Gro Harlem Brundtland, former prime minister and Labor leader, loves her 84 year old mother. She loves her mother so much that she has hired a nurse to assist her at the publicly owned (and privately run) elderly care home she lives in.

Some would, perhaps fairly, accuse Brundtland of hypocrisy. Labor is the party of conservative welfare statism, of screaming and pulling bogus statistics out of the hat at any suggestion of privatization of welfare services - "putting grandma out on bid", as they call it. Some would say, again fairly, that as the greatest living representative of the party that fooled us to think that the state could take care of us better than anyone else, she ought to be content with the services her mother has been offered, ought to set an example for those among us who can't afford to hire nurses for their parents. Where's her solidarity, for Gerhardsen's sake?

But an accusation of hypocrisy would imply disapproval of what Brundtland has done, with the next step being a debate on the horrible state of elderly care in Norway, (after all, when even Brundtland is forced to pay for private health services, things must be really bad! More money, now!) Instead, I would like to congratulate her. What she has done is great. Her mother is now better off than she would have otherwise been, and, in her own, individual way, Brundtland has contributed to an increase in the amount of money spent on elderly care in Norway. Hopefully she will inspire party colleagues to think twice before they extoll the virtues of public welfare too confidently again.

One of many things Gro Harlem Brundtland does deserve criticism for, however, is for being something of a health nut. As the (soon former) leader of the WHO, she has, curiously, dedicated quite a lot of its resources to fighting luxurious lifestyle diseases such as smoking and, uh, sugar intake - resources that perhaps would have been better spent at fighting AIDS or malaria, don't you think? Currently home in Norway, she has thought loudly about the possibility of banning smoking at home ("of course you can ban smoking at home near small children - we all agree you can't beat children, even when done at home"), and has aired a somewhat dubious theory that cell phones causes burn wounds - that it actually burns your skin. Brundtland claims to be hyper-sensitive to cell phones, and has enforced a total cell phone ban on her floor in the WHO office in Geneva. Now she's returned to do the same here. We need to find her another job in the international bureacracy, and quick, before she does more damage!

I have a bone to pick with Brundtland as WHO head. For something like six years running now, Taiwan has been denied observer status at the WHO. This is due to Chinese lobbying against Taiwanese admission — even as an observer. When the WHO recently proposed sending WHO experts to Taiwan to monitor the impact and response to the SARS epidemic there, China protested and WHO cancelled its visit. Brundtland, where's your nerve? Stand up to those Chinese bullies!

I worked as an orderly at Lille-Tøyen Aldershjem (Old Age Home) in Oslo in 1971. That was a long time ago. Maybe things have improved since then. I wrote about that experience in my little essay entitled "Vi som elsket Norge". A Norwegian who read my piece reported that things had not changed much when she worked in a similar capacity at a similar facility in the 80's. I've worked at such places in Denmark and Iceland, as well. I would not say that American facilities are necessarily any better. I certainly don't blame Brundtland for hiring a nurse for her mother. I recall a recent article in Aftenposten or Dagbladet about a Norwegian son who is suing an old age home for allowing his father to die of bed sores. If the bed sores in those places don't kill you, the boredom certainly will.

I think that money spent on persuading folks to stop smoking and overeating is not at all wasted, Bjørn. After all, these are habits that it is in our power to control — unlike the onset of cancer or SARS.

As for banning smoking at home. Hm. That is an interesting proposal. She may have second-hand smoke in mind. A person should not put his family at risk by subjecting them to second-hand smoke. We don't permit a person to beat his wife. Why let him blow smoke in her face day in and day out? How would you enforce a law like that, though? As you can tell, I'm not a smoker.

- Gill

Bjorn: I needed to comment on the Aftenposten article you've linked to about Carl I Hagen's idea of nominating Bill Clinton as the head of NATO.

While an intriguing idea, I have a bit of a problem with the following:

"Hagen also said he thinks it would be difficult for US President George W Bush to oppose Clinton if a majority of European countries want him."

There's just one problem: Clinton is from the wrong party. Hagen's glossing over of this problem betrays a certain naive understanding of American politics. Coalition politics just doesn't fly over here: in fact, it would be seen as a sign of weakness if Bush reached across party lines for political help. At this point in history, Bush doesn't need to pander to the Democrats at all, much less to the Europeans.

If Europeans haven't noticed, Bush is in an even stronger position today than before the war. The strong European opposition for the war has only strengthened his hand here in America.

My view of Brundtland is generally favourable. She has done a great job with WHO, which frankly was an utter mess when she started her job.

I think the biggest problem is that she has a microphone in front of her when she reveals that she, like most people, have her eccentric side and some weird ideas. When she was a prime minister, she at least tried to hold her tongue in public (with mixed results). Now she says exactly what she means about everything, and not all of it is equally sane.

Jan: Those eccentric sides are her job - or have been. I don't trust her anywhere near a health organization with political power.

Heh. I see your point, Bjørn.

Today Gro actually says that she was misquoted and did not at all suggest a ban on smoking at home. She still says it is irresponsible to smoke around children and, well, I agree with that. Everyone I know who smokes and have children thinks the same way.

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/297