West Great Life Dental Claims: Fill & Download for Free

It depends where you are moving from, what your opportunities (employment, housing, schooling etc) will be like when you arrive, which part of Canada you are planning to move to, and whether or not you’ll be eligible for permanent residence or only a short term work permit/visa. Only you can answer these questions for yourself, but let me share some helpful hints and tips from my own experience.I moved from the UK to Canada earlier this year with my wife and young daughter, and it’s the best decision I’ve made in a very long time. The UK was great to us, and there are certainly things it did incredibly well, and that I miss — especially friends and family who are still back there. But even coming from an affluent, and developed country like the UK, the quality of life here in Canada for someone like me, who has a good, and dependable job, is like night and day. There is a reason Canada frequently tops, or comes near the top of, most quality of life surveys each year.That said, it’s not a perfect country — none are — and you’ll need to do your homework as to what things matter to you before making that kind of move.I had previously spent a couple of years in Canada, including winters, so I was not coming in blind. A lot of people do, because they hear Canada is such a great country for immigrants, and then get caught off guard when they arrive, so do your homework.Before saying anything more, it’s important to say, Canada is a vast country, and while some of these things may be broadly true about the country, it’s important to remember that things vary a lot from one place to another. There are differences from province to province, differences between cities and urban areas, and smaller rural communities, differences from North to South, and some big differences from east to west. My experience comes from two years travelling extensively throughout Western Canada, both in big 5 cities (spending around 8 months total in and around Calgary, and also around a month in and around Edmonton and Vancouver) some secondary cities and urban centres of varying sizes (Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Kelowna, Lethbridge, Red Deer, etc) and a lot of time in more rural and remote places throughout BC, AB, SK, and MB, and currently living in a small community in northern BC.While I have a good sense of the differences between North and South, and big cities, smaller cities and more rural areas, I don’t have any experience east of Manitoba, so take what I say about the east-west divide accordingly.We moved back here earlier this year, to pursue a particular career path I had always felt called to do here — Christian ministry to rural Canadian places — and had a good job, livable salary, great long term prospects, and housing already arranged before arrival. While I am aware some people qualify to come to Canada for permanent residence without a firm job offer in place, I honestly cannot imagine doing this.Canada is a great country, with a good social security net, and above average employment rates and opportunities, and if you unexpectedly find yourself out of work while living here, you may be okay short term, but coming to a country knowing you will not have regular income from day one seems like a lot more stress than I would want. Unless you have no other choice (eg, you are claiming asylum or refugee status), I would make sure I have a firm job offer, a living wage, and housing lined up before even thinking about moving to another country.Once you’ve found work, make sure you understand what you’re getting into, culturally, economically, socially, and geographically/climate wise.Many of these things can be the biggest selling points for a lot of people, but depending on your background, and expectations, could also be things that make Canada incredibly difficult to you, if you are not prepared.The people are friendly, welcoming, and laid back. Canadians has a reputation for being friendly, and it’s certainly well earned. Canada has been welcoming visitors and immigrants for many years, and almost 1/5 Canadian residents were born outside of Canada. With that said, this increasing percentage does have some Canadian citizens concerned, and there has been a growing number of people suggesting that, perhaps, Canada cannot sustain these levels of immigration indefinitely, and a growing concern about immigrants coming to Canada without being willing or able to assimilate into the culture.While most Canadians — even those who are concerned about immigration rates — will still welcome immigrants into their communities, you will find it much easier to call Canada home if you show you actually intend to do that — make this place home.Going out of your way to master the local language, get involved in local culture and customs, and put down roots will go a long way to improving your quality of life, and ingratiating yourself with the local community. Almost no Canadians expect you to completely give up your native culture, language, traditions, or heritage, but there is, I think, real frustration at immigrants who are perceived as not really contributing to Canada — people who seem to to come to Canada, live in small, enclosed communities of fellow immigrants, never master the language or embrace the culture of Canada, send most of their money back to their home country, take advantage of healthcare and education, and then leaveThat said, for immigrants that get involved in their community, Canada is a wonderful and welcoming place to call home.The Canadian political system, work environment, and culture broadly speaking, rewards hard work, while also having a strong sense of social responsibility, and supporting those who are less fortunate.Canada’s pace of life tends to be somewhat slower than similar western developed nations. People enjoy and appreciate more relaxed and laid back pursuits.The slower pace of life is a draw for many, but can be infuriating for people who come from more driven and focussed cultures. If you define yourself by work, and derive value and identity from your career and income, or need constant stimulation, and a never ending list of things to occupy your time and entertain you, you may be annoyed to discover a lot of Canadians may not share your drive or perspective.Certainly, its possible to turn personal drive into success in Canada, and many immigrants and Canadians alike do just that each and every day. In cities, there is a lot to do, and the big 5 cities are all thriving, world-class cities with all that you would expect of them, and even many of Canada’s second-tier cities (population wise) often have more than you would expect from places that size, but a lot of parts of Canada do not have the same opportunities nearby for entertainment, business and employment opportunities in service, research and development, college and university options, etc.And to be clear, Canada certainly has a western mindset in terms of future planning, timekeeping, event scheduling, etc, and compared to many cultures, particularly Polynesian, Caribbean, and some African and Asian cultures, things can seem overly regimented and very “busy”, but compared to a lot of Western European, latin American, some African and Asian countries, and even large parts of the USA, Canada can feel slow, under-motivated, and “boring”.I know numerous people who would think nothing of taking several weeks or even months off work at a time, to go and live away “off the grid” in the bush because it’s hunting season, and bagging an elk or moose is more important (and valuable) to them than the money they would take home working, or others who will work hard for 3 or 4 months in oil, gas, or forestry, where they can make a lot of money in a fairly short period of time, but then come home and only want to work part time hours the rest of the year. A lot of smaller towns and cities do not have the same range of entertainment opportunities (nightlife, bars, live entertainment venues, etc) in easy reach when compared to a lot of other countries.Canadians work slightly more hours on average than a few equivalent countries, but still below the OECD average, and people tend to value and respect a healthy work-life balance. Canadians tend to have slightly less annual vacation time per year than countries like the UK or EU nations, but also work fewer hours per working week than a lot of other countries. Only a tiny percentage of Canadians (less than 4%) work what the OECD would consider “very long hours” (50 hours per week or more), and the majority of working Canadians do not need to hold down multiple jobs to make ends meet.While many homes do have two working parents, especially in the cities, in rural areas, it is entirely possible for the average salary of a blue-collar worker to make ends meet for an average family, without a second parent needing to work, something that is increasingly rare in many countries. Salaries in Canada tend to be a little lower than equivalent salaries in some other countries, but cost of living also tends to be lower. US salaries tend to look much higher than Canadian ones, but disposable income tends to be equivalent, if not actually a little more, especially for families with children, as a lot of things that are free, or greatly subsidized at the point of delivery in Canada, incur high out-of-pocket expenses in the US. If you are single, or without children, the USA or other western nations may serve you better, but if you have a family, Canada is hard to beat.It has a good healthcare system. It is largely universal and publicly funded (though with a few notable gaps in coverage some other nations provide) but privately delivered, meaning that there is often choice and alternatives available. It is funded and delivered at a provincial level, meaning that their can be varying levels of coverage and provision across the country, but Canadians covered by a plan from most provinces or territories generally receive medically necessary and emergency treatment while traveling out of province, though admittedly with some exclusions, and remembering Quebec does not generally participate in this.There are some notable gaps in coverage, including slightly higher than average drug costs compared to a lot of developed countries who provide national healthcare, and no coverage for routine non-emergency optical and dental care, below average mental health provisions in some areas, and limited or no coverage for some alternative medicine, including things like chiropractic, acupuncture, naturopathy, massage therapy, etc.Therefore, most employers provide some level of additional healthcare coverage, either by way of a group coverage plan, or additional financial compensation to cover supplemental private health care for you and your family, which will cover some, or all of your out of pocket expenses for these things, though this can vary wildly from employer to employer, and province to province.Canada a good publicly funded K-12 education system, relatively affordable post-secondary education opportunities with some world-class institutions in the country. Even compared to the UK’s solid education system, it is clear that moving into the Canadian system has been a real benefit to my young daughter.Canadian education tends to be less academically target and testing driven, and more focussed on creating rounded individuals, with a lot more room and focus given to development in areas outside of traditional academic subjects. This may be a plus to you, and I personally think is a much better way to raise and develop children, but also means that, if your culture values academic achievement, and this has been your child’s experience throughout their early childhood, moving to the Canadian system may be a challenge for you, and for them.Communities still largely feel like real communities, and tend to still have a friendly neighbourhood feel, where people look out for one another, and have relatively strong social bonds, especially compared to a lot of other developed western nations. This is particularly true both as you travel west, and away from cities in the country, where a real “pioneer spirit” still seems to exist in a lot of places, and people tend to feel quite strongly that being part of a local community is a big part of their identity.That said, family bonds tend to be looser than in a lot of other cultures. That said, extended families tend to be much less likely to live together, or even nearby. It is common for adult children to live great distances from their parents and grandparents as they move around the vast country to pursue career or education opportunities. This discovery can be a particular shock to people in cultures where children remain in the family home their entire life, and look after parents as they grow old.It is not that anyone would frown on you for doing this, just that children raised in Canadian culture are less likely to feel that this is their obligation and duty, and the size of the nation often means moving great distances for work or education is the only option. If you are relying on your children being there in your old age, you’re going to be fighting the culture to keep that instilled in themYou also need to understand the size and population density of the country. Canada is HUGE, and very sparcely populated. While it’s true that the majority of people live in a hand full of large cities and urban areas, and this is where the majority of immigrants rent to move. However, there are people living in all corners of the country, and you will often find more opportunities, lower cost of living, and a better quality of life outside of the big cities.Canada’s true cities (1 million people plus) like Toronto, Montreal, Edmonton, Vancouver, and Ottawa have a lot going on and are great places to live and work, but the cost of living in many of them is expensive, competition for jobs is high, and come with many of the problems all large cities have (traffic, pollution, noise, higher crime rates, etc). While Canada generally does better than a lot of other countries with these things, they are real, and something to consider.By moving away of the big 5 cities, and into smaller urban centres (cities of less than 100,000 people), or even to smaller rural towns, districts, or villages, estate prices tumble (primary real estate in big cities is often well over $1 million, it can drop to less than a quarter of that for equivalent properties away from the urban centres. Though there are clearly trade offs, smaller cities often have a higher standard of living and there are still many of these places that are within a reasonable commute to large urban centres.That said, you need to understand given the size of the country that the way Canadians think about commuting and travel may be very different to how people in other countries do. In some parts of the country, including where I live, people will think nothing of driving more than an hour for a grocery run at a large store, to go out for a meal, for social meetups, or entertainment venues, and will often consider a 4–5 hour round trip fairly routine to pick up a more hard-to-find things.It is relatively common for a “morning commute” to work to be 100 KM or more, especially for people who work in industries like forestry, oil and gas, construction, power generation, or manufacturing etc, and for you to pass through relatively few developed areas or other communities along the way.Depending on where you’re moving from, this may not be a huge deal. But if you’re coming from a smaller, and more densely populated country, it can feel isolating and lonely while you get used to it.Canada is absolutely breathtakingly beautiful. I have not travelled as extensively as I’d have liked to, I'm sure there are plenty of other beautiful places elsewhere in the world, but the scenery, natural wonder, wildlife, forests, lakes, mountains, waterfalls, rivers, and wilderness I’ve seen traveling throughout Canada is, hands down some of the best I’ve seen anywhere. While it has everything a modern, wealthy, developed nation has in terms of infrastructure, and man-made stuff, much of which is also great, and inspiring in its own way, between those man-made and urbanized conservations are vast stretches of untamed and untouched nature that will blow your mind.It seems obvious, the reason so much of Canada is untamed and wild, is because, it's also a pretty tough place to tame. I live about as far north in BC as is really settled and while a few settlements do exist north of here, including some communities like Fort Nelson, a number of Indian nations and reservations, as well as all of the towns and cities in the Yukon, there is a reason that the vast majority of the population of Canada lives within a few hundred KM of the US border.The climate in Canada is cold in the winter. There is no two ways about it. With a few exceptions, like Vancouver Island, the Vancouver metro area, and a few coastal communities throughout the maritimes, Canada has some extreme harsh winters. Even cities close to the US border have average daily temperatures below 0℃ from October through March, and summers, while warm and dry in most of the country, are relatively short most years. There is typically snow on the ground the vast majority of December, January and February, in most places in Canada, temperatures dropping below -20℃ multiple times throughout the winter is neither unusual, or particularly surprising for most Canadians.And the further north you travel, the colder it tends to get. This year, our first snow already flew a few days back, and the temperature hasn’t crept back above zero for around a week now, and it’s not even Halloween yet. It’ll probably hover around freezing for a few more weeks yet… some days it’ll be up as high 5 or 6℃, we’ll get a little rain, and the snow will wash away for a few days, some days it’ll drop as low as -7 to -10℃ and we’ll get a solid freeze or snow fall, but it’ll flip back and forth between the two for a while. But once we hit mid-November to around mid February, it’ll be a rarity that there isn’t snow on the ground, and temperatures around -10℃ will feel comparatively mild compared to how low it can get.Long and short, you’re going to have to get used to the cold if you want to live most places in Canada. Now, the coldest parts of Canada also tend to be the least humid, and low humidity can make surviving these kinds of temperatures much easier, but there are adjustments you’ll need to make, and if you can’t make those adjustments, Canada is going to be miserable for you.Personally, I much prefer cold temperatures to hot ones, so this wasn’t a particular problem for us, but a lot of people do struggle with this, and, unless you’ve come from somewhere with similar temperatures, there is no way to prepare yourself until you actually experience it.Finally, depending on where you’re coming from, it’s also important to point out the obvious… while the salaries may look incredible compared to equivalent salaries where you live, most Canadians are only ever “getting by”, and the salaries reflect the cost of living.If you’re coming from India, let's say, (it’s theoretical, but that’s where my father is originally from, so I have a bit more knowledge about this than i would other countries), and have a very good job there, maybe as an IT consultant, you may be earning between ₹400,000 (₹4 lakh) and ₹2 million (₹20 lakh) each year, depending on experience. That’s between about $7,000 and $35,000 CAD. So seeing that an IT consultant in Canada averages around $80,000 per year with potential to pass $120,000 with experience (around ₹4.4 million/₹44 lakh up to more than ₹6.7 million/₹67 lakh), it can be tempting to think that you’ll live like a king here. But the reality is, your money also goes a lot further in India too. housing, food, entertainment, vehicles, etc all cost more here too, and while an $80,000 salary will allow you to live comfortably in Canada, you’re not going to feel like you’ve got 2–3 times the income you had in India. Indeed, for qualified people with good jobs in India (more than ₹500,000/₹5 Lakh per year) you may even feel like you’ve got less passive and disposable income in Canada than you did back home, when you factor in the difference in cost of living.Don’t get me wrong. Moving to Canada has been incredible for me, and my family, and I don’t regret it even for a second, but you need to come in with your eyes open — If you view a move like this through rose-tinted glasses, and only look to the positives, it’s easy for your dream to become a nightmare when reality sets in.For me, the positives easily outweigh the negatives, and i’m so happy we had the opportunity to move, but your milage may vary, so make sure you weigh the options carefully.

I think the phrase is actually 'You reap what you sow,' and if you want me to give you an easy answer to that question then you are liable to be sorely disappointed. I’m faced with the prospect that people of all persuasions are not going to like what I have to say. And yes, I often write in a somewhat whimsical way and no, I’m not going to change that here.I’m genuinely upset by what happened — Manchester especially hit me hard — but to change they way I think, and the way I write is to let them score a victory over me. And they aren’t getting that from me, not now, not ever.So you’ve been warned.To begin with, like anyone else being asked to issue a thoughtful response to a recent terrorist action, it is both right and proper that I begin with a condemnation of the attack.At the time of writing it looks like seven people have been killed, murdered in a senseless and brutal attack. In addition to the seven lives cut short, we have hundreds if not thousands of people grieving for lost loved ones.Then we have the perpetrators themselves.For atheists such as myself, life is precious. You get one shot at it folks. One spin of the wheel. Just one.If you are lucky, you'll get the best part of a century to make something of your life. Maybe you'll raise some great kids? Maybe you'll make a direct contribution to society in some way? Perhaps you'll be a doctor and heal people, a scientist who discovers some great cure for this or that disease. You might be an entertainer and make people laugh (or cry,) or whatever. It doesn't even have to be grandiose. Society needs street cleaners as much as it needs politicians and poets; speaking as someone who has naturally curly hair of a somewhat non-euclidean nature I can only say thank god for hairdressers.There are only two important questions to ask yourself at the end of your life.Did I enjoy it?Did I make a positive contribution?The answer to the first question is all about bonus points, it's an optional extra really. It's nice if you had fun but it doesn't matter if you didn't really enjoy the trip. I can think of many a miserable sod who left the world a better place than it was when they entered it.The second answer, on the other hand, is not so easy to sidestep. You either did or you did not.Your life either meant something or it did not.I'm still alive — or at the very least I’m conceited enough to describe myself thus — but I'll do my best to post my answers to those questions on Quora before I pop off to wherever the hell atheists don’t get to go to when they die. But to the terrorists who thought that it would be a good idea to set off a bomb in an auditorium filled with little girls -- to those who ran through London last night murdering people in cold blood -- I have only this to say.You wasted the life that was given to you.Like seriously. Total fucking waste; #fail to the nth degree.Oh, I know that you saw your actions as just. I know you saw this as a short cut to heaven. I know that you thought you were doing god’s will.I also know that when you were small and innocent of all violence and evil you were taught that there was an almighty being who loved you and cared for you but who could be oh, so, so hateful and murderous when the mood took him.I know that.But the Bronze Age, invisible Sky-God that you was foisted upon your still developing brain is no more real than the one they attempted to foist upon mine. Different, gods, different holy texts for sure but cut from the same Abrahamic cloth nonetheless.And don't get me wrong, I believe in freedom of religion. You can worship whatever you choose. You can worship a giant Astro-Turtle for all I care. Seriously, knock yourself out.But my support of freedom or religion is based on a thorough reading of John Stuart Mill. It's based on secular, libertarian ideas of free speech. It has nothing to do with theology or respect for beliefs that I find at times insulting to human intelligence. I’d never force anyone to abandon their religion but I’d sure as hell encourage them to do so. It would be like watching my beloved pet lizard shed its dead skin.Now, I can happily sit down and discuss religion (or anything else for that matter,) with people of any faith.Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Scientologists... They can have their view of our cosmological and philosophical origins and I can have mine. They can tell me how enriched they are by faith and I can let them know how satisfying truth can be.Because my view of religion goes something like this:“Organized Religion is at best a well-intentioned attempt to make sense of a world we had no hope of understanding at the time of the religion’s formation. At its worst it is a con job engineered to shrink wrap brains so that people behave in uniform and predictable ways. “Most religions are a bit of both of those things.Maybe I’m right. Maybe there is no god. Maybe I got it wrong and there is one. Either way, there is no salvation for these killers.The terrorists won't be going to heaven to sit at the side of their preferred deity. They are either dead or facing very long jail terms. History will remember them-- if they are remembered at all -- as cowards, as dupes, and as fools.Those that live will come to regret their actions. If they are lucky they will appear on documentaries as shallow, broken, people filled with remorse as they try to piece together a shell of a life thirty or so years from now. If they are unlucky they will never even understand where they went so very, very wrong.Because, sure, they were indoctrinated and that's actually not their fault. Children have little defense from the ideas a trusted adult decides to impose upon them. But they got to grow up at some point and they had an opportunity to take a step back and say:"I still believe in the god my parents taught me about but a god that wants me to blow up children is an evil god. And an evil god does not deserve my adoration. I think I'll take my chances with real life and try to do something with it."That is the closest I’ll get to agreeing with any theist. If you must worship a deity — be he of Islam , Christianity or elsewhere —focus on his or her positive attributes and steer clear of the ‘human sacrifice’ stuff that tends to pepper the early chapters of such holy texts.Such texts were written in the past and the past—by definition — lacked the progressive wisdom of modernity.So, that's been said.Now on to the meat of the question.One of the awful things about such attacks is that many of us are afraid to speak our minds whilst others are all too willing to shoot their mouths off if they suspect they are within earshot of anyone listening.The far right for example, sees no sense in taking the time to actually think things through. Far better to go for the old knee jerk reaction, no?They see the world in bold, Manichean hues of good and evil. Theirs is a world carved in an easily recognizable font. It is a George Lucas script; fast-paced, easily understood and with little time spent on pondering the beige washout between story beats.Terrified of ever looking weak, they denounce everything they disagree with as a function of political correctness gone mad. For them, it's all so simple. Islam is evil, it is dangerous, and no measures taken to prevent a terrorist attack could possibly be too harsh.Throwing away due process, engaging in torture, racial profiling, abandoning our own rights, stopping and searching procedures, holding us without trial and so on and so forth.None of those things would make us absolutely safe from terrorists but we would be safer.We'd also be giving up the very things worth fighting for in the first place; so the whole thing would be a massive waste of time. We could live in the same one-religion police state that they have in Saudi Arabia and if anyone was suspected of wrongdoing, we could start lopping off heads and sort out any potential paperwork related snafu at a later date.This is clearly not he path we should go down.On the hard left, we have the apologists.Islam is a wonderful religion they tell us (it's not; like all organized religions it is beset with fundamental contradictions,) and we need to make sure that we encourage diversity in all aspects of lives.(Diversity yes. Enabling, no. )In their desperation to not appear Islamophobic in any way shape or form, they turn a blind eye to principles that they should hold dear. Admitting that the Islamic world struggles with issues such as human rights abuses, misogyny, antisemitism and extremist violence should not be a controversial statement.And yet it is.I don't have much time for this world view either.Lastly, we have the most reviled group of all. This group tends to believe that we have to have a frank discussion about such things. because we see failings on both sides of the equation we are forced to waste time issuing unnecessary platitudes to the side accusing us of :Having terrorist sympathies.Being fawning Islamophiles.Secretly celebrating each person killed in acts of wanton violence.Meanwhile, we are expected to tweet apologies to the other side that insists we are:IslamophobicDirectly supporting Neo Nazi-like racial epithets.Bad eggs.This is the group I belong to.It's a hard group to be in because we actually think through our responses and that takes time. It also means we are liable to stimulate the reactionary lower brain processes of those who either cannot or will not follow suit as regards to the whole ‘thought process scenario.’Thinking things through means taking a step back and looking at the big picture which means we need a history lesson.For 500 years Europe (and later, by extension nations such as the U.S.) have dominated global geopolitics.The question is, why?The Renaissance.The Renaissance happened in Europe.This is a really important point to understand if you have any hope of understanding modern geopolitics and it is indeed the first sentence I would utter back in the days when I taught 20/21st century International Relations instead of writing for a living.It’s all the more important to understand that the Renaissance happened in Europe because it didn't have to happen there. There were loads of places it could have begun.Pick pretty much any century before the 16th, and the idea of a European hegemonic power structure that would last over a half millennium looks somewhat unlikely. Humanity did of course begin in Africa, but civilization began in what we would now call the Middle East. There are loads of reasons as to why it did so, but one reason stands out above all others and its the one thing that people tend to overlook when talking about politics.I’m talking about geography here,The cultivation of plants and the domestication of animals spread across the globe in an asymmetrical fashion.That is to say, it traveled east to west with far greater ease than it did north to south and that makes an odd kind of sense really. If you find an edible plant that will grow in Persia then the chances are it will grow in Greece too. Try taking it down to the tropics or up to the frozen tundra of the north and you have a different story or more specifically, a dead plant.Civilization started in the fertile crescent and traveled west and east. It reached the southern shores of the Mediterranean Sea with little effort and happily curved around the northern coast of Africa as it spread through northern Europe too. But it didn't go much further South. The Sahara was in the way.Malaria was in the way.Eurasia's east-west axis was the ultimate trump card.Anyone looking at a map can see the rise of civilization as a logical progression of ecological realities. Central Africa lacks arable farmland and navigable rivers. It’s too hot and has a paucity of domesticatable animals. Pigs, cows chickens, sheep: all Eurasian. We had ponies — which are a delight — they had Zebra, which are not. They are bad tempered and bitey and I should know because I've been bitten by one.(True story.)Of all the animals we domesticated for food, only five come from Africa. One of those is the Honey Bee which has wings and is therefore ‘cheating. ’ Two others —the donkey and the goose —come from North Africa which is counted as the Middle East as far as political science is concerned (sorry but it is,) and the remaining two — the Barbary dove and the guinea fowl —are ‘small and twatty.’The Americas gave us the Llama, that other thing that is basically a llama, and the guinea pig, turkey, and mink.Everything else from dogs, to chickens, cows, pigs, goat, rabbits, yak, camel and sheep are Eurasian. And before you say what about cats? Well, they aren’t really domesticated are they?And they taste awful.Australia was also too hot; barren and cut off from the world, it really needed someone to invent air conditioning and surfboards for it to become palatable. Oh, you could live there and enjoy a life rich of spiritual happiness, sure. But you could build no empires.The Americas were large enough to be the exception to the rule but even here the very distance between civilizations coupled with comparatively small populations stunted their technological growth. And they had two types of Llama; which was a massive put off.So, we ended up with a predictable map. The oldest and mightiest civilizations were situated slap bang in the middle — where it all began — and the younger feistier civilizations flanked them, snapping at their bingo-wings.By the time you got to places like Japan and the British isles you were really in the sticks. Such places had little chance of inventing anything truly special.It had all already been done.I say 'all' because I'm only really talking about the good stuff like writing and counting, metal working and farming. Stuff like that. Anyone reading this on their iPhone might object to the idea that far-flung places had little to add and that’s OK because these places would get their chance to shine later on.At any rate, it doesn’t really matter because for the purposes of a discussion on terrorism we need only note that two things.That technology is progressive.That the Middle East was first and that the Middle East was best.The former is easy to understand.You start with stone tools, figure out how to make bronze tools, invent the bow, invent the stirrup, invent cheese, invent iron, steel, firearms, battleships, paper, and eventually, reality T.V. shows.More or less in that order.Barring a global cataclysm (such as the one Trump is trying to engineer by dropping out of the Paris Accords,) you never really got to un-invent cheese and for those of you that are thinking that cheese has nothing to do with terrorism I would say this.That cheese is more intrinsic to our understanding of how we got ourselves into this this mess than pretty much anything else I can think of.I'd rather not get into how cheese came to be a 'thing' because the important thing to know is that cheese is ace. It's one of the most popular foods in the world and will continue to be one of the most popular food in the world for as long as humanity continues.As with cheese, so with the bow.Once you realize that a taut wire under tension can fire a projectile with enough velocity to kill something tasty, you're never going to look back. Like satnav, dental floss, and Pringles, once you pop you cannot stop.This is hugely important to understand because it just so happens that some people did stop. The Aboriginal people of Australia for example stopped using bows and went back to spears and boomerangs.We don't know why.But we do know that in the late 15th century the Chinese Ming dynasty decided to cut itself off from the world. At the height of their power they scuttled their navy, decided that they had already invented everything worth inventing and closed shop.Early 17th Century Japan did the same. Now, the idea that there were no guns allowed in Japan during what is known as the Edo period (1603 to 1868) has been somewhat overstated. What is true is that there were not many of them and it's easy to see why.Bushido allowed the violent temperament of the Samurai to be counterbalanced with soft wisdom, but both spiritual and martial skills took a considerable amount of time to instill in a person.Decades really.A peasant with one afternoon's training and a decent musket could easily kill half a dozen charging Samurai. That—thought the Samurai — simply won't do but since nobody thought of building bullet-deflecting light sabers, the best thing to do was keep the swords but lose the bullets.Japan's decision to cut itself off from the world was political. The Samurai — conservative, and happy with their power base — opted for stagnation.Which is why when Commodore Mathew Perry steamed four warships into Tokyo Bay in 1853 and threatened to attack if Japan did not begin trade with the West, they had little choice but to comply.America wanted some coaling stations you see, and Britain had taken up all the juicy ones; a little gunboat diplomacy was all it took.Perry was not going to meet Samurai on the field of battle and engage in a mode of fighting that had been abandoned a long time ago. Had Japan refused he would have simply shelled them at a not too discreet distance. And then sent another polite letter asking them to comply. Japan capitulated and almost immediately made moves to catch up with the west at breakneck speed.China wasn’t faring much better. What had once been the mightiest nation on the planet was now reduced to politely begging the British to stop importing opium on the grounds that the highly addictive substance was ruining their country.Britain, a comparatively tiny island thousands of miles away twice humbled China over this matter during what are known as the Opium Wars.Bloody British.How did this come to be?Well, in part for the reasons I just told you.Japan abdicated power for political reasons, China's withdrawal was more philosophical and whilst that’s just ‘bully for them,’ it made little difference when they sent their obsolete navy of junks out to combat the British Navy at the height of its power.What has this got to with terrorism?A lot actually.Because Islam also decided to retreat into themselves and at much the same time.For the Islamic world, the retreat was very much theological in nature. They had been on the top for quite some time. Their knowledge of science and medicine was without peer, Their technological achievements were staggering. Although it cut across many different national boundaries, Islam was a progressive force and a powerful one at that. They welcomed new ideas, they allowed other religions to co-exist alongside them. Their art, crafts, and poetry were superb.And they gave it all up. It wasn’t taken from them or subsumed in a wave of evil western imperialism. They let it go voluntarily, willingly.In 1577 Murad III’s chief astronomer — a man called Taqi Ad Din — built in Constantinople, a magnificent observatory , perhaps one that rivaled Tycho Brae's observatory at Uraniborg. It was finished in 1577.And in case you are wondering."Why do I recognize Brae's name and not Taqi Ad Din?"Well, it's OK, don’t worry.It's not because you are the racist antecedent of European cultural Imperialism. It's because Taqi Ad Din's observatory was destroyed three years after it was built.You see, astronomy and astrology were inextricably linked back then and Ad Din used the appearance of a rather large comet to make a prediction.Things were going to be AOK he told everyone.And then an enormous plague hit and things were… not OK."Oh," said the Islamic clergy (who were huge fans of Astronomy but quite rightly saw Astrology as a load of old claptrap,)"Tear that fucker down," they said, referring to the shiny new observatory.And so they did.I'm paraphrasing a bit there…It was a little thing really and not even the beginning of a movement but it does serve as a great talking point. The clergy had the power to remove things they didn’t much care for. The second half of the second millennium was a period of change and if there is one thing that conservatives hate it’s change. The renaissance was anathema to traditionalists because it contradicted a lot of things we held dear. It encouraged people to ask questions and as people did so, they came up with answers that looked nothing like the descriptions found in holy texts.If this continues they must have thought. Our books are going to look flawed, unwise. Made up.Islam's lag behind the West in scientific advancement began around 1500 AD and stemmed from attempts by great thinkers to explain the world around us using systematic laws.And here we reach one of the two great nexus points that you're going to have hold in your head if you are to follow a rather important line of thought. Because we're starting to see something happen from the 16th century onward. Something big.We see the rest of the world handing the reigns of power to a relatively small corner of the world called Europe and then letting them keep them for around 500 years or so. Asia chose to stagnate. Islam chose to stagnate but before Westerners among you swell with pride at how great we have been let's remember two things.That Europeans also tried to do the same. There was a reformation in Europe sure, but there was a counter-reformation also. We tried to suppress Copernicus, we burned our heretics. The concerted efforts to preserve not only the status quo but also the preeminence of church power was just as real and just as virulent in the Christian world. It's just that in Europe, and pretty much in Europe alone, the progressives won. It was an accident of history — sort of— but we were not better or more enlightened or anything like that. We just had different circumstances to deal with.Those of you who have been to Bulgaria or Belgium -- and I have been to both-- will understand that they idea of turning your back on science during the 16th century was absurd. European geography is such that it was in an almost constant state of war. Suggesting to the King of Belgium that it might be a good idea to hold off on the R&D ‘RE: weapons of warfare’ would have been laughed out of court. Progressive ideas were married to science which was married to warfare. We overtook Asia, we overtook the Middle East. Africa, with its lack of navigable rivers, north/south axis and other headaches too numerous to mention never really stood a chance. The America's had only just been re- discovered and we ultimately devastated those civilizations that arose independent of ourselves via a rather nasty combination of guns and measles.This is just simply what happened and getting upset about it or saying "It aint so," isn't going to change that. European hegemony was an accident of history helped along by geographical realities and accelerated by the victory of conservative factions elsewhere.Which takes us to the second nexus.The Middle EastAnyone who has spent time in the Arab world will have some understanding of what several millennia of farming can do to a region. Remember that they were first and remember also that much of the fertile crescent doesn't look so fertile anymore. In fact much of the Arab world is in pretty poor state really but there is one thing that it has in great abundance.Oil.Perry wanted a coaling station that hadn't already been claimed by the bloody British. Hitler charged across half of Russia trying to get at its oil fields. He needn't have bothered. His tanks were racing across Libya a country that like much of the Middle East just so happens to be floating on oil.Thankfully, nobody knew that at the time.The Industrial revolution was powered by coal which was a fine thing because both Europe and North America had plenty of it to spare. But as the 20th century dawned, it soon became apparent that oil was the only commodity that really mattered. By the time that became apparent, the Islamic world was in no position to dictate terms to the west. Europe -- which by extension now included the U.S. -- marched in, secured themselves a huge share on favorable terms and then settled back to rake in the prosperity.And there was very little that the Muslim world could do about it. They were weak, they were backwards.Can you think of any winners of a Noble physics prize? I'm guessing yes.Any from Muslim countries?No?I'll help.There has only been one such recipient, Mohammad Abdus Salam who received it in 1979.The Muslim world also managed two noble laureates in literature and two more in chemistry. And in case you see the whole thing as yet another example of western imperialistic tyranny, there have been seven Muslim recipients of the peace prize.Like I said. Backwards.So ends the history part of this answer.Human NatureAs Graham Chapman once said to Michael Palin"Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings! Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, malodorous, pervert!"I know, you came here for an answer not abuse.But abuse is what you're going to get because if you are reading this then you're probably a person and people are awful. What did Europe do with the reigns of power when they were handed to them?A full list would take some time but to summarize. The lied, raped and pillaged. They removed leaders of countries they did not like and replaced them with ones they did. They extracted resources using native labour, paying a slave wage at best and at worst used actual slaves. They used chemical and biological weapons. They committed genocide and dealt irreparable ecological damage. They left power vacuums vast enough to ensure that despotism, corruption and internecine warfare was to be their legacy. They drew lines on maps that took no notice of linguistic or cultural traditions. They murdered tens of millions of people and claimed to be doing so in the name of saving them from damnation.The question is, was it because they were European or because they were human?I'm going with the latter.We did these things because we could. we did these things because humanity’s capacity for self delusion is without peer.The accident of history that had allowed us to run roughshod over everyone who got in our way --and quite a few people who did not-- made us a warlike people. Still, had the European counter-reformation succeed and Islam's version failed, things would have been little different. They would have done to us as we did to them. They would have spread Islam as we spread Christianity. They would have pilfered our resources as we have pilfered theirs.Maybe.I don't really know of course. It's all very Phillip K. Dick.At any rate, we don't need to prove an unprovable hypothetical in order to arrive at some sound conclusions. Because this question is about reaping what you sow and after a rather long-winded introduction beset with an analysis of the unimportance of llama, we're finally there.We can deconstruct this into two separate questions.Are they consequences for our actions in nations that are ostensibly IslamicDoes that mean it's all our own fault?ConsequencesThe answer is yes. This is one of those statements that is going to have people yelling at me in the comments below but I guess if people have got 4000 or so words into an essay then they have every right to moan at me.I have said this many times before but I'm going to say it again.If I shoot someone you love you might shoot back.You probably won't of course.You'd probably let the police handle the whole thing.Even if you had a gun in your hand you probably would not pull the trigger. Oh, maybe you'd want to, and maybe I'd deserve it, but taking the law into your own hands is illegal and anyway… most of us aren't killers.But what if there was no justice? What if there was no possibility of any kind of regress? What if I was immune from prosecution for some reason?You’d be angry of course and you’d mourn. The pain would, I think be more real because human beings require the closure that justice would bring. Most of us would learn to live with what happened.But a few of us would creep upstairs to loft, grab Granddad's old service revolver and set out to settle the score.We killed between 175,660 and 196,408 civilians in the illegal invasion of Iraq. Last night, terrorists killed around seven people and many voices have been raised suggesting we go kill more Muslims in retaliation. It would make a few wild-eyed zealots feel better I'm sure, but it would not change things. In fact it would make things worse.Violence begets violence.It's not right or just or fair, it's just a fact of human nature.You can’t bomb people, (even if you have a good reason, even if they left you no choice,) and not expect some to fight back. People can be unreasonable over small and petty things. Why do we expect them to act reasonable in the face of something as emotive as death?Had they been able, Iraq would have bombed London and Washington as we bombed Baghdad. They did bomb Israel during the first Gulf War. Perhaps then people would move on, perhaps then people would say, ‘horrible war,’ glad it’s done with. Perhaps then, Bush would have been impeached and Blair would have been fired on the spot.It's not a numbers game or anything like that — or at least it shouldn't be — but we do have to admit that that is not how it went down."Who paid for the dead Iraqi's?" The elder jihads ask the young, impressionable, hot-headed youth."Why do they cry for their dead but have no issue with dead Muslims?"That's a compelling argument if you think about it.Why is it OK?I opposed the war for the same reason as I oppose the bombing in Manchester. There’s a constituency of thought there. I don’t like people being blown up. I’m not a pacifist but I prefer peace to war and I know — because I study such things — that most wars that have been fought, shouldn’t have been fought. It might look like a pyrotechnic display and their are far fewer suicides involved but a little girl killed by a bomb is a tragedy regardless of their nationality.So if you are going to fire missiles at people, you’d better have a bloody good reason as far as I’m concerned.Many refuse to make this connection. They re-elected Tony Blair after he took us into Iraq. They did the same for Bush. Now, they are eyeing Jeremy Corbyn with great suspicion because he’s not in favor of using nuclear weapons as a first strike weapon on moral grounds.He’d use them in defense of course, but he would not order the death of millions on the basis that it was ‘in the national interest.’What price did Blair pay for killing so many civilians? For sending British planes over the skies of Iraq and burning to death women and children?Blair;s worth £60 million now.Is it all our own fault?Hell, no!The vast vast majority of Muslims are well meaning, well intentioned people who are welcome to pop round to my house for a chat, a cup of tea, and a slightly uncomfortable exchange of opinions.But that does not mean that Islam is without serious flaw.It is its own worst enemy and has been for hundreds of years. The fact that it was British and American planes flying over Iraq and not Iraqi planes flying over London was — let's remember — an accident of history only in part.The burning to the ground of the Great Library of Alexandria is the subject of much speculation but one story states that in 642 an Omar noted that:"If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them."The Quran has much to say on a variety of topics but ironically enough a discussion on the laws of thermodynamics is not one of them.Apocryphal or just down right wrong though that story might be, it doesn't change the fact that Islam is in dire need of its own reformation.As Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg noted:“Though there are talented scientists of Muslim origin working productively in the West, for forty years I have not seen a single paper by a physicist or astronomer working in a Muslim country that was worth reading.”Ouch, that — within the narrow confines of the noble laureate family — is a serious burn.The wave of hostility towards science in the U.S, is just one reason why the U.S. is finished as far as being a leading power is concerned. It’s been brewing for a while really, but Trump’s refusal to embrace climate change as ‘a thing’ is the final abdication of power. Oh, Hillary? The leader of the free world is a woman after all.She’s called Angela Merkel.Where was I?Ah yes, the self dick kick that is the American right’s rejection of science is bad, but it is nothing compared to the anti-science sentiment found in parts of the Muslim world. Physics students blaming earthquakes on immorality? Iranian Sha's forbidding the study of foreign languages? Shit man how do they expect to do anything but lose?It’s not just science that they are at odds with. When it comes to social issues they are swimming upstream against the tide of history.A recent survey by Pew research showed how hopelessly out of touch the Islamic world is on matters relating to sexuality. Of the ten countries where homosexuality is punishable by death all ten have predominately Muslim populations.Indeed the New Atlantic compiled some data specific to the Arab world alone.Arabs comprise 5 percent of the world’s population, but publish just 1.1 percent of its books, according to the U.N.’s 2003 Arab Human Development Report.Between 1980 and 2000, Korea granted 16,328 patents, while nine Arab countries, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the U.A.E., granted a combined total of only 370, many of them registered by foreigners.A study in 1989 found that in one year, the United States published 10,481 scientific papers that were frequently cited, while the entire Arab world published only four.When Nature magazine published a sketch of science in the Arab world in 2002, its reporter identified just three scientific areas in which Islamic countries excel: desalination, falconry, and camel reproduction.That last one is not a joke.When people in the Muslim world ask why their people are exploited and persecuted it’s really hard to come up with an answer that doesn’t lay some of the blame at their own doorstep.They are after all in their own minds, the chosen people of god.Some decide that they just aren’t being Muslim enough and set up Islamist states such as the Taliban. Here they care less about building schools and hospitals and more about the length of a man’s beard and the obedience of women.Again, I'm not joking.Others blame Western Imperialism almost exclusively which they quite rightly identify as having its routes in outright racism. The most extreme of these people-- representing only a tiny minority of Muslims worldwide -- end up blowing up little girls at a pop concert.The truth of the matter is that in this dog eat dog world there is only one way that the Muslim world is going to prevent being on the arse end of western imperialism and that is by confronting a few hard realities.It has to undergo the same secularization that Europe and most other parts of the world has. Religion must be separated from the state in all ways and relegated to ceremonial purposes only.Private beliefs must be upheld but must always be secondary to the secular needs of society.Royal families must be retired and the wealth of the region invested in education with a focus on science and social sciences.Power asymmetry must be recognized for what it is and corrected at a later time. You cannot win a war with the west by killing people seven people at a time. At best you will provoke an over-reaction that will net you yet more dead Muslims. The cycle of violence will thus be perpetuated.An acknowledgment that religion of all denominations — Christianity included — acts as a break on progress must be made and for those people unsatisfied with the status of Islam in the world must accept that Islam is part of the route cause. The Muslim world should reflect on the fact that the Christian church was reduced to a secondary role in society for political and not theological reasons and that it was this action that allowed them to take centre stage for so long.Lastly, it must accept that thanks to the voluntary abdication of power by the Muslim world and others, that modernity was defined by the West and will continue to be defined by the West until such time as you have caught up. The freedom to flex one's cultural muscles is not an easy one to achieve. Nobody cared much for Bollywood outside of India until India grew into the power it always should have been. Culture thrives in affluent, free societies that look forward.Meanwhile in the West must accept certain home truths too.We have to accept that lists like the ones I just wrote upset the hell out of progressive forward thinking Muslims especially those ones who grew up in the west. It’s one think to make generalities, quite another to tar everyone with the same brush.It’s also not acceptable to point to areas where they need to clean up their act whilst ignoring the positive aspects of their culture. I’m no more in favor of banning the Hijab than i am in making the wearing of a kippah a punishable offense but I’m not going to remain silent on the issue either. You want to cover up, cover up; but I’m not going to go along with any theological arguments for doing so though. I’m not going to make an exception to my support of feminism just so that I don’t offend religious sensibilities. Love the Hijab but the Niqab, Chador and Burqa?Not so much.If we continue to wage wars in Muslim countries if we continue to speak of Muslim bans, If we continue to refuse to have an honest dialogue about religion and rights, about racism, homosexuality, and misogyny.Then we will have no choice but to live with terror attacks.And it cuts both ways.The West is not perfect. It can be decadent. It can be self-obsessed. It can be ruthless.Are we so enlightened? Homosexuality was illegal in my home country during my parent's lifetime. I grew up in an extremely sexist society and no nation that I have ever visited has ever managed to achieve to sexual equality.We are ahead of the Muslim world in such things yes, but when you think about it, often only by a few decades. In some areas, such as their attitudes towards Zakāt and their commitment to sobriety, we could learn from them.We can condemn acts of violence across the board. We can acknowledge and then repeat over and over that most Muslims want no part of this kind of violence. We can invite people of all faiths into our homes and relate to them as fellow brothers and sisters, as human beings.Or we can fly sorties over their cities. Kill them in their tens of thousands. We can vilify them, dehumanize them.And then we can mourn our own dead when misguided zealots take pot shots back at us.There is another way.There is a better way.Both sides of this bloody conflict can move on.You can follow me daily at Liberalamerica.orgFor general musings or indeed if you want to contact me/ yell at me or ask for my phone number, you can contact me via twitter.

Is there poverty in Norway?Yes, there is.TL;DR warning:NORWEGIAN POVERTY EXPLAINEDPART 1: FACTSthe numbersStatistics say that 10% of Norwegians are poor. 15% of the children of the capital Oslo grow up in poverty. The figures are contested, as there are many international standards for poverty. The NGOs of the poor claim the numbers are set far too lowThe numbers have been rising steadily for the last 20 years. More Norwegians are becoming poor.Appr. 500 000 Norwegians receive some form of financial support or benefit from the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV) and the Norwegian State Housing Bank (Husbanken). 130 000 NAV clients with 63 000 children were living on welfare, i.e. 4% of a population of 5M. Unemployment is low, at a steady 2.5%. However, if you add the many unemployed on various government programs (tiltak), the unemployment figure is twice as high.Norway also has appr. 3 600 homeless, though the figure may be higher, as there are somewhere between 10 000 and 15 000 drug addicts (heroin) in Norway. Many of the homeless are mentally ill or substance abusers who have either left the system or been given up by it. The homeless single mother with three children and a shopping cart, as seen in the US, does not exist in Norway. The welfare system sees to that.So, on the bright side, Norway has indeed a welfare system. The overwhelming number of Norway's poorest will get help from the government. Their benefits may be meagre, but there will be food on the table for you and your family, and you will have a roof over your head.Children are subject to extra benefits. However, the treatment of the poor varies from county (kommune) to county. Some NAV offices will even deduct the government child benefit (which all Norwegian families are entitled to) from the parents' welfare benefit.the cost of livingBut here’s the thing: The median income in Norway is extremely high, 43 000 NOK (5500 USD), so prices are set accordingly. One 1/4 gallon/1 litre milk will cost you 2 USD, 1 kg (2.2 pound) minced beef sells at 4.50 USD, and a Big Mac will cost you 5 USD, 5 times the price in the US.The welfare system covers food and typical groceries, and NAV will also pay your electricity and housing bills. However, no coverage for “minor”, but chronic ailments like e.g. eczema, chronic pain or headache, lesser nervous disorders or mild digestive problems. No refund for Paracetamols, at 2.50 USD/20 tablets (19 NOK), or at 15 USD for a tube of 10 mg Hydrocortison salvae.Chronic diseases exempt, you will usually have to pay a deductible (egenandel) for prescription medicine, and maybe 30 USD for most visits to the doctor or the clinic. If you go to see your doctor, wanting a prescription for a strong cough medicine, it will cost you. Medicines in general, including generic non-prescribed brands, are quite expensive.Neither is there any dental health coverage for adults, only for children. Dental care is not part of the Norwegian universal health care system and terribly expensive. If you need to have a tooth removed, you will have to cut down on your food budget for quite some time. Or something. If your computer breaks down, you may have a problem.It is neither poverty in itself nor the benefits level which creates the growing social and cultural gap between the affluent and the poor in Norway. It is the high-cost Norwegian economy and the price level set by the median 43 000 NOK income.the adultsIf you live in a favela in Rio, your neighbours are poor. Your family has most likely always been poor. But you have friends, family, you have a social network which may even be tighter and warmer than in affluent parts of the city.In Norway, where there are far fewer poor, they live all over the place. Some neighbourhoods or streets may be poorer than others, but abject slum is extremely rare and usually temporary.Isolation, not starvation, is the main problem for Norway’s poorest, especially those who live alone. Alcoholism, suicide, drug abuse, depression and other psychological or psychiatric issues … All these "social diseases" affect the poor of Norway to a much greater extent than it does the majority population. So does loneliness, a health issue in itself.Those who become poor after being previously affluent, will not only lose their social standing, but often also their entire social network. They will simply be unable to take part in the everyday social life of the well-to-do. A movie ticket in the capital costs 15 USD, a concert from 12.50 and up to 60 USD for big international acts, and apart from Big Burger and McDonald’s, a meal at the restaurant where your former workmates will ask you to join them, will easily cost you 50 USD, maybe 100, adding wine and dessert. Even a pint at your local pub is 8 USD. A pack of 20 fags will cost you 13 USD, so in the East End pubs, you can spot the poor by their (cheaper) rolling tobacco pouches.Some newsmedia have called loneliness “the new epidemic” in Norway, and of course poverty is a factor, maybe the most important one. If you are 80 years old, single and living on the minimum government pension (minstepensjon aka 167 000 NOK/33 000 USD a year), you may lead a very lonely life.health issuesIf you are a smoker (“the poor wo/man’s comfort”), you will have to pay for it by cutting down on your food budget. That budget may already be based on mainly generic or canned food with lower nutrition value. Most generic groceries in Norway are of good quality, though, it’s just the packaging which differs from non-generic brands. But lack of vitamin D or proteins may create health issues, shortage of the latter may even hamper children's growth. Meat and fish is expensive in Norway, so the average poor eat plenty pasta and pizza. Obesity is also more common among the poor, including ailments and diseases which excessive overweight can induce.The difference in life expectancy between sunny Oslo west and the old working-class east is no less than 10 years. The gap is of course related to health issues and in particular the health of the non-affluent, as the majority of both Oslo's lower middle class and the capital's poorest live on the east side (Østkanten).If you are temporarly poor, just in-between jobs, your health will not be affected. But if you are stricken by long-term poverty, poverty may well take its toll on your health.Ref:The Norwegian poor cannot afford to go see a doctor, due to sky-rocketing deductables.the childrenThe poverty gap can be unbridgeable for poor children in a basically rich country. If you are the only poor kid in your class, you may stand out. Sports and recreational activities are fairly inexpensive for the affluent, but for the poor it is a totally different matter. Norwegian produced sports gear is first class, but also very high-end. Some schools and municipalities have ski and skate pools, but participation in sports and other organized activities is below the average participation rate for children from affluent homes.Poor children may stay away from their classmates' birthday parties because all their family can afford, is imported Asian trinkets which fall apart after a few days or the smallest set of LEGOs, while the other kids bring lavish gifts. Teenagers can not follow fashion or party. You can usually spot the poor children in a Norwegian schoolyard by their generic or discount clothes.Poverty in Norway is not so much a question of absolute poverty, but of class.PART 2: THE GREAT SHAME“Rob the average man of his life-illusion,and you rob him of his happiness at the same stroke.”Henrik Ibsen, Norwegian playwright, The Wild Duck (1888)a country in denialI noticed a Norwegian Quora Answer some time ago which claimed being poor in Norway only means that “you have to drive an old car and can only go for a vacation once a year”.I was tempted to comment, citing the famous words of the 18th century French queen Marie Antoinette, when informed that the people had no bread, supposedly said: “Why, can’t they eat cakes instead?”Unfortunately, this type of ignorance is quite wide-spread in Norway. After the Lillehammer Winter Olympics, Norwegians in general have been on a hubris ride. The contant surveys, citing Norway as “best country to live in”, “most democratic country in the world”, “best on the environment”, “best on living standards” and whatnot has reinforced this hubris, resulting in the cliché “Norway is best on poverty!” aka “Oh, it’s not so bad being poor in Norway”.That may be true - if you compare Norway to most European countries or to, hey, why not Mali or Mozambique?At a garden party a few years ago, I even met a Political Science (statsvitenskap) student headed for a future government office, who subscribed to this urban legend.Some years ago, a couple of days before Christmas, I saw a young, single mother crying in humiliation at the Jernbanetorget Metro Station in Oslo. She had been caught without a valid ticket by the inspectors of Ruter, the transport company. I heard her telling them that she had seen herself forced to choose between a subway ticket (2x4 USD) or decent money for Christmas gifts for her children.The Quora writer mentioned above was probably not present at the time, neither the Political Science student.If you live in a slum alongside other poor, you have no experience with anything else. You are everybody's equal. If you are the only poor among the wealthy, the drain on your psyche may be harder than in Slum City.shamePoverty is a great shame in Norway. I have always suspected that there is more than just one Norwegian dancing in the hip urban clubs of Oslo who maintains a façade, living on generics and junk food, rather than admitting to poverty.The poor are an issue most Norwegians feel uncomfortable talking about. It can easily make people feel awkward; they may change the subject or head for the bathroom.In the very successful Norwegian TV series Skam, a smash hit in many countries, this great shame was never an issue. The word poverty was probably never even mentioned, although there are of course poor people living in the wealthy borough of Frogner, where most of the series has been shot. Some foreigners, though, seem to think that the series was representative for entire Norway when it actually was "Upper Manhattan".poverty porn for the well fedOh, the myths of television! Another great TV success in Norway is the series “Petter Uteligger”, obviously the most successful piece of social pornography aka poverty porn ever produced in NorwayThere, a friendly Millennial, spouting the very fashionable beard and normcore six-pence cap, mimicking the working class of a Norway long gone, went on an 7+2 EP long expedition to the homeless of the streets of Oslo. Uteligger means literally “out-lier” aka a person sleeping outdoors.- Oh, the toothless veterans of the concrete jungles of Oslo were smiling, trudging about from furniture containers to the garbage bins of 7–11, finding steaks! Chicken! Seafood! Broccoli! Organic apples from the beautiful Hardanger Fiord!The series was awarded the title of “Best reality show 2017” at the Norwegian Golden Screen Awards.The viewers were empathic in their empathy. Being homeless and impoverished wasn’t all that bad, was it? Sure, there were hardships, dangers and tragedies, but, basically it all seemed rather top of the morning, didn’t it?As we can no longer can display our misfits and outcasts at the circus or in freak shows, “Petter Uteligger” will have to do. An audience of 700 000 concerned Norwegians unanimously declared that the series had increased “muligheten til å få en bredere forståelse av hvordan det faktisk er å være rusmisbruker og eller uteligger i Oslo.” (“…the possibility of achieving a broader understanding of how it actually is to be a substance abuser and/or homeless in Oslo.”)The homeless reported with satisfaction that, for the time being, coins were mounting in their 7–11 paper cups, even bank notes, several weeks after the series had aired. Norway had realised that the homeless were people too.Norwegians like to see happy Norwegian homeless persons. Norway is "the world's best country", right, so it makes no sense that the poor should be unhappy, does it? It's like the unnerving survey from some ten years ago, which claimed that no less that 200 000 Norwegians dreaded going to work every single day. Another 4 %.Norway doesn't want to think of the victims of the cheap crocodile heroin, who rarely live longer than 2–3 years. Six years ago, crocodile heroin hit the Norwegian press, headlines were written. Then there was silence.politicians bickeringSearchword "fattigdom" (poverty) yields 2500 hits (2005-17) at Stortinget.no, the home page of the Norwegian parlament. There is much talk, many propositions - from all political parties, left, right and center. Still, the number of poor persons in Norway has been constantly on the rise for the last 20 years.Until Norway is willing to admit that the country actually has a poverty problem, I'm sorry to say, I don't expect much change. The gloryfication of poverty in the public square and in many Norwegians' mind, is in fact rather sad for a country swimming in North Sea oil and indeed topping all and every computer-generated ranking or international index on this very planet for all that is good and true and great and fine.The scale of misery does not contain extra levels which only kick in for impoverished countries like Madagascar, Eritrea or Guinea. Misery is misery, depression is depression, suicide is suicide. A poor person in Norway may suffer just as much as an African living in a slum. And where there is misery, there can be no dignity.For a poor person in Norway it is completely and utterly irrelevant and indeed inconsequential if somebody in Madagascar is more poor than he or she is. Starvation aside, poor is poor, and poor is always a relative concept.Although, admittedly, there are more than enough countries which treat their poor worse than Norway does, far worse. But until every child born in Norway have equal opportunities in life at its beginning, I will reserve myself the right to call poverty the great shame of 2018 Norway.If you can use Google Translate or can read Norwegian, here is some research, including some discussion: Fattigdom i Norge - Samfunnsfag - NDLAFor FACTS about Norway, check out my Quora blog:NORWAY EXPLAINED:Your guide to Norway and Norwegians by Morten Jørgensen.