KRONIK: Mens algoritmerne overtager skrivebordene, og AI trykker enter, hænger gamle mediechefer fast i kliklogik og ungdomsforblændede SoMe-strategier. Mediebranchen har i 30 år reageret – aldrig innoveret.

Bragt i Medietrends

Robotterne kommer. I tusindvis. De skriver hurtigere end mennesker kan tænke, genererer idéer, overskrifter og indhold døgnet rundt, uden pause, ferie eller fagforening.

De er billigere og uden behov for kantinemad eller LinkedIn-opslag om “at være på en spændende rejse”.

Mens algoritmerne overtager skrivebordene, sidder mediebranchens top stadig tungt besat af mænd – ifølge en analyse fra Danske Medier og DMJX (2023) udgør de 64 til 82 procent af lederne. Og de klynker stadig over, at de unge ikke gider nyheder mere.

I alle mine år i mediebranchen – det vil sige de seneste 30 år har man forsøgt at ramme ungdommen med DR3, TV2 Echo, lanceret TikTok-redaktioner, og malet forsider i neon. Men intet har virket. De unge kom ikke. De blev ikke. De var aldrig rigtig inviteret med ind i maskinrummet.

I stedet har en hel generation valgt at få deres nyheder fra memes, podcast og YouTube, sandsynligvis fordi det i det mindste ikke føles som en forelæsning i skattepolitik af en redaktør, der stadig siger “internettet”.

Nu står vi midt i det teknologiske skred, hvor indhold kan genereres med ét klik. Og det store spørgsmål melder sig: Hvis AI kan skrive journalistik, hvad skal vi så bruge journalister – og de redaktionelle beslutningstagere – til?

Og med AI Overview, kunstig intelligens, der opsummerer og prioriterer information (AIO), og next level; Googles nyeste søgetilstand, som tilbyder en ChatGPT-lignende, samtalebaseret søgeoplevelse (AI-Mode) forandres journalistrollen fundamentalt.

Mulig løsning afvist

Hvis medierne vil overleve, må vi stoppe med at reagere og begynde at handle. Før andre igen løber med platformen.

En mulig samlet løsning for medierne foreslog jeg som et undersøgende Fellowship for et par år siden. “Newsify, en Spotify-lignende platform for journalistik ejet af medierne selv, var mit bud på en løsning. Den blev afvist. Men det var en fejl.

Newsify adskiller sig fra alt andet på markedet, både teknisk og redaktionelt, ved at gøre op med hele abonnementstanken, hvor det kræves at brugeren binder sig til et bestemt medie eller et samlet produkt. Her tilbyder Newsify, at indholdet aggregeres på tværs af alle tilsluttede medier, men uden at reducere journalistikken til overskrifter. Mere om det senere.

Internettet går over
I 2007 sagde en chefredaktør til mig, at det-dér internet nok bare ville gå over. Det gjorde det som bekendt ikke. Alligevel blev han i stolen i yderligere syv år gennem en af de mest transformerende perioder i moderne mediehistorie, hvor annonceindtægterne styrtdykkede, trykte medier blev afviklet, og kolleger blev fyret i hobetal.

Han var ikke alene. Mange danske mediechefer fra slut 90’erne og op gennem 00’erne delte et konservativt og visionsløst blik på fremtiden.

Internettet blev længe betragtet som et nødvendigt onde, et biprodukt snarere end en strategisk platform. De fleste reagerede sent, modvilligt og uden forbindelse til de brugere, de ellers sagde, de ville nå.

Derfor var det private aktører og investorer, der stjal markedet med bæredygtige digitale forretningsmodeller, mens medierne blot gav nyhedsindholdet væk gratis online.

Dermed lagde de grundstenen til den “gratisnyhedskultur”, som stadig underminerer mediernes økonomi i dag.

Aviserne tabte de sikre annoncer
Mens ledelseslaget på de trykte medier sad med tunnelsyn på print og krav om årsabonnementer, forblødte avisernes tre store sikre annonceindtægtskilder lige ind på private innovative online platforme til biler, bolig og brugtmarkedet.

Det private erhvervsliv har til alle tider forstået, hvad det er brugerne efterspørger og evner at levere det. Brdr. Foldager for biler, Karsten Ree for brugte sager og førende ejendomsmæglerne for boliger – tre forskellige brancher udviklede samme løsning: én samlet, pålidelig platform. Det er den forståelse, mediebranchen stadig mangler.

For blot at udstille de katastrofale følger af en ringe medieinnovation, så kunne finansmanden Karsten Ree i 2008 sælge dba.dk og bilbasen.dk til eBay for 2,1 mia. kr. efter at de to handelsplatforme forinden succesfuldt havde været online i henholdsvis 13 og 8 år.

I de samme perioder mistede printmedier væsentlige markedsandele især til internet og TV/radio.

Det økonomisk pres førte til nedskæringer og øget fokus på digital omstilling. Oplagstal for trykte aviser faldt markant, ikke bare i Danmark men også internationalt. Gratisaviser mistede deres gennemslagskraft, og flere medier begyndte at udgive nyheder gratis online.

Brugerne vænnede sig hurtigt til, at nyheder ikke koster penge, hvilket underminerede abonnementsbaserede forretningsmodeller – og stadig gør.

I umiddelbar forlængelse indtog de sociale medier brugernes opmærksomhed og Facebook og Twitter blev til nyhedskanaler. Som reaktion begyndte medierne at “jage klik” og tilpasse indhold til SoMe-algoritmer og “clickbait” og trafikfokus opstod.

Den voksende økonomiske desperation fik medier til at eksperimentere med digitale forretningsmodeller som betalingsmure, apps, podcast og video. Og de samme journalister skulle levere mere til flere.

I stedet for at satse innovativt digitalt, blev midler bundet i papirproduktion og store redaktionsbygninger, mens unge platforme som dba.dk, Bilbasen og sociale medier løb med trafikken.

Som dokumenteret, har mænd i 50’erne og 60’erne i stor grad domineret danske medieledelser, og de har sjældent været i øjenhøjde med de unge brugere eller digitale first-movers.

Dette skabte et ekko-kammer, hvor beslutninger blev truffet ud fra et printlogisk verdensbillede længe efter, at ingen eller kun få efterspurgte det. I stedet for at udvikle medier med brugerne, skete innovation ofte for brugerne som fx på DR3, hvor DR besluttede hvad de unge “burde ville se”.

Samtidig var mange medier nervøse for at miste autoritet, hvis de slap tøjlerne, og lod brugere få mere redaktionel indflydelse.

Danske mediechefer har i for høj grad reageret på udvikling frem for at lede udvikling, og da tech-giganterne for alvor slog igennem, stod de klassiske medier uden modstrategi.

Med få undtagelser er medierne for konservative, for langsomme og for reaktive i deres strategiske tilgang til fremtiden. Resultatet er tydeligt i både tabte annonceindtægter, forsvundne unge brugere og fravær af medieteknologisk innovation.

Det bliver kun værre
”Hvis du synes, at det er slemt nu – så bare vent, skrev Medietrends.dk i et af de seneste nyhedsbreve.”
AI Overview og udvidelsen AI-Mode kommer til at tvinge medierne til at gentænke deres kerneværdi.

De medier, der formår at kombinere teknologisk effektivitet med publicistisk integritet, vil stå stærkt. De, der bare “følger algoritmen”, risikerer at miste stadig flere publikum og identitet.

AI Overview og AI Mode vil sandsynligvis redefinere journalistens rolle fra formidler til kvalitetskontrollør, men det kræver kritisk teknologi-forståelse og etisk styring, hvis AI ikke skal blive en ny redaktionel blind vinkel.

Men alt det er bare snak, som højst sandsynligt igen vil få branchen til reagere frem for interagere. Og nu kan det kun være et spørgsmål om tid, hvornår der kommer der en ny privat aktør, der forstår mediebrugernes adfærd langt bedre end medieleverandørerne selv.

For mediebranchen har i øvrigt i lighed med musikbranchen aldrig formået at sikre ejerskab til deres eget produkt.

Fx ejer DR det største musikarkiv på dansk jord, hvilket vel i realiteten burde have været kunstnerne selv via KODA eller IFPI, der varetager deres interesser.
Det har imidlertid den paradoksale konsekvens, at et musikmedie eller radiostation ikke kan leje sig ind på et musikarkiv ejet af kunstnerne selv. Igen er det private entreprenører, der hører, hvad brugerne vil have, og i 2006 er det da også to svenske iværksættere, der udvikler Spotify. 

I dag er Spotify verdens største streamingplatform med mere end en halv milliard brugere globalt, og tilbyder et kæmpestort indholdsbibliotek med over 100 millioner musiknumre, 7 millioner podcasts og 350.000 lydbøger.

I over 20 år har jeg oplevet, hvordan branchetoppen konstant venter på næste bølge, næste teknologi, næste brugertrend, næste platform i stedet for selv at sætte retning.

Man analyserer, drøfter og venter alt imens virkeligheden sker. Jeg har været vidne til at medierne tabte boligmarkedet, bilmarkedet, rubrikannoncerne, generationerne og nu måske også nyhedsdagsordenen.

Fellowship til ny medieplatform
Derfor ansøgte jeg for nogle år siden Den Fynske Bladfond om et Fellowship til at undersøge og udvikle mediebranchens egen platform ejet af mediebranchen selv.
Løsningen kaldte jeg Newsify – en pendant til Spotify.

Tanken var, at indhold vises med kontekst, forfatter og originalt afsendermedie. Brugeren kan så selv frit vælge og mikrokøbe det, vedkommende har lyst til – en artikel, en serie, en journalist, en redaktion. Ingen pakker, ingen paywalls, ingen login-barrierer.

Feedet personaliseres, men med åbenhed og kontrol, hvor brugeren selv vælger interesser, stilarter eller emner og får serveret indhold uden clickbait eller annoncepres.

Forretningsmodellen bygger på mikrobetalinger og revenue share, hvilket vil sige, at journalister / medier får betaling for hvert enkelt klik eller køb – som Spotify, bare for journalistik.

Newsify er altså ikke en ny platform for medierne. Det er en ny platform for brugerne – og en ny økonomi, hvor journalistik belønnes direkte for sin værdi.

Alt sammen for at imødegå, at privatejede udenlandske internetgiganter underminerer og står for distributionen af danske nyheder.

Initiativet skulle imødegå den udvikling, vi allerede har set i musik- og bogbranchen, hvor Spotify og Amazon skræller kunstnernes indtægtsgrundlag, fordi de ikke ejer deres egne distributionskanaler.

I Danmark har medierne allerede mistet bolig-, bil- og brugtmarkedet til private aktører som Boligsiden, Bilbasen og DBA. Det næste tabte område kan meget vel blive selve nyhedsstrømmen.

Der blev sagt nej
Men danskerne havde i efteråret ’22 netop fået adgang til ChatGPT og den dengang bestående bladfondsbestyrelse med fem mænd og fire kvinder med en gennemsnitsalder på ca. 60 år, gjorde som historien over de seneste 30 år jo har vist. Man gik med en REAKTION på AI’s indtog frem for en AKTION.

Imidlertid står medierne i Danmark stadig over for store udfordringer i form af en fragmenteret teknologisk infrastruktur og en stigende konkurrence fra internationale platforme.

Sociale medier som f.eks Facebook, Instagram eller TikTok er ikke egnede til nyhedsformidling, fordi de beror på stærkt problematiske algoritmer. Det er algoritmer, der er udelukkende optimerede efter at skabe omsætning igennem annoncering og salg af persondata. Sociale medier bør derfor kun have en sekundær eller supplerende rolle som nyhedskilde.

Newsify var mit bud på et modsvar. En fælles, medieejet platform, hvor danske nyhedsmedier står sammen om teknologi, brugeroplevelse og troværdighed – ikke bare for at overleve, men for at styrke journalistikken og demokratiet.

Det handler ikke om teknologi for teknologiens skyld – men om at tage lederskab, før nogen igen gør det for os.

Anita Cramer Corpas

Anita Cramer Corpas er erfaren journalist og kommunikationsrådgiver.
Speciale: Journalistik i almindelighed, landbrug, nyheder, succeshistorier, kommunikation og mediekontakt.

www.corpas.dk

One of my most important values is justice. We want to believe the world is fair – it makes things feel safer that way. But what if it isn’t?

Three minutes of truth: “The world is not fair – thank God.” She’s my friend, and she says this to me. It sounds like a cynical relief, a sigh of realism disguised as wisdom. And yet, the sentence sticks with me – clings to my consciousness like something I should reject, but can’t quite ignore.

One of my most important values is justice. Not because I believe the world is fair – but precisely because I know it isn’t.

I believe that many people – not just me – have a deep need to believe the world is fair. Because justice provides a sense of safety. If we believe that “you get what you deserve,” then there’s some order in the chaos. It becomes a kind of defense mechanism: If I just behave well, work hard, take care of myself – then good things will come to me.

But this is exactly where my friend disagrees. She doesn’t believe in that story.

I don’t see it as a naive dream that everything should balance out, or that everyone gets what they deserve. For me, it’s a moral will – a choice to face inequality and injustice head-on, instead of looking away. It’s a belief that people are responsible for each other, especially when systems fail.

To hold on to justice as a value is a kind of resistance. Against cynicism. Against resignation. Against the idea that “this is just the way things are.” It’s a quiet but stubborn voice saying: This isn’t good enough. We can – and must – do better.

Justice doesn’t mean everything should be the same. It means we try to give people equal chances. That we see people’s worth, not just their usefulness. That we protect the vulnerable, not just admire the strong. That we understand goodness doesn’t happen on its own – and evil can’t always be explained away.

It’s a disturbing thought. Because in a truly fair universe, we might no longer excuse ourselves when we see suffering – we’d feel compelled to explain it. And worse: we might start to believe that it’s deserved.

In some societies and cultures, poverty, illness, or social failure is seen as a sign of personal weakness. If someone doesn’t succeed, people think: They must have brought it on themselves.
It becomes a kind of moral branding: Your situation reveals your worth. It’s rarely conscious cruelty – more of a social reflex that can lead to indifference and stigma.

Certain interpretations of karma give the impression that everything happens because of past actions – maybe even in a previous life.
In that mindset, even suffering in childhood can be explained as “deserved” in some larger cosmic accounting. It can be a way to make sense of senselessness – but also an excuse not to intervene.

The belief in a just world can be comforting – but it can also lead us to judge others unfairly.

So perhaps it’s precisely injustice that opens the door to compassion?
Is it because the world is not fair that we have the opportunity to choose what is good, to reach out, to do the right thing – precisely because it doesn’t happen by itself?
Injustice doesn’t become an excuse. It becomes a call.

No child deserves to grow up in violence, hunger, or loneliness. No human tragedy can reasonably be dismissed as “something you brought upon yourself.”

So maybe my friend is right. Maybe it’s important that we don’t fool ourselves into believing the world is fair. Because doesn’t that give us a responsibility – to make it more just?

But the world doesn’t really work that way. Karma or fate – call it what you will – often shows us that good people suffer deeply, while those who act selfishly get off easy.
Perhaps it’s because we tend to think of justice within the span of a single life.

And that’s why we can’t rely on the universe to make things fair – at least not in this life. That responsibility lies with us – in our choices and our actions.

Justice isn’t about cosmic balance. It’s about how we choose to treat one another – and where we place our responsibility.

And in that sense, the sentence may not be cynical at all – but realistic.
Maybe it’s because the world isn’t fair that we need to be.

Anita Cramer Corpas

Anita Cramer Corpas er erfaren journalist og kommunikationsrådgiver.
Speciale: Journalistik i almindelighed, landbrug, nyheder, succeshistorier, kommunikation og mediekontakt.

www.corpas.dk

On September 1, 2023, a highly qualified Danish diplomat was set to assume the role of Denmark’s new Arctic ambassador.
With a background as a former ambassador to South Africa, legal advisor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and a law degree from the University of Copenhagen supplemented by an MA in International Relations from the University of Exeter in England, he seemed like the ideal candidate.

Now, a year and a half later, he has taken on a new job. He never started his role in Greenland because the Greenlandic government strongly objected to the position being filled by a Dane.

Had a Greenlander been rejected for a position in Denmark on the grounds that they were not Danish, the case would almost certainly have ended up in the European Court of Human Rights.

So why is no one addressing how problematic such attitudes are in a democratic society?

With his now nearly world-famous lightning visit to Greenland, the son of the incoming U.S. president is spreading the narrative that Denmark is behaving in a racist manner toward Greenlanders. “The people of Greenland are treated as second- and third-class citizens by Denmark,” he said to Fox News.

In the interview, references are made to quotes from a few “young people” in Greenland, vividly illustrated with a small group of Greenlanders standing in line for red MAGA hats. A rather sad and overly generalized portrayal of the average Greenlander.

Such caricatures are both undignified and misleading. Greenlanders are neither second- nor third-class citizens.

That said, studies have documented that Greenlanders in Denmark experience discrimination and racism. Many Greenlanders face prejudice and negative differential treatment when interacting with Danish authorities, in the labor market, and in the education system. (Source: Report from the Danish Institute for Human Rights)

A UN Special Rapporteur has also criticized Denmark’s treatment of Greenlanders, highlighting that they are subjected to structural racism and discrimination in public services. (Source: FN-Forbundet).

There is, however, limited research on how Danes are treated in Greenland, apart from debates on whether Danish-speaking Greenlanders experience discrimination in Greenland.

A shared yet complex history

It is important to note that the relationship between Denmark and Greenland is complex, shaped by a shared history and cultural differences.

Unlike many European nations that colonized territories through violence, oppression, and mass killings, Denmark’s colonization of Greenland occurred primarily through cultural and religious influence. Missionary Hans Egede arrived in 1721 with the aim of converting Greenlanders to Christianity and establishing Danish presence.
(Source: The History of Denmark website)

Although this process was marked by power imbalances and forced cultural assimilation, it was not accompanied by military invasions or genocide, as seen in other colonies, such as those in Africa, the Americas, and Asia.

The burden of historical wrongs

One of the prominent issues in Greenland’s narrative about Denmark is the historical abuses, such as the “spiral case,” where approximately 4,500 Greenlandic women were subjected to forced sterilizations in the 1970s.

Denmark has since apologized, and discussions about compensation are ongoing. It is essential to understand that such actions were not unique to Greenland but reflected the era’s eugenic ideologies, which were prevalent across the world.

In many countries, including Denmark, the United States, Sweden, and Germany, eugenics was used as justification for forced sterilizations. Between 1929 and 1967, around 13,000 people were sterilized in Denmark, including women from the Sprogø Women’s Institution. Similarly, in Nazi Germany, over 400,000 people were forcibly sterilized under comparable policies.

Moving Forward

While such abuses were common in the mid-20th century, it remains crucial to confront this past and learn from it.

When will the time be ripe for Greenland and Denmark to find a way forward where historical injustices are no longer wielded as weapons but serve as opportunities for dialogue and reconciliation?

The Danish billions

The billions Denmark invests in Greenland are often seen as an economic burden. But if Greenland’s connection to Denmark is so costly, as some Danes might argue, why does Denmark hold on to it?

Are these billions not, in fact, an investment in Denmark’s global relevance?
Shouldn’t Danes start recognizing Greenland as a strategic partner rather than a recipient of charity?

Currently, Greenland has not taken over responsibilities for key areas such as police, family law, prisons, defense, or foreign policy. An expense of approximately 1.5 billion DKK annually, in addition to the yearly block grant of 4.1 billion DKK.

Greenland, therefore, costs Denmark what amounts to about two public holidays annually, in addition to Greenlanders’ preferential access to Danish education, healthcare, and social services. Yet, when Denmark fulfills its obligations toward Greenland, it is occasionally accused of exercising colonial dominance.

This obligation, however, is reciprocal – Denmark’s financial support of Greenland justifies an expectation of cooperation. Greenland enjoys privileges that are not always matched by equivalent responsibilities toward Denmark. But this relationship is fraught with historical tensions and mistrust, rarely addressed openly.

Where is the line between solidarity and dependence?
When will the parties be ready to move beyond their historical roles as colonial ruler and victim, and instead see each other as equal partners in a shared future project?

No power without Greenland

Denmark invests billions in Greenland’s development and security, while Greenland’s geostrategic importance and vast size secure Denmark a significant place in the global community.

Without Greenland, Denmark would not have a “snowball’s chance in hell” of earning a seat at the table of global powers. Greenland’s position between Russia and the United States, coupled with its size – 50 times larger than Denmark – gives Denmark an international weight it otherwise wouldn’t possess.

Greenland is, therefore, not an economic burden – unlike, for instance, the Danish-Norwegian ownership of the West Indies, which was sold to the United States in 1916 for $25 million.

A sale that, quite remarkably, also included U.S. recognition of Denmark’s claim to Greenland. Now merely a footnote, as the incoming U.S. president seems to have forgotten history and casts doubt on the partnership. Source: CNN

There is no doubt about Greenland’s significance to Denmark and its indispensable role within the Kingdom of Denmark.

This mutual dependency raises questions about solidarity and dependence – and who is truly exploiting whom? Without genuine respect, the two countries risk deepening the conflicts and mistrust that already simmer beneath the surface.

Is it possible to move beyond a focus on blame or demands and ensure a future where both Denmark and Greenland can meet as equal partners – despite the history, despite the cultural differences, and despite the obvious challenges?

When will the time come for both Danes and Greenlanders to ask themselves what true, equitable cooperation should look like?

Anita Cramer Corpas

Anita Cramer Corpas er erfaren journalist og kommunikationsrådgiver.
Speciale: Journalistik i almindelighed, landbrug, nyheder, succeshistorier, kommunikation og mediekontakt.

www.corpas.dk

A story of desire, deception, and the perilous path between love and chaos. Would you dare to know the secret, even if it costs you your life?

COFFEE BREAK – SHORT STORY: »If I tell you, I might have to kill you. « Eric smiled at her thinking that she would never do so anyway.

»What are you going to tell me? « He replied freshly and acted cool realizing that she actually was a bit anxious. He was confused. He had only asked her about how long, she had been single, how many dates and so on. Polite stuff. Now she seems a bit too serious, he thinks.

»First you must swear that you really want to hear this, and you won’t tell, what you hear… to anybody. Swear it. «

Her seriousness surprised him. He felt they were just beginning to get to know each other.
He said, it was not the time to get so bossy and added: »It’s way too early for that, I think. « He laughed out loudly.

The heat was almost unbearable. In 140 years of recording temperatures, this was the hottest June scientists had ever witnessed.
But she was not laughing, so it couldn’t get any hotter, he thought.

He ran his hand through his hair and tried to make himself presentable as fast as possible. He cleared his throat and drank some of his Americano before he continued the conversation much more seriously than he felt like.

»But will it have some effect on me? «

»Yes. It will affect you. «

»Well, am I able to live with it? « He smiled trying to divert the tension from a somewhat dramatic situation, but apparently without luck. She looked at him with her bright light blue eyes, and she appeared so weak but trustworthy.

»I seriously don’t know…« she said.

She was strangely unprovoked by the heat. Her suit was immaculate, and she wasn’t sweating. The mental strain made him even hotter, and he felt the sweat dripping on his back.

»Are you sure, I want to hear this at all? « He replied.

»No.«

They were sitting in front of the open window at the café. Outside people were avoiding the sun, eager to get home from work or school or anything that kept them in the sun. He glanced at a couple, who was struggling to close a defect car door while thinking about the killing at Vesterbro last Friday.

A disabled construction worker who’d argued with an old couple upstairs in their building near the theater “Det Ny Teater” on the street Gl. Kongensgade was shot. Maybe it was the heat. People get so crazy in weather with such high temperatures. Anyway, the day before he “snapped” the neighbors said. They were a kind couple around 78 years old. Hans and Vera. They were too nosey, he argued. Perhaps they were. In fact, they were able to tell that he seemed a bit depressed. Maybe because he had been seeing a woman. That’s for sure, the old couple said. Later he was found shot in Copenhagen Harbor.

Eric looked at her wondering, how grim the secret could be. After all they had just met. But he didn’t like the fact that she wasn’t making any fun. The whole situation was too serious, and it was too soon for that.

»I think, I will pass. « He slowly said, not even sure that he meant it.

»Okay. «

»Sure? « He was surprised.

»You decide. « She leaned back, and her slim hand was resting calmly on the table. On her right hand she wore a ring with a big stone. It seemed a bit too oversized for her. Too gigantic and too heavy. He had never seen anything like it. The color was deep and shifting in different light from black to dark grey. Her nails were similar to the color on the ring in a way. He couldn’t resist himself, grabbed her hand, and accidentally stroked her ring.

Instantly she moved her hand away. He sensed that she didn’t like his hand to be on top of hers. And she didn’t like him to fiddle with her ring. Instead, she squeezed his hand too and smiled at him. A wonderful sunny smile, as he felt the heat even more intense. Happiness or some similar, gave him added encouragement to throw away his cautions along with his ordinary life.

With his free hand he loosened his tie a bit. He was struggling between his fear of hearing something that would destroy the perfect happy moment or make his wish to run away and never come back-feeling go away. He felt like a little boy deemed to choose between ice-cream or staying home from school.

They were looking at each other in silence. She nodded slowly.

»It’s okay«, she said it to calm him down. She squeezed his hand some more, before she grabbed her Espresso. He felt, as she was leaving him already. He just wanted to feel her warmth, even if it only was through her hand.

He had developed a growing desire for her. He wanted her, and his eyes were intensely following her small movements. He already loved the look of her lips taking quick small sips of a strong drink. Her cupid’s bow was rippled perfectly, when her lips touched the cup.

He gave up. »Ok tell me. Tell me the secret, « he said.

Slowly she placed the cup on the table. Without looking directly at him, she smiled mysteriously and seemed very satisfied. For a moment he felt like, he got caught in a trap all by himself.

»You are sure? « Just for a second, she looked at him in such a strange way that his intuition was telling him that he should run and never come back. Then her eyes shifted, and he realized that he had just fallen in love. How could he resist such bright blue eyes? He hesitated but not for long.

»Yes, I’m sure«, he said even though he really wasn’t.

»Then we will meet again. I will call you, « She got up. Her suit wasn’t even creased. He was holding her hand disappointed as well as anxious about facing a new meeting. He felt childish wanting her to stay and hardly able to let go. Keeping her hand in his ignoring that he was sweating. How could she look so good at 52? He wondered.

The coffeeshop felt abandoned, when she left. She took the air and a meaningful life with her. He felt alone, abandoned and unloved and already longing for the next meeting.

At first, he was counting the minutes then hours and now days hoping to see her again. But she didn’t call him back.

For weeks he struggled with the silence. He suffered losing self-esteem, wondering why she didn’t call him. He managed not to contact her even if, he could just see her Insta-profile which was highly attractive. Nearly every day he looked. Sometimes just to look at her pictures. She drank a lot of coffee, ate at fancy restaurants and visited famous places.

But nothing about family, work, sports or some other private stuff. And she didn’t call.
Every day he hoped that there would be a new photo of her or some disclosing private details of her daily life.

Suddenly the profile was gone. He almost cried.

Days went by. He got up. He took the bus to Copenhagen City Hall. He spent the day accounting. He went home. Eating and watching games TV was boring, and he was hurt.

Sometimes on weekends he went to the cemetery: “Vestre Kirkegård”. Sat there for hours, sometimes the whole day, sat in the shadow under some big trees, looking at a tombstone from the Smith-family. A rough stone with the RIP inscription on top. He felt like a stone himself. A stone that someone had doomed to rest in loneliness.

After nearly two months of silence, he lost any hope that she would ever contact him again.

When he finally got a text message, where she suggested they should meet, he was both skeptical and surprised. Mostly skeptical.

He got up. Took the bus to City Hall, did some work on his accounts, arrived in good time at The Old English Pub. He knew the bar would be crowded, but he managed to find a spot in the back by waiting for some younger people to leave. He immediately jumped down the bar stool and conquered the vacant booth.

He waited.

He was constantly looking back and forth between the door and his watch.

She was late.

That gave him devastating thoughts, while his heart pumped with hope and enthusiasm. Maybe she wouldn’t come. Of course, she would. Maybe she was standing him up. Of course not. He got nervous, lost confidence, then got a hold of himself. “Yeah, I’m old. 58 is old. But I have money to buy some good appearance,” he said to himself and pulled down his knit bomber jacket from Michael Kors.

Clothes like that kept him years younger than he actually was. His appearance usually surprised women. Unfortunately, he had lost the taste of meeting women for a long time. But now this one did something to him that left him helpless. He became sensitive and was longing for her.

When she finally arrived, he could see no-one else but her. He couldn’t even say anything. He looked at her, while she was striding through the crowd with great elegance. Only staring at him. He was fascinated and automatically got up to welcome her. A thousand questions went through his mind, but he was only saying this:

»A last. «

She smiled and asked for a glass of Chardonnay.

The first minute or two he couldn’t say anything except to look at her and shake his head.

» I feel, as if I’m dreaming. « He finally uttered. He forgot all about being skeptical. He forgot all about the months, he had been suffering.

» Why now? Why all those months? « His voice was too high. He heard it himself, but he was too stressed to reflect badly about it. His eyes were focused on her lips taking quick and small sips of wine. He inhaled the look of her perfect cupid’s bow, while her lips touched the glass, and the upper lip made an adorable wrinkle.

» I have been busy, « she said, while she was placing her glass on the table.

He grabbed both her hands. Once again, she gently managed to remove her hand. He unconsciously noticed that she didn’t like someone to be near that ring, but he was too busy looking at her wanting her and not make her go away. But as he had learned the last time, humor was not her style. So, he didn’t dare say anything funny about the ring, since she seemed so fond of it. Even if it seemed too big and the embedded stone so wrong for her. But exactly why was the stone on that ring so big?

» Nice ring you have, « he said. » You seem so fond of it. Did you inherit it? «

» Just something I have from my grandmother « She seemed to be watchful, as she wasn’t sure of whether, he was pulling her legs.

» You like it? « She asked.

» I think it’s big. Why is it so big?

» Maybe there is room for something inside, « she replied, and for she briefly looked, as she would laugh. He didn’t understand why she didn’t.

» Maybe coke? « He whispered hoping to get her to laugh.

» Maybe poison? « She whispered back to him, and he caught a clear warning by the sound of her. From somewhere near to cruel her laugh was unwomanly cold, and her response immediately took the thrill out the conversation. For a second his intuition warned him not to interfere with this woman.

The frightened look on his face made her stop and observed him intensely. When she spoke, he noticed once again that the color of her eyes shifted.

» Dating can be dangerous you know. « Her voice was low and threatening, and even if it scared him off he ignored his bad thoughts with humor.

» Maybe later you will drug and abuse me? « He said with a grin on his face ignoring the nagging warning voice back in his head screaming at him to get his memory back. To get him to remember, how he suffered the last couples of months. But he didn’t listen, how could he? She was so tiny and elegant. So perfect.

She was playing with her ring spinning it around her finger. She was looking at him with a distant glance and he got afraid of her thinking of someone else. He panicked. Afraid that he would lose her.

» Tell me your secret. Or tell me anything. I want to see you. I want to know you. Why didn’t you call? What do you want? « He responded desperately.

She just sat there and looked at him, until she suddenly took his hands and placed them on her cheeks. As if she decided to be kind.

» It is so nice to see you again, « she said with such a gentle soft voice that his hearth immediately was touched.

» You are so handsome. I nearly forgot how good-looking you are. Are you wearing Kors? You seem so young, « she said, and he was thrilled by her words and totally forgot all about her misconduct and his painful couple of months.

» You are too kind. When I see you, I’m overwhelmed « he replied.

She kissed his hands and kept them in hers. He was drowning when looking into her eyes and saw her pupils get larger and the iris turn in to a new level of ice blue. Everything came back. All his previous feelings. He was longing for her. He wanted her badly, and it seemed that the last several months of pain had disappeared. He smiled eagerly to get something back like a smile, a kind word or a promise.

» Tell me why you left me. « He was persistent and wanted to know, how to undo everything, he might have done wrong. To do it better. Make her happy. To make her stay. To make her want him back.

» I think, we need to get something to eat. I know a good place around the corner, « she spoke.

» I have reservations at Alberto K. « He said it like in trance and for the first, she seemed a bit surprised by his great initiative.

» I’m impressed, « she said. The restaurant was at the 20th floor of the Radisson Blu Royal Hotel. The best view in town and often fully booked. He was so thrilled to please her. Her admiration made his confidence grow.

» Tell me something about yourself. « He asked.

» What do you do? «

» I work in an art gallery. I’m art director, « she replied and not that interested in talking about herself.

» Do you have kids? «

» No. «

» Dog? Cat? «

» No and no. «

» Parentes? «

» Sweetie let us talk about something else. «

» Certainly. You name it. « He said.

» I want to take you home with me tonight. « She said it just like that without any reason.

At first, he was a bit shocked. Maybe it would be more accurate to say, he was upset, because he was provoked by her aggressive outgoing boldness. For some minutes he was speechless thinking about his own move. How could he reply to such a demand without losing his own self-respect? Without letting her know that he would rather die than say no to her. But he felt the need to respond in a way that kept him in charge. However, whatever he decided to do – he would for nothing in the whole world dare to push her away.

He moved her glass of wine aside, stretched out his hands towards her with the palms up. Hesitantly she put her hands in his.

» Ingrid. Lovely you. I’m so moved, « He paused and looked her in the eyes. Again, he noticed that the iris was changing color this time like a melting iceberg with reflection on the frozen water.

He gently squeezed her hands carefully without touching her ring.

» I want you to know that I cannot imagine anything that I would rather do than be with you. This is so hard for me to decide, because all I want is only to surrender to your request…give in to you. You are important to me, and I really need you to like me. I truly want you to know me. I sincerely want you to choose just me, as if you really, really care, « he said.

It was a moment of true honesty from a vulnerable heart. A moment where everyone with bad intentions has to make a big decision in their lives about how to act upon another human being, choosing between right or wrong, good or bad, pain or love.

She was silent, briefly looked at him, before she turned her eyes away. He was beginning to understand that her eyes were both the most appealing and the most revealing thing about her. For a moment he could swear by the look of her shiny eyes that she was really touched.

» I think we need to get out of here. Maybe something to eat? « She quietly said.

Later as they walked the streets, it felt so right for him to have her along his side, holding her hand, talking about politics, river rafting and their mutual feelings. Feelings he had. And surprisedly she also talked a little about hers.

This was the best six minutes of walk he had ever had. Inside he felt like his chest was a big balloon, light, expanded and filled with helium. He felt like, he was walking on the moon with heavy legs on light air slowly walking around in moon boots.

Something had changed. He didn’t know what it was. Maybe it was a shift in power. He felt more powerful, even though he had exposed himself. On the other hand, she seemed more balanced. Or maybe the whole dynamic situation between them had become more balanced.

The next morning, he happily jumped out of bed. Satisfied with himself. At the bathroom mirror he looked at himself, smiling, telling himself that he was a stud and a very good-looking fellow. In addition, he was telling himself that he was a success that he was healthy and appreciated, checking his nose for long hair and counting the hours, until he would see her again.

He took the bus to City Hall. He noticed several times that he was whistling happily, also during working hours while checking the accounts of large clients. He arrived home whistling. He looked at the phone, checked the email, stopped whistling and began to get anxious, walking restless around the apartment. With mixed feelings he realized she wouldn’t call him back.

It is nearly quite meaningless to get into a description of how badly he had felt for months. He barely managed to keep his job. He was often grumpy and got a lot of complaints. Only because he was an outstanding accountant, did he avoid getting fired.

For a period, he lost interest in looking younger. The hair in his nose was growing and he was awful black under his eyes a sign of stress caused by too many nights without a propper sleep.

For a period, he lost interest in looking younger. The hair in his nose was growing and he was awful black under his eyes a sign of stress caused by too many nights without a propper sleep.

He lost a lot of weight, because he didn’t cook properly. Daily he ate junk food. On weekends he stayed at home in front of the TV drinking too many beers, ate too many chips, looking at too much bad news about the increasing number of killings and dead bodies in the river. The media was talking about the dating-killer. All men his age.

But suddenly one cold morning in March, when the sun was struggling to shine through the haze, he seemed to be wide awake and breathing again.He got out of bed. He took a walk to the grocery store, shopping for food, cleaned the house, bought a cat named Sammy.

The next day he got out of bed, took the bus to City Hall as usual. He worked and was a bit kinder to people. He shopped some for good food, cleaned the house, talked to Sammy.

He cooked and asked friends over for dinner. He put his life back in order. He was living again. Weekends he often went to the cemetery with Sammy, who enjoyed running around in the sun, playing with leaves, hunting birds or sleeping for hours in front of the Smith-family tombstone, while Eric was resting under the big trees.

Again, it was one of those days in June, where the heat was almost unbearable. In 141 years of recording temperatures, this was the second hottest June scientists had ever witnessed.

He was resting under the big tree at “Vestre Kirkegård” Cemetery. Nearly suffocating while Sammy also was too tired to chase anything, and therefore was sleeping peacefully beside him.

He held his head back and took a sip from a bottle of cold water. The bright light from the gravel on the road in front of him bothered his vision. He squeezed his eyes together, drank some more, and it was exactly in that minute, he saw her.

It was Ingrid.

Slowly he lowered the water bottle. His brain immediately went into a state of denial, as if he could not believe his own eyes. His hearth stopped and his body went into alert. In a moment of great joyfulness, he forgot all his painful months of torment, before he froze in panic, as he realized, she had recognized him and moved across the grass directly towards him.

He was unable to move, he just sat there facing his waterloo.

» Eric… is that you? «

He swallowed quick. Maybe unsaid words, shame or hidden pride.

» No, it’s not, « he replied very fast.

She was smiling, and he briefly considered, if someone would notice, if he killed her right away.

He felt something pressing heavily against his chest. He coughed to clear his throat. The cat woke up, and Sammy, being a totally disloyal friend, jumped up clinging around Ingrid’s legs, like a tom cat in heat.

She was kind enough to sit down with some distance. Sammy went crazy enjoying all the attention from petting.

» I really can’t talk to you. I was hurt. I was exceedingly hurt. I still am « he whispered.

Silently she still petted the cat, and Sammy got completely ecstatic about her touch.

» Sammy come here «, he said in an authoritative voice to the cat using some goodies as bait, but he didn’t respond.

» I really need you to leave«, he said, and she nodded.

»Anyway, what are you even doing here, « he said without emotion and without giving it a thought that they were at a cemetery.

She smiled very sadly so that he instantly felt bad about himself.

» Sorry, « he mumbled.

She nodded and looked at the cat which happily circled around her.

» I really want you to understand, « she said.

» I will never understand. « He felt rage growing inside.

» I gave you something precious. I thought I could make you happy…give you happiness. In return you nearly destroyed me, « his response was fiery and loud. He was breathing heavily, as if he had been running.

» I know, « she said and continued:

» You will never understand. Despite everything that I did to you, it was because I really care for you. You touched me. I was moved. Therefore, I had to take care of you.«

»Care of me? Are you nuts? You sound like a psycho. I nearly died. I was totally degraded. And you were just playing with me, laughing at me, « he raised his voice even more.

» If you don’t go now, I’m not sure that I won’t hurt you, « he added.

» I really understand you, « she said looking down at her lap, where Sammy now was lying while she daringly stroked him.

» Please, let me have my cat, « he plead.

» Actually, I was saving you, « she continued.

» Please. Please leave, « he begged her to leave them alone.

For a brief moment they were sitting in silence. The only noteworthy noise came from the traffic on Sjælør Blvd. and a steady purr from Sammy.

» Eric, I need you to know that I’m dating a lot of men. It has nothing to do with you. I just need to, « she said.

» Maybe someday, you will understand. Maybe someday you will know that I really cared for you. « She stood up and handed him the cat.

Sammy cuddles up to Eric’s leg.

» Why can’t you settle with one? With me? « He petted the cat not daring to look at her.

» I can’t. I simply can’t, « She made a sweeping gesture.

» Why? « he continued to ask, even though he knew he was nagging.

» They…move on. They disappear. They are gone « she replied in a softly tone.

» What happens to them? « He asked again looking for a creditable explanation.

She was already walking away, when she changed her mind and turned around.

» If I tell you, I really have to kill you, you know …« She smiled and turned around. He caught a glimpse of hers once so bright pale blue eyes, before they once again turned into dark slippery rocks.

Anita Cramer Corpas

Anita Cramer Corpas er erfaren journalist og kommunikationsrådgiver.
Speciale: Journalistik i almindelighed, landbrug, nyheder, succeshistorier, kommunikation og mediekontakt.

www.corpas.dk

OPINION: I’m too anxious to engage in such details. Once something like that crosses my mind, I can never erase it.

So, I can’t account for the deeper narrative other than that the Danish food critic and actor have been reported to the police for participating in a dinner party in the Faroe Islands.1

Thanks for reading Backlash! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

With an almost inhuman cold-bloodedness, the lobster’s tail was slowly boiled in water while those around counted to 12. Then they proceeded to eat the tail, while the other diners held the lobster’s claws to keep it from defending itself or scratching them in the face.

At the same time, they struggled with a live octopus that was to be fried alive in a pan.

“The food critic from Berlingske writes, ‘It tastes heavenly pure, not least with a few drops of lemon and a little salt’ (hard paywall). A statement he later allegedly regretted.

Even though I didn’t want to, I cried when it was read aloud to me.

It’s not just cruel; it leaves me feeling hopeless about how much we as humans still lack in our understanding of respect for life. This form of human callousness is not just an affront to the animal’s life but a terrifying reflection of our ability to turn a blind eye to the suffering of others.

It’s disturbing how easily we can normalize behavior where living creatures are reduced to tools for pleasure and entertainment, with no empathy for the suffering inflicted.

‘It tastes heavenly pure, not least with a few drops of lemon and a little salt’

The foodcritic defends his presence at the dinner by claiming that he is a journalist and describes what he sees.

Does that mean he would just as indifferently witness a rape and describe its artistic execution? Really?

In my opinion, the story should not be about how the lobster tasted. The story should be about how it was prepared.

What do you think?

Anita Cramer Corpas

Anita Cramer Corpas er erfaren journalist og kommunikationsrådgiver.
Speciale: Journalistik i almindelighed, landbrug, nyheder, succeshistorier, kommunikation og mediekontakt.

www.corpas.dk

Hvis der er noget, vi her i Danmark er stolte af, så er det vores demokrati.
Men hvordan er det demokrati, at de vi ikke stemmer på, nu leder vores land?

Af Carl Gustav Corpas
Ringkjøbing Gymnasium; 2g

Luk grænserne! Hjem med flygtningene! De er, med deres sharialovgivninger og teokratiske tanker, en fare for demokratiet i Danmark. Og hvis der er een ting, vi her i Danmark er stolte af, så er det vores demokrati. For sådan et har vi jo, ikke?

Travlt har vi i hvert fald med at sende jagerfly i hoved på dem, som ikke har; de skal nemlig befries. Men er vi imidlertid så optaget af krig og flygtningekrise, at vi ikke ænser hvad der sker lige under næsen på os?

Der er ikke demokrati i Danmark. En symbolsk folkeafstemning hvert fjerde år, er hvad det kan blive til.

I løbet af denne  afstemning skal jeg da ellers lige love for, at der kommer fut i politikerne. De render rundt til det ene og det andet, storsmilende til kameraet, alt imens de lover ud til højre og venstre.

Om disse løfter bliver overholdt? Det er da bedøvende ligegyldigt, for hvilke konsekvenser har det?
“Du fik måske det indtryk at social demokratiet var rødt? Næh du, det var da kun under valgkampen”.

Vi bliver fortalt, at vi har et “repræsentativt demokrati”.

Det vil sige; at vi stemmer på de politikere, vi deler holdninger med, og de sørger så for at agere på vores vegne i folketinget. På denne måde slipper vi for at afholde folkeafstemning hver gang en ny lov bliver fremsat, hvad der sker ca. 200 – 300 gange årligt.

Ideen er god nok, problemet er bare at denne styreform ikke fungerer ude i virkeligheden. For det er ikke danskernes meninger, som bliver repræsenteret i folketinget. Det er politikernes.

Vi lever ikke i et demokrati, men i et fåmandsvælde. Et oligarki styret af 179 mennesker, som ikke giver en fuck for hvad resten af befolkningen mener. Værst af alt er at de slipper af sted med det!

For hvad skal man som borger gøre andet end at se hjælpeløst til, imens magten vristes ud af vores hænder. Der er ikke noget middel, vi kan tage i brug. Der er ikke nogen straf, man kan tildele politikerne, andet end et par løftede pegefingre.

“Lad være med at stemme på dem”, kan man sige. Men ikke engang det hjælper.

Vi ser, at Venstre er gået markant tilbage i stemmer, men hvem danner vores regering?

Vi ser at, Lars Lykke Rasmussen er gået markant tilbage i personlige stemmer, men hvem er vores statsminister?

Hvordan kan det være demokratisk, at dem vi ikke vil stemme på, nu er dem, der leder vores land?

Men eftersom politikerne selv vedtager lovene derinde på borgen, må det vel være fair, at de også selv følger dem.

En politiker kan snyde og bedrage, have et vælgerflertal imod sig og politianmeldes, men det er alt sammen ordnet med en 3 måneders orlov, hvorefter han er tilbage på banen igen, som fx kirkeordfører.

En politiker kan være i direkte strid med straffeloven og politianmeldes af mere end 10.000 danskere. Han får en ‘næse’, og må også undskylde, hvis hans ord har kunnet ‘misforståes’.

Jeg vil så gerne beklage, at vi er så mange, der har misforstået ordene. Intervieweren, som da næsten ikke kunne tro sine egne øre, skulle lige have slået det helt fast: “Hører jeg dig sige, at vi skal til at bombe, hvor der er kvinder og børn?”, “Ja, selvfølgelig”, lyder svaret.
Men jaja kommunikation er en svær ting. Der skal være plads til misforståelser.

Vores udlændingepolitik ligner snart noget, der kunne være starten på en nazi-joke. Men det er ikke en joke, for danskerne må målløse se til, mens love, den ene mere xenofobisk end den anden, bliver hastet igennem folketinget.

Hvad enten det er skræmmeannoncer i libanesiske aviser, udlændinge der ikke længere skal have krav på at blive stillet for en dommer eller diskriminerende regler for familiesammenføring, er det ikke gået ubemærket hen. Fornyeligt en dom til Danmark med venlige hilsner fra Menneskerettighedsdomstolen.

Men det er Folketingets love, ikke befolkningens.

Alt imens Folketinget gør livet så surt for flygtningene, at vi ikke kan være os selv bekendt, gør befolkningen hvad den kan for at hjælpe dem. Samler dem op i egne biler, fordi det ikke er til at holde ud at se passivt til. Men det er selvfølgelig dybt problematisk. “Solidaritet, ad!”, de må straks dømmes for menneskesmugling.

Hvordan kan det være demokratisk, at Danmarks politik ikke stemmer overens med danskernes?

Det mest tydelig eksempel på dette så vi nok i 2014 med folkeskolereformen. Jeg mangler endnu at høre et eneste menneske, som ikke er politiker, sige: “Folkeskolereformen? Det var sgu da en god idé”. Lærerne var imod den, forældrene var imod den, eksperterne var sågar imod den. Alt dette var politikerne bedøvende ligeglade med, og  de gennemførte, på mest despotiske måde, loven til trods.

Regeringen er blevet til en overdimensioneret jernkæmpe, der uden elegance tvinger den ene lov efter den anden ned over hoved på danskerne. Jeg er blevet træt af at finde mig i det. Det er på tide med demokrati i Danmark!

Anita Cramer Corpas

Anita Cramer Corpas er erfaren journalist og kommunikationsrådgiver.
Speciale: Journalistik i almindelighed, landbrug, nyheder, succeshistorier, kommunikation og mediekontakt.

www.corpas.dk

Mennesker, som vi andre vel at mærke skal respektere, og hvis lovgivning vi skal følge opfører sig som løst importerede rovdyr. Pressefoto.

I tre dage har folketingspolitikere rov-mobbet en ministerkollega for åben skærm i en sag, der handler om at gennemføre regeringens landbrugspakke.

Men alle er fløjtende ligeglade med miljøet. Just another day at work.

Af Anita Corpas, Journalist (DJ)

Vi kalder os et demokrati og siger, at vi er civiliserede.

Alligevel er danskerne lige nu vidner til predator teater fra landets fornemmeste arbejdsplads med optræden af folkevalgte til landets fornemmeste embede.
Mennesker, som vi andre vel at mærke skal respektere, og hvis lovgivning vi skal følge opfører sig som løst importerede rovdyr.

”Træd tilbage, gå af, send en anden, …det er altså et relativt simpelt spørgsmål, jeg stiller… Det er disrespekt for Folketinget og disrespekt for embedet (red: der er i øvrigt ikke noget, der hedder disrespekt)

”..Vil ministeren være stolt af at skulle stemmes ud af Folketinget…skal vi ydmyge hinanden på denne måde?”

I tre dage har folketingspolitikere rov-mobbet en ministerkollega for åben skærm i en sag, der handler om at gennemføre regeringens landbrugspakke.

Går efter personen – ikke sagen

Imidlertid er de miljømæssige effekter af pakken meget usikre.
Alligevel handler den afgørende tredje behandling af landbrugspakken i Folketinget stort set kun om at få stenet, slagtet, parteret og begravet ministeren for det hele godt og grundigt.
Uafbrudt i over fire stive timer.

Hverken Folketingets formand eller den fungerende formand maner én eneste gang komedianterne i salen til at udvise en mere respektfuld tone, eller på anden måde forsøger at få fremdrift i det mødet egentligt handler om.

For det er jo slet ikke landbrugspakken, der skal behandles. Det er ministeren.

Enige om at være uenige

Forud er syv forskere hevet i høring, og siden er deres timelange buh og bæh, af rød blok blevet gjort til ”klar tale”.

Men det passer ikke. Der er ikke forskningsmæssig enighed om, at en forestående ”miljømæssig katastrofe” er nær.
Derimod er flere forskere enige om, at de manglende ton kvælstof – eller fifleriet, eller den manglende stjerne til en fodnote, som henholdsvis rød og blå blok ynder at kalde pynteriet af miljøgevinsten i landbrugspakken – stort set slet ikke vil kunne måles.

Og klokken 15:22 stemmer Folketinget så landbrugspakken igennem.

Alle er fløjtende ligeglade med miljøet. Just another day at work.

Næse eller gå af

Det må undre, hvad den egentlige dagsorden er for at opføre dette patetiske lystspil for masserne.

Umiddelbart er der ikke stadsfæstet nogen præcedens for, hvornår en minister må gå – eller indkassere en næse.

I 2013 gav Martin Lidegaard (R) ikke Folketinget fyldestgørende oplysninger om et hul i solcelleloven, der ville koste statskassen mellem 430 og 850 millioner kroner over de næste 10 år. Alligevel fik han kun en næse.

Samme år forærede Annette Vilhelmsen (SF) Lisbeth Zornig en million danske skattekroner uden om al almindelig ansøgningsprocedure og for rullende tv. Hun fik bare en næse, og legendariske Uffe Ellemann Jensen (V) er rekordholder med 80 næser.

Hvorfor denne hidsige blodhævn på Eva Kjer Hansen på baggrund af fiktive beregninger, som ingen helt er enige om de formodede konsekvenser af?

Moderne stening

Med hvilken ret eller rimelighed kan folkevalgte politikere indlede dagslange verbale udfald og opføre mediestunt til seriøse samråd for gentagende at stille sin mistillid til en minister til offentlig skue.

I et moderne samfund må der da være en mere intelligent procedure for, at et mistillidsvotum til en minister udløser en eller anden proces, der gør offentlig stening ganske unødvendig.

Oven i købet er der vel – eller burde der da være – en procedure for, at en lov under behandling udsættes eller helt tages af tapetet, når vedkommende, der har udarbejdet loven, ikke nyder partiernes tillid eller på anden måde kan kritiseres.

”Vi stoler ikke på ministeren, der har leveret varen – men vi køber sg pakken alligevel”… Er det folkestyrets måde at gøre os borgere til grin?

EL roser C

I stedet rejser Enhedslistens Pelle Dragested sig i folketingssalen og skamroser de konservative for at stå fast.

– Det er beundringsværdigt, at Det Konservative Folkeparti (C) holder fast, siger han.

– Holder fast? I hvad? I deres politik?

De borgerlige gik til valg med et ret klart signal om, at de ville sikre gaveregn til landbruget.
De ville rulle randzonerne tilbage, de ville tillade grødskæring, og de ville tillade mere gødning for at hæve proteinniveauet i dansk korn igen.

Uanset hvilken farve eller form det regnestykke leveres i, må det være fuldkommen soleklart for enhver med blot syv års skolegang, at mere af det hele naturligvis må afgives fra noget andet.

Men kuløren kommer tilsyneladende alligevel fuldkommen bag på nogen.
Spørgsmålet er derfor, hvem er det, Eva Kjer Hansen har taget med bukserne nede?

C stemmer på pakken

Som borger i dette land, må man spørge sig selv, hvorfor denne charade?

I hvert fald lægger de konservative gladeligt stemmer til landbrugspakken, og er dermed selv med til at forlange pakken gennem en 3. behandling i Folketinget – alene med det formål at stemme loven igennem.

Pakken vedtages, og efterfølgende har de konservative tilsyneladende heller ingen problemer med, at ministeren sidder i skammekrogen og udarbejder endnu en pakke. En tillægspakke til landbrugspakken….

Intet miljø

Denne sag handler overhovedet ikke om miljøet. For nogle handler den formentlig mest om at fremskynde et valg.

Metoden er en uskøn skamløs strategi om at udråbe en helt, og til det formål, hvem er så mere modtagelig end et gammelt parti uden karismatisk leder siden Schlüter.

For den opvisning har Danmark så betalt dyr apanage i politisk spin og embeds-comedy på baggrund af nogle klodsede tabeller.

De konservative flyder lige nu på mediebølgen med gode målinger, men enhver miljøvælger med respekt for sit kryds vil huske på, at C stemte landbrugspakken lige ned i grundvandet.

Og enhver erhvervsvenlig vælger vil huske, at C har taget sine egne så eftertrykkeligt hårdt i røven, at nogen forhåbentlig har taget et mobilbillede af det.

Betal prisen sugar-pape

Faktum er, at miljøet tabte torsdag ved hjælp af de konservative. For de konservative er slet ikke parate til at betale prisen og give danskerne det valg, vi ønsker.

Put your money where your mouth is, sugar-Pape. Betal gildet, og skriv dig ordentlig ind i historien, frem for at gøre dette til et svimlende eksempel på, at demokratiet er tæt på sit sammenbrud.

179 folkevalgte er jo ikke i stand til at styre et land, når de end ikke er i stand til at styre sig selv.

Derfor er det måske tid til at omtænke demokratiet ind i fx Marcus Schmidt’s idé om et ”Direkte demokrati”, hvor 70.000 danskere på skift bistår styret Danmark.

For Folketinget bør være et forum, hvor deltagerne aktivt forsøger at enes og komme frem til at gøre vores samfund bedre, frem for at spotte og marginalisere hinanden i colosseum.

Det vi ser ske lige nu er ulækkert. Det er beskæmmende og skræmmende for et demokrati, at de folkevalgte viser sig som dræbere af natur, men som ikke forstår at ernære sig ved deres eget bytte.

Lad det være slået fast, at det ikke er i orden, at en minister sminker sine oplysninger til Folketinget. Men man må anerkende, at Eva Kjer Hansen har taget sin offentlige henrettelse som en amazone.

Anita Cramer Corpas

Anita Cramer Corpas er erfaren journalist og kommunikationsrådgiver.
Speciale: Journalistik i almindelighed, landbrug, nyheder, succeshistorier, kommunikation og mediekontakt.

www.corpas.dk

Besynderligt, at Dansk Folkeparti så ubetinget ser sig selv som borgerlige.

Over 1,5 millioner vælgere har stemt på alle de andre. Og her er lige under 200.000 radikale ikke engang talt med.

Tyranni er karakteriseret ved, at det kun er én person, der styrer.
Og hvilket styre.
DF er jo ikke engang et ideologisk parti, men derimod et holdningsparti.

Sådant ét har vel i realiteten ingen farve.

Af Anita Corpas

Danskerne har valgt. Og signalet er vel ikke til at misforstå. Eller er det?
For det virker ikke rigtig som om, at politikerne tager vælgernes røvfuld alvorligt.

Da valgstøvet lagde sig, var Venstre gået tilbage over hele landet, havde mistet 13 mandater og Løkke selv havde fået over 23.000 færre personlige stemmer end ved sidste valg.

Hvorfor er han så valgets vinder?

Udenom Dansk Folkeparti har kun godt en million vælgere stemt på Venstre, LA og Konservative.

Hvorimod over 1,5 millioner vælgere har stemt på de andre. Og her er lige under 200.000 radikale ikke engang talt med.

Alligevel forærer DF lederskabet og måske statsministerposten til dem, de ikke engang er enige med.
Hvordan kan det være demokrati? Hvordan kan det overhovedet være retfærdigt?

Valgtyranni
Et demokrati er et folkestyre, der adskiller sig fra tyranni. Tyranni er karakteriseret ved, at det kun er én person, der styrer.

Lige nu føles det faktisk lidt som om, at det er Kristian Thulesen Dahl, der styrer.
I hvert fald er det DF, der bestemmer farven i Folketinget, til trods for de agter at stille sig uden for en regering og for ansvaret.

Det forekommer desuden besynderligt, at Dansk Folkeparti så ubetinget ser sig selv som borgerlige.
Dansk Folkeparti mener jo ikke engang selv, at de er et ideologisk parti, men derimod et holdningsparti.

Sådant ét har vel i realiteten ingen farve.

DF imod skattelettelser
Dansk Folkeparti er imod skattelettelser, der forringer grundlæggende velfærdsområder, og bifalder, at det er ”de bredeste skuldre, der må bære de tungeste byrder”.

Umiddelbart en holdning, der harmonerer udmærket med Socialdemokraterne, hvorimod den holdning næppe sidder lige i skabet hos de nuværende blå forhandlingspartere.

Det kunne være forfriskende, at Dansk Folkeparti sang en ny og mere moderne nationalsang om samarbejde, frem for krampagtigt at holde fast i gammel national tankemåde om blokpolitik.

Et samarbejde mellem de to partier, flest vælgere har bakket op om; Socialdemokratiet og DF. Et samarbejde, der blot ville kræve et enkelt andet parti – blåt som rødt for at samle de magiske 90 mandater.

Under valgkampen har de liberale politiske krav netop handlet ret meget om ikke at spendere flere kroner på vækst i den offentlige sektor. Liberal Alliance vil endda skære i det offentlige tilskud.
Venstre kalder det nulvækst. LA kalder det minus-vækst.

Det harmonerer jo slet ikke med, at Dansk Folkeparti vil have vækst i det offentlige.

Og en blå alliance harmonerer i særdeleshed ret dårligt med DF’s egne kernevælgere.

DF kontra velhavende mænd
Ifølge en artikel i Dagbladet Politiken sidste år, er DF et parti for folk med en kort uddannelse og relativ lav indkomst.

DF er et parti for folk med en kort uddannelse og relativ lav indkomst.

Politiken skriver, at 43 procent af partiets kernevælgere er over 60 år, mens kun ni procent er under 30.

En typisk husstandsindkomst for Dansk Folkepartis vælgere ligger et sted mellem 150.000 og 299.000 kr. årligt før skat.
Kun to procent af DF’erne har en hustandsindtægt på over 800.000 kroner.

Umiddelbart lyder det som et segment, der spiller rigtigt dårligt sammen med et blåt segment af ledere, funktionærer eller selvstændige i det private erhvervsliv eller bare velhavende mænd generelt.

For ikke at tale om at partiet har lovet at rette op på sine egne forringelser af dagpengesystemet.
Imidlertid er det næppe heller en serenade, der kommer til at lyde som sød musik i de blå korridorer.

Så hvorfor er det lige, at DF så gerne vil ind i en hardcore liberal politisk ledet alliance?

Nytænke politik
Vælgerne tænker ikke nødvendigvis i farver, når de sætter deres kryds, ligesom de politiske budskaber under valgkampen heller ikke absolut leveres i sådanne.

Under valgkampen taler kandidaterne i hvert fald mærkesager, som de selv vil, og ofte imod deres egne partipolitiske ideologier.

Politik handler i dag, godt nok til nogle vælgeres store frustration, ikke længere om farverige ideologier, men i stedet om farveblege personlige holdninger.

Det giver i princippet 179 forskellige holdninger fordelt på taburetterne.
Det er  i hvert fald set før, at inkarnerede SF’ere vågner om morgenen hos de radikale, at enhedskandidater konverterer til socialdemokrater eller at radikale, går i seng med Liberal Alliance.

Så helt ærligt. Al den snak om rød og blå blokpolitik er bare so last year.

Nutidens politiske arbejde synes i langt højere grad at kræve særlige gode evner for samarbejde frem for habile anlæg for at kunne male røde og blå streger.

Det lyder heller ikke særligt demokratisk, når Dansk Folkeparti trækker en regering ned over hovedet på danskerne, som de end ikke selv vil være en del af eller tage ansvaret for.

Så var det ikke mere gavnligt for ”Danmark og danskerne” at lytte til resultatet af valgnatten.

Det flest danskere vil.

Et resultat, der alene giver 84 mandater til liste A og O. Det flest danskere vil.

Socialdemokraterne er jo allerede i årevis beskyldt for at være blå, men de er det naturligvis ideologisk ikke.
Dansk Folkeparti vil tilsyneladende så forfærdelig gerne være blå, men de er det jo ikke…. og deres holdninger er jo slet ikke blå nok.

Så hvorfor er det så svært at nytænke valgdemokratiet og omfortolke valgresultatet mere moderne.
Frem for at sende Løkke ud og ind af Amalienborg, som var vi en bananstat.

Værd at læse: Osteklokkevalget 2015 / MandagMorgen

Anita Cramer Corpas

Anita Cramer Corpas er erfaren journalist og kommunikationsrådgiver.
Speciale: Journalistik i almindelighed, landbrug, nyheder, succeshistorier, kommunikation og mediekontakt.

www.corpas.dk

Det lyder lidt som et kommunalt beskæftigelsesprojekt, læs: nyttejob, hvor en meget stor indsats har et meget lille udkomme.

Resultatet er baseret på de folketingskandidater i Vestjyllands Storkreds, der har besvaret testen

Ta’ Kandidattesten og vælg imellem det umulige.

Et stort antal vestjyske kandidater til Folketinget besvarer Kandidattesten helt individuelt, og ofte imod den landspolitiske ideologi i partiet.

Endelig skal du ikke regne med, at den kandidat, du er mest enig med også er enig med sine egne partifæller.

Hent hele testen som pdf: Kandidattest fv15 

Af Anita Corpas, journalist (DJ)
aoh.dk

Ved at besvare 15 spørgsmål, finder du ud af, hvilken kandidat opstillet i dit område til folketingsvalget, som du er mest enig med.

Imidlertid skal du ikke regne med, at den kandidat, du er mest enig med også er enig med sine egne partifæller.
Ligesom mange vestjyske kandidater besvarer testen, helt som vælgerne blæser og ofte imod den landspolitiske ideologi i partiet.

Kristen hippie
Resultatet af DR & Altinget’s Kandidattest for Vestjyllands Storkreds bonner ud med, at jeg er over 70 procent enig med Knud Gahn-Larsen fra Kristendemokraterne, Jakob Sølvhøj fra Enhedslisten og Sascha Qvortrup fra Alternativet.

Dog viser det sig, at Knud Gaarn-Larsen overhovedet ikke er enig med sine egne partifæller.
Faktisk er han hele 65 procent u-enig med partikammeraten Troels Moesgard.

Noget tyder derfor på, at Gaarn-Larsen måske slet ikke er medlem af det rigtige parti.

LA og Ø står sammen
De eneste partier i Vestjylland, der opstiller kandidater, der stemmer helt overens med hinanden – og desuden fuldkommen overens med formanden – eller kvinden for landspartiet er Liberal Alliance og Enhedslisten.

Noget tyder derfor på, at jo mere til højre eller venstre fra midten en kandidat er – des mere klar er vedkommende på sin egen politik.

Lige med undtagelse af Orla Østerby fra de Konservative. Han svarer hverken/eller til 10 ud af 15 spørgsmål.

Modsat virker det som om, at jo tættere en kandidat er på midten, des mere ulden og uenig med sine partifæller, er man åbenbart.

Konsekvensen er, at de 179 pladser i Folketinget kan blive besat af mennesker, der mener hver sit, men som senere tænker at gøre et flertal.
Det lyder lidt som et kommunalt beskæftigelsesprojekt, læs: nyttejob, hvor en meget stor indsats har et meget lille udkomme.

Fejl i test
Til gengæld er der en manipulerende sproglig brøler i Kandidattesten.
Alt imens du besvarer testen, erklærer du dig henholdsvis ”meget enig eller meget uenig.

Imidlertid bliver det lille ord meget til helt, når du får resultatet.

Det betyder, at vendingen meget enig i besvarelsen bliver til helt enig i resultatet.
Der er nu en gang himmelhamrende stor forskel på, hvorvidt en politiker erklærer sig meget enig eller helt enig i de enkelte udsagn.

Miskmask
Hverken Helle Thorning Schmidt eller Lars Løkke Rasmussen har besværet sig med at tage Kandidattesten. Derfor kan man ikke se, hvad de mener. Begge er derfor erstattet med en værdig landsdækkende meningsdanner for deres partier.

Men miskmask i DR’s oplysninger gør det lidt svært at finde en substitut for Løkke. I Kandidattesten er han opstillet i Sjællands Storkreds.

Men ifølge Folketingets egne oplysninger er Lars Løkke dog opstillet i Nordsjællands Storkreds.
Her er også Claus Hjorth Frederiksen stillet op, og da han med lidt god vilje lidt på afstand og for ni kilo siden, ligner Løkke lidt og samtidig tør besvare testen med hår på brystet, må han være en værdig repræsentant for venstrepolitikken.

Ældreplejen skal udliciteres
Alle Venstrefolk i Vestjyllands Storkreds er stort set enige om, at mere af ældreplejen skal udliciteres.

Det er paradoksalt stik imod landsfader-substituttens holdning.

Det er paradoksalt stik imod landsfader-substituttens holdning.

For Claus Hjort Frederiksen mener ikke, at mere af ældreplejen skal udliciteres. I hvert fald ikke på papiret.

Faktisk er der hos Venstre kun et eneste punkt samtlige kandidater er helt enige med hinanden – og Claus Hjort Frederiksen om.
Og det er, at vækst i den offentlige sektor ikke er vigtigere end skattelettelser.

Også blandt de radikale kandidater er der umiddelbart kludder i ideologien.

I Vestjyllands Storkreds er Andreas Raaby Steenberg helt ene om at mene, at ældreplejen skal udliciteres.

Det kan meget vel være helt i overensstemmelse med radikal politik, eftersom de radikale går ind for ”udlicitering under demokratisk kontrol…” hvad det så end betyder.

Måske, det er Andreas Raaby Steenberg, der er den rigtige Radikale?

Hos Dansk Folkeparti er kandidaterne samlet imod at udlicitere mere af ældreplejen.
I den forbindelse svarer partistifter Pia Kjærsgaard for en gangs skyld noget valent med et hverken/eller, hvorimod den nye formand; Kristian Thulesen Dahl delvist er uenig i at udlicitere mere.

En uenig kristen
Kristendemokraterne er alle minus én stort set imod at privatisere mere af ældreplejen. Kristendemokraternes overordnede vision er da også at stable en national pulje på over 1 mia. til skoler, plejehjem og institutioner.

Derfor kan man måske undre sig over, at Kristendemokraten Troels Moesgaard som den eneste i det vestjyske alligevel går ind for at privatisere ældreplejen…

Retten til dagpenge
I det røde ringhjørne er Henrik Sass Larsen valgt som repræsentativ landsdækkende socialdemokrat, selvom det måske ikke er helt fair.
Han er jo fra den oprindelige tid, hvor en socialdemokrat var rød og en blå socialdemokrat var fra Venstre.

Det er derfor tankevækkende, at han svarer uklart på det socialdemokratiske kernespørgsmål om, hvorvidt det skal være hurtigere at optjene retten til dagpenge.

Men uld i mund er der ikke hos de vestjyske socialdemokrater. Her står den største gruppe A’er sammen om, at det skal gøres hurtigere at optjene ret til dagpenge…

Røde S’er i udkantsdk
Man kan derfor godt få det indtryk, at Socialdemokraterne i udkantsdanmark endnu ikke er blevet liberaliseret.

Lad det være et hint til den klassiske socialdemokrat; Hvis et rødt flag atter skal smælde med socialdemokratisk indflydelse på borgen, så skal den vist komme fra Vestjylland.

Så lad det være et hint til den klassiske socialdemokrat, som længe har kikket i arbejdernes sangbog efter rød politik; Hvis et rødt flag atter skal smælde med socialdemokratisk indflydelse på borgen, så skal den vist komme fra Vestjylland.

Ud med kulturen
I det kreative felt hænger det slapt med kærligheden til kulturen hos blå blok. Også selvom området vel teoretisk kan spænde lige fra FCK til Olafur Eliasson.

Samtlige vestjyske opstillede kandidater fra henholdsvis Liberal Alliance, Kristendemokraterne og Dansk Folkeparti (minus én) er helt enige i, at støtten til kulturen skal sænkes.

Kun Jette Lund fra Dansk Folkeparti er helt uenig i dette synspunkt, men Jette Lund er skolelærer, så jeg ved ikke rigtig, om det gælder.
Til gengæld deler hun opfattelse med sin partifælle Pia Kjærsgaard, der altid hævder, at kulturen skal prioriteters højt, hvorimod Kristian Thulesen Dahl svarer diffust.

V mener det hele
På kulturspørgsmålet spreder Venstrekandidaterne sig derimod over hele paletten.

Bevares, flest er delvist enige i at beholde den offentlige støtte til kulturen, hvilket Claus Hjorth også er.

Kun Kristian Phil Lorenzen erklærer sig alene parat til at skære i støtten til kulturen.

Det virker ellers ikke som, det virkelig er Venstres politik at nedprioritere kulturen, for Venstre har faktisk en smuk formuleret politik, der hylder nødvendigheden af, ”at frembringe værker, som både provokerer til nytænkning og står som nationale symboler…”

Venstres pseudoformand Kristian Jensen, som er opstillet i Vestjylland Storkreds brillierer lysende alene blandt de vestjyske venstrefolk med at være helt imod at skære i støtte til kulturen.
Men nu kommer Kristian Jensen jo også temmelig ofte udenfor hovedlandet, så måske gælder det synspunkt heller ikke rigtigt.

Alternativet
Brilliere gør Uffe Elbæk også hver gang han er på TV. Mens han slasker rundt dårligt klædt med hænderne i lommen, bliver folk voldsomt provokeret af hans politik eller mangel på samme.

I Kandidattesten er han heller ikke særlig tydelig med, hvorvidt han mener, at mere af ældreplejen skal udliciteres, om vækst i den offentlige sektor er vigtigere end skattelettelser, eller om EU bestemmer for meget.

Derudover er han kun vagt uenig i, at et besøg hos lægen skal koste penge, og kun vagt enig i, at det skal være hurtigere at optjene ret til dagpenge.

I Vestjylland er end ikke de tre kandidater helt enige med hinanden – eller med parties stifter.
Bort set fra at Sascha Qvortrup netop har trukket sit kandidatur – så er der et stort spænd fra, at Rene Gade mener, at det skal koste penge at gå til læge, mens de to andre Å-er er helt uenige.

Politiske wannabes
Og så er det en generel lidelse for nye partier at finde profiler, der vil være stærke nok til at fylde taburetterne end de politiske wannabes, der vil forbyde citronmåner og gøre offentlig transport gratis.

…politiske wannabes, der vil forbyde citronmåner og gøre offentlig transport gratis.

Imidlertid gør Uffe Elbæk alt og alle oprørte med sin måde at tænke på. For kan man stille op til Folketinget uden en færdigformuleret politik, der på den ene side er hamrende sympatisk og på den anden side er helt umulig?

Er det da ikke netop det, de håbefulde kandidater til Folketinget beder os om at gøre den 18. juni? Træffe det umulige valg på baggrund af deres egne uklare svar.

Anita Cramer Corpas

Anita Cramer Corpas er erfaren journalist og kommunikationsrådgiver.
Speciale: Journalistik i almindelighed, landbrug, nyheder, succeshistorier, kommunikation og mediekontakt.

www.corpas.dk

Politik er blevet en opvisning i spin. Uden for festen står vi vælgere med vores krydser og ved ikke, hvad fanden vi skal gøre og skide i.

Men der er en mislyd. Der er noget, der banker. Hårdt. Hold nu op. Det er mit ræverøde solidariske og socialistiske hjerte.
Gud, har jeg sådan ét?

Af Anita Corpas, journalist DJ

”Hjemme hos os er der ikke noget, der hedder; det er lige meget”.
Alligevel må jeg lidt bleg i knæene vedgå, at det er blevet lidt “lige meget” med politik, og for første gang nogensinde overvejer jeg at stemme blankt.

Se nu fx ved den første topduel mellem statsministerkandidaterne, hvor Lars Løkke forsøger sig med en helt ny stil. Den underdanige. Den, der ikke rigtig kan stå imod, når hende den lange med de dyre vaner knalder ham én.

”2000 kroner Lars løkke…hvad var det, du sagde, man kunne få for 2000 kr. Lars …. Et par sko”.

”700 i arbejde, Lars. Tror du virkelig, at der er nogen, der tror på de tal, Lars? 700 i arbejde ud af 40.000 ud af 38.000. 14.000. 17.200…..20.000 minus 6500… jeg har 39 milliarder, du rejser rundt med 20 milliarder, jeg har regnet, du har ikke regnet. Læg en plan, Lars fremlæg en plan, kom nu Lars”

… suk….

Der er ingen tvivl om, at det tårnhøje helvede kvaste det lille brede håb hos Lars Løkke i det nye Colosseum foran Christiansborg.

Det lignede i hvert fald ikke den velkendte levemand at finde sig så ydmygt i den omgang verbale prygl.
Jeg var forundret, for der er da ingen som ham, der har nedladende venstreretorik indopereret direkte i mundtøjet og til hver en tid kan replicere; jeg vil ikke diskutere på det niveau….

Hvad er der sket? For stod Lars ikke der som en dreng i korte bukser, mens overformynderiet tordnede i luftlag, som kun er forundt de få at være i?

Jo, det gjorde han, alt imens jeg ikke blev en hønefis klogere på, hvad det er, de to hver især vil gøre for mig eller mit land.

Men det er jo heller ikke meningen, for politik er blevet en opvisning i spin. Hvor journalister narrer journalister og viser, hvor smarte nogen af dem er. Alt i mens politikere taler indforstået med sig selv og hinanden og med medier på twitter.

Uden for festen står vi vælgere med vores krydser og ved ikke, hvad fanden vi skal gøre og skide i.

Denne aften forglemte statsministeren vist helt sig selv og blev grebet af, hvor selvfed hun kan være, og formentlig i en grad, der ligger fjernt fra al den medierådgivning, hun har fået.

Resultatet var da også, at man jo fik helt ondt af ham den lille, der oven i købet har tabt sig ni kilo til lejligheden og er blevet sådan en pæn mand.

1-0 til spin-ikonerne fra Venstre.

Tilbage sidder jeg med livets teater foran mig og tænker, hvad i hede hule h… er det i grunden, jeg får for mine skattekroner….?

Jeg er virksomhedsejer, og som selvstændig erhvervsdrivende er der ligesom fulgt en kapitalistisk svinehund med forretningen.

Derfor ruller Otto van Flottenheim sig da også gevaldigt festligt i al tale om at sænke skatterne, sænke ulandsbistanden, sænke kontanthjælpen….
Ja, for helvede. Pengene yngler sg ligesom bedre i mine lommer end i andres betrængte vilkår.

Og nej nej nej, jeg betaler ikke min skat med glæde. Det er et fuldkommen overdrevent statement, og en dygtig revisor sørger da også hvert år for at begrænse mine tab mest muligt.

Og når DF smører godt med fremmedrædsel og indvandrerfrygt på løftet om samarbejde til højre, så er Otto helt oppe og lægge de to svinekødben over kryds ved liste V.

Men kapitalistsvinet bliver nu altså noget usikker, når den mand, der vil lede mig og landet ikke kan få noget så simpelt som en lille historie til at hænge sammen…. Hverken en gang eller to gange eller…

Vi taler dog om en topchef, der repræsenterer et parti, der betaler alt fra underbukser til medierådgivning. Hvordan kan sådan en mægtig mand undgå at dække sin rumpe med hardcore dokumentation?

Helt ærligt.

For mig ligner det manglende overblik og dårligt lederskab. Han kan da ikke lede mig og da slet ikke Danmark? Mener I virkelig det?

Kapitalistsvinet Otto van Flottenheim gør af fuld hals; jojojo, fuck da det. Det er der da aldrig nogen, der opdager mand. Slap nu af. Træk det fra i skat eller noget.

Men der er en mislyd. Der er noget, der banker. Hårdt. Hold nu op. Det er mit ræverøde solidariske og socialistiske hjerte. Gud, har jeg sådan ét?

Arh mand, gaaab, grynter Otto.

Okay, hvis jeg nu stemmer på S, så viser jeg min røde vilje, og så får vi jo også lidt Løkke-politik alligevel. Og jeg er nu lidt stolt, når Helle Thorning Schmidt repræsenterer Danmark. En flot kvinde med god stil. Og så kan hun tale fremmesprog, så vores lille lorte-land ikke bliver til grin.

Hun er venner med verdens mest betydningsfulde mennesker – om end hun åbenbart er lige lovlig ”god veninde” med Angela Merkel.
Hun har vist, at hun kan gøre, hvad Fogh kunne.
Endda bedre.
For mens han solgte vores deltagelse til Irak-krigen og blev venner med Bush, solgte hun os til Afghanistan og blev venner med Obama plus at hele verden ikke blev levnet tvivl om venskabet.

Og det gør ikke mig noget, at hun har dyre vaner. Jeg havde selv hang til B&O i 90’erne, da de havde et banebrydende design, og jeg er altså nu engang blandt de, der mener, at en ægte socialdemokrat ikke behøver at gå i gabardine.

Men så begynder de behårede kameler at stå i kø. Under stram ledelse af de radikale reformerer hun vores system.
Og tilgiv mig, at det ikke var kontanthjælpsreform eller velfærdsydelser til EU-borgere, der arbejder i Danmark, der rystede mig mest.

Derimod var det det drabelige indhug i offentlighedsloven, salget af nationalklenodiet; DONG og den helt fuldkommen tænderskærende erkendelse af, at S på fjerde år nægter at genoprette den absolutte mest hellige socialdemokratisk kerneværdi; dagpengesystemet….

Som timerne ruller nærmere valget hører vi i stedet, hvor enige S er med V.  At SF danner fællesaftale med DF

….arhmen, for helvede.

Engang i tidernes morgen, for vel nærmest tre årtier siden oplevede jeg, hvordan rigtig solidaritet fungerer.
Jeg har oplevet, hvordan mere velbjergede kolleger hævede os lavestlønnede, og jeg har set hvordan fagbevægelsen kunne fungere, og hvad det vil sige at kunne stå sammen.

Jeg har oplevet, at mennesker rent faktisk godt vil tage vare på hinanden, sikre et solidarisk system, bidrage, når andre ikke har muligheden.

Dengang deltog jeg i 1. maj og følte samhørighed med alle de andre. I dag savner jeg, at vi i vores samfund ikke udelukkende tænker på, hvad der er økonomisk rentabelt.

Og for at lukke arret på Otto van Flottenheim har jeg brug for mennesker, der er bedre end jeg selv.

Mennesker, der er rene i hjertet, og som ikke tænker på at rage til sig selv, men som sørger for, at vi, der har råd, betaler for de, der ikke har.
Sørger for, at vi har et samfund, hvor syge på hospitalerne ikke ligger på gangene, at ældreomsorg ikke er mad som end ikke dyr gider æde. At vi får ressourcer til at hjælpe de ældre, de syge, de handicappede, de uden arbejde. De svageste…

Jamen, det er jo sådan et samfund, jeg gerne vil leve i.

I stedet føles det bare som om, at dagens politikere har glemt, hvad det er, minister rent faktisk betyder.

Minister betyder tjener. En tjener for folket…. Men måske skulle vi kalde det noget andet.

Vi kunne kalde det medister, noget man bliver fed af….

Værd at læse: En utroværdig valgkamp, Mandagmorgen

Anita Cramer Corpas

Anita Cramer Corpas er erfaren journalist og kommunikationsrådgiver.
Speciale: Journalistik i almindelighed, landbrug, nyheder, succeshistorier, kommunikation og mediekontakt.

www.corpas.dk