Pill in the garden of professor

The story of a person is placed in the context of current events and mutual effects in between. Most often, biographies are written about those who have affected the channel of important or remarkable events in one way or another.

Biographies can prove to be very useful when reviewing the history of nations and states. This also applies when the protagonist itself keeps the pen. There, I think one of the greatest accusations is the descriptions of the fellow travelers. This can apply to parents and others who have a shaping influence on the person, but also those with whom the author has been interested and even conflicts.

Certain image drawn up

In such writings, people are different, as is the case in other areas of human life, and certainly autobiographies must also read with the glasses that they are intended to send certain messages. Pull up a particular image, one above others.

The genesis of the stories and publishing history can also have a lot to say. This includes the example of the memories of Svein Björnsson, the first president of the Republic. They came out to him in 1957. Then half a decade passed since his death.

There, Svein’s biography was found during the governor years, or the time when he becomes the supreme officials of the nation during wartime, and it was the recording of his career as President 1944-1952.

Autobiography or not?

But is it an autobiography? To some extent but not everything. Professor Sigurður Nordal created the book for printing. It is known that the text was reviewed very much from Svein’s original writings to the publication. It is said that the president’s sincere descriptions of his fellow travelers have been reduced in particular. In those days, no doubt it was not right that the memories of the first forecast had a heavy or at least decisive reviews of people, many of whom were still in the days or recently.

Unfortunately, Svein’s original manuscript has not been searched. That would probably be an invaluable source. Both about his attitude, but also it has the opportunity to carefully examine how people felt right to conduct his published text, after he went, in 1957.

Gentleman

Geir H. Haarde’s biography came out last Christmas. There, Geir runs his life and the most memorable news on the track. Politics certainly weigh heavily there, as it was the forum that became his life’s work. I allow myself to assert that Geir is known for prudence and that he has rarely changed his mood before the world.

It is more interesting to look at what words he goes through his various fellow travelers. After reviewing the text quite clearly in recent weeks, I cannot come to a conclusion other than that Geir has most of those he has had something to say about the story well.

Several exceptions

But there are certainly exceptions. It is clear that he has a limited opinion on Steingrímur J. Sigfusson and Ossur Skarphéðinsson. There are men he met in close close in political devastation, and their cooperation between them, and it defended it as a whole for decades.

Thus, Geir comes directly to the subject of Ossur when he describes his experience of him after Ossur entered the Althingi in 1991. Geir had elected four years earlier.

« I quickly found out that Ossur was a tool and could be a stimulus and difficult in mood. » (P. 155)

This must be considered in the light of what followed, especially at the time when Geir’s government, which he had formed with Ingibjörg Sólruna Gísladóttir, collapsed at the end of January 2009.

Other descriptions, which could be called « pills » against the names, are more subtle and in some cases it can be talked about certain disguises in Geir’s writings. There, he seems to want to convey messages, without it being done obviously. Perhaps they should only understand, which the message is intended.

Mystery and judgments

One example of this concerns Geir’s settlement with the so -called national case, where Geir’s political opponents went against him with a great deal of sacrifice and at the same time projected a very long and dark shadow of the rule of law that has been tried to build up in our society for a long time.

There he specifically discusses the share of Ragnhildur Helgadóttir, law professor and current rector of the University of Reykjavik. She sat on the so -called « expert committee » of the parliamentary committee, which prepared charges against Geir and three other ministers in his government.

From the data and words of Geir it can be seen that Ragnhildur was clear in the charge of Geir in the case, while other experts came to the ground (pp. 434-435) and Geir is the nature of the case according to the assessment of the legal professor.

However, it is quite a bit later in the book that Geir proposes to Ragnhildur in a fairly special way. It is in his description of a very crowded supporter meeting held in Harpa’s Northern Lights Hall on June 7, 2011, the same day as the case against Geir, one minister, was heard in the national court.

Two old friends

There, Geir briefly describes the mood at the meeting and mentions some of those who attended the meeting. There, he says: « Some of the former, the couple Ragnhildur Helgadóttir, former minister and Thor Vilhjálmsson, former Supreme Court judge, our old friends Inga Jóna, who showed his support in various ways. » (P. 463).

Geir does not go on the matter. But it is clear where he is going. Ragnhildur, the former minister, is the alias and the professor’s grandmother. The judge, both at the Supreme Court and indeed the European Court of Human Rights, was her grandfather.

These experienced people were clearly at odds with the professor. History has judged that experience is crucial when the weather in the wake of the banking collapse went through its well -known heavy weight.