On the topic of having the time to sit here

In an edition of the Danish newspaper Politiken dated a few weeks ago, I saw a couple of thought-provoking pages. On the left page, a text - on the right page, a photo, both by Daniel Hjorth. The photo showed a location in Copenhagen with two benches, one in the foreground, one in the background. On each of the benches an elderly gentleman was sitting alone, and the text said (in my translation):

A simple thought.
What would happen,
If I asked:
'May I sit here?'
Although the next bench was vacant. 

It is, perhaps, a simple thought. But isn't it so that we are not good enough to seek the company of other people? It is far from certain that other people sit alone due to an active choice. What if we gave each other the opportunity to meet each other? Perhaps even the opportunity of conversation?
I think I'll ask next time.
Perhaps even though I do not really need to sit down.
Perhaps even though I do not really have the time to sit down.
Because: what does it actually mean - "to have the time"?
Maybe the world would become a better place if more people asked, "May I sit here?", although the next bench was vacant?
(Translated from Noget om at have tid til at sætte sig her)

Debate or freak show?

In October 2013, I read a piece by Kasper Fogh Hansen, Director of Communications in FOOD, Food Organisation Of Denmark - an interesting feature article in the Danish newspaper Politiken under the heading that "The debate universe of the media has become a freak show", about how it appears to have become increasingly interesting for the media to promote extreme positions, shrill tone and confrontation rather than constructive debate. There are many interesting observations in the feature article - for example (in my translation):

A lot of good stuff is published. But can't you decrease the level of madness? What's the use of having people shouting 'fascists' and 'Leninists' at chefs, artists or simply people with moderately different opinions? And nobody becomes any wiser us 'having the debate'. And it is not important that everyone gets their say - there are plenty of words and websites in the world.

And it does not end here. We have seen it for a long time; it started when it became possible to comment anything on newspapers' websites, where it became obviously that people simply communicate with fewer filters in use when communicating with "the bravery of being out of range" - when one does not see the counterpart eye to eye. And journalists are not substantially better - two debating parties can hardly disagree, before it immediately hits the headlines as the fact that one "rages" against the other. Far too few people can be heard in their attempts to make us talk politely to each other, because the debate is too filled with people screaming at the top of their voice.
(Translated from Debat eller freakshow, originally published October 8, 2013)