has never been as good as now, but that it could and should get even better. Russia is on the right track, but the authoritarian tendencies are worrying. We do have a close dialogue with Russia, but we need to stay critical in our talks with our neighbor. But even though our relationship with Russia is improving, we are firmly rooted in the West and this will not change.

Mr Støre has proved himself as a great ambassador for Norway in capacity as foreign minister, and he deserves all the praise he gets for his job. He shows nuanced and well informed views, and he is not afraid of standing up for the Norwegian interests.

As he says, we need to have a good relationship with our eastern Neighbor, and we certainly do, at least on the "popular" level. This is especially true for the areas of Norway closest to the Russian border, such as Kirkenes, where even street signs are written both in Norwegian and Russian. But it also hold true for other parts. We do have a large Russian immigrant population, which is very well integrated. In some areas in Finnmark (northern Norway), Women with Russian background (mostly first-generation immigrants), make up almost 6% of the total female population in working age (Sør-Varanger 5.7% and Båtsfjord 5.8% in 2007). The male immigrant population is somewhat lower; on average it is 51% of the female one.

On the state-level (foreign policy), the relationship is good as well. We do have a good dialogue, and commercial and cultural exchange. But we do need to show some caution. The Russian state certainly is thumping its chest and showing some muscles, trying to build its reputation and self-esteem after the fall of the Soviet state. In is speech, Støre said that he has understanding for this. To a certain extent, I agree, but we should not accept the more worrying examples of this, such as the treatment Russia gave Ukraine and Georgia in 2007-2008, when it stopped exports of gas in the middle of the winter.

In the arctic area, we do have huge areas of sea where the border lines are not clearly drawn. With the recent findings of large oil and particularly gas fields here, this is an area of potential conflict with Russia. Little Norway do not want to get into a muscle-flexing contest with the Russian Bear here. So, as Støre pointed out, we need both to improve the already good relationship we have with Russia, as well as keep ourselves rooted in the West. A good relationship will minimize the risk of getting into some sort of conflict here, and being firmly rooted in the West (including NATO) will provide a deterrent as well as help if, in the future, we should need it - God forbid.

***

By the way, this is my 50th blog post, so I will allow myself a little congratulation. I started this blog last August, while I was living in Prague. Since then, I have more or less regularly been posting on various Norway-related subjects. I have certainly enjoyed it, and I will keep it going as long as I still do, which hopefully will be a long time. So, thanks for all the comments so far, and hopefully you will pop by as regularly as I post.

The kicksled!

The other day, me and my girlfriend visited some friends of ours who had just come back from a little holiday in Norway (they even brought us some nice goat's cheese and bamsemums.) They are planning on moving to Norway not too far into the future, and while visiting, I had a brief look in a book they had lying around - Living in Norway: A Practical Guide. This seemed like an excellent reference for anyone planning on going to Norway, almost like the Huey, Dewey and Louie's Junior Woodchucks' Manual - it seemed to have an entry for anything you'd want to know, from car registration to dress codes to marriage rules.

One of the entry's I noticed was about the kicksled (spark or sparkstøtting in Norwegian). The kicksled is basically a sled made of a light wooden frame with metal runners (see picture). You ride it standing on the metal runners, holding the handle bars on top of the wooden frame or chair, pushing/kicking with one leg to move forward. On the right surface, you can easily get to speeds of 15-20 km without too much effort. And you can even place your kid, friend or groceries on top of the "chair".

Although it's not very common in larger cities (mostly due to the fact that the surface rarely is suitable), it is very common in more rural areas. Where I come from, almost every family has got one of these sleds. Everybody uses them, from old grandmas to little kids. It's very handy for grandma to go around with in the winter (she can place her shopping bag on the front and support herself on it so she won't fall on slippery winter surfaces), and loads of fun for kids to race downhill in the streets with. And it gets you around a lot faster than walking with not much more effort.

The history of the kicksled is a bit blurry, but it's got a recorded history of some 140 years - it was first mentioned in a Swedish newspaper around 1870. At that time the runners were wooden. The first metal runners, which made the sled a lot more flexible, came in the 1900s. From the 1890s on, the sled has been used for races, which it is very suitable for. In the 1990s kicksled racing was revived in Finland, with races up to 100 km and racers averaging 30 km/h.

A die-hard myth - the paper clip..

Since I recently did a blogpost recently on the cheese slicer, I wanted to write something about another wonderful Norwegian invention, namely the paper clip. According to our childhood learning, this is one of many Norwegian inventions that we can be proud of. But, alas, as I did some quick research, I soon discovered - to my great shock - that the paper clip is not a Norwegian invention, at least not in the sense we long have claimed.

According to the myth, the paper clip was invented by Johan Vaaler at the end of the 19th century, was patented in 1899, and soon spread to the rest of the world. This has been a very strongly held belief in Norway, and as late as 2005 the Norwegian lexicon Norsk biografisk leksikon (Norwegian biographical lexicon) presented Johan Vaaler as the inventor of the paper clip. And in 1989 the business school BI in Sandvika, Oslo erected a monument of the paper clip in honour of mr Vaaler. In fact the myth has not only been believed in Norway, but has held some ground all over the world, most strongly it seems, in the USA.

Actually, the first patented paper clip, was by an American by the name of Samuel B. Fay in 1867. The next one, which is very similar to the most common current one (as seen in the top picture), was by Erlman J. Wright in 1877.

The one invented by Johan Vaaler was significantly less practical than the one we use today, as can be seen in the illustration on the right. It did not have the extra bend that makes the paper clip so easy to use. Because of the lack of that extra bend on the wire, it was harder to actually put on the pieces of paper to be held together and at the same time did not hold them together as strongly as Wright's design. Still, he got his invention patented. For obvious reasons, it never became any commercial success - or any other kind for that matter.

For more on the paper clip and the Norwegian paper clip myth, check out the Norwegian or the English version of Wikipedia.

Renewable fuels

In a new report, the Norwegian Energy Council recommends that Norway build three to five new offshore windmill parks in the next 10-15 years. The EU has stated it's goal that 20% of energy consumption in Europe should be from renewable sources within 2020, which opens a huge market. The Energy Council recommends that Norway capture around 20% of this market.

Personally, I think this a splendid idea. In a long-term perspective, we have no other choice than going over from carbon-based fuels to renewable ones. It is a choice of doing that or perish.

Norway has got both the money and the talent to be able to get ahead in this sector. In December 1969 we were blessed with finding oil in the North Sea. Prudent oil-policies has left us with a sovereign wealth fund worth from 2.000 to 2.800 billion NOK (roughly 200-280 billion british pounds). And due to the budgetary rule, this is a fund that will not be eaten away any time soon. It is a fund that will secure a relatively bright future for Norway in all foreseeable future. Oil has also left us with know-how that can be transferred to off-shore wind-power. We have after all been working off-shore for around 40 years with oil.

Being a nation that can thank our wealth to a large extent to oil, it would also be the ethical thing to do. After having amassed huge amounts of money on a type of energy that is having a detrimental effect on the globe, it would be the most ethically correct thing to use some of that on research and development of types of energy that is more environmentally friendly.