Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Grüner Sozialismus greift weiter an

Bisher war man es gewohnt, dass Wissenschaftler versucht haben objektiv und rational über Problemstellungen zu diskutieren. Doch seit dem die Grüne-Welle der Umweltschützer ihren Zenit überschritten hat und auf uns hereinbrach, seit dieser Zeit gilt das nicht mehr. Wissenschaftler sind zu Schwertführern, oder Speerspitzen der Umweltbewegung geworden und haben damit all ihre Glaubwürdigkeit verloren, wie z.B. die repressive Royal Society:

Meanwhile, the Royal Society is trying to impose some kind of self-censorship on
the British media, urging them not to report skepticism about Global Warming
(Item #4). The Telegraph has a humorous take on this -- but this can get out of
hand as major science journals seem to be following this disturbing trend.
Fortunately, the Canadian press is as vigorous as ever (Item #5).

Nicht nur, dass die Wissenschaftler, die eigentlich auf vielseitige Debatten und kritisches Hinterfragen setzten sollten, nun eindeutig politisch werden, nein, sie machen sogar in der Zensur mit. Das ist keine Wissenschaft mehr, sondern Politizismus der schlechtesten Art (gibt es überhaupt eine gute Art und Weise?!).

Aber auch in der Politik wird der Umweltschutz auf neue Tiefen gebracht:

The European Union faces real problems in meeting its Kyoto targets, as
Iain Murray reminds us (Item #2). There is even talk in the European Parliament
about economic action against the US (Item #3). To add to Tony Blair's problems
as he gets ready to assume the EU chairmanship, a group of Britain's leading
industrialists has written him urgently demanding long-term policies on climate
change. [BBC report May 27, 2005]. The heads of the 12 leading firms say climate
change is a huge challenge that needs serious investment by business. But they
say they cannot invest because they are not sure what future government policies
on climate will be.

Der Superstaat EU soll es nun richten. Es geht dabei um wirtschaftliche Investitionen in Milliardenhöhe und zwar nicht nur von "echten" Unternehmen, sondern auch von sogenannten Green-Tradern. Diese neue Art des Buisness kommt gerade erst in Schwung mit dem Einsetzen des Kyoto-CO2-Market. Man kann also die Angst von beiden Unternehmensarten, den Produktiven und den Schmarozenden, verstehen und nur klare Gesetzesvorlagen werden über die Richtung der Wirtschaft aufklären.

Währendessen bricht auch noch die UN-Stütze der Grünen Panikmache zusammen:

The IPCC, whose predictions of future climate disaster are based on phony
economics, is immune to rational economic discussion. David Henderson, and his
colleague, Ian Castles of the Australian National University, have been unable
to establish a rational dialogue with the IPCC.
The same problem exists in the field of climate science, where the pillars holding up the IPCC conclusion of human-caused global warming have been eroded by contrary evidence.

Gutes im schlechten?! Sicher nicht, da diese Nachrichten nur zu den Interessierten und nicht zu den Missinformierten durchdringen.

Sunday, May 29, 2005

PETA and Killing Dogs

It is no myth that PETA is a radical and insensitive animal rights (which in itself is a philosophical problem) movement that often tends to shoot over the target.
If the following is right, then I must advise that it is also the most hypocritical movement I have seen.

There is a growing number of websites who complain about PETA and their activities, because the organization didn't do what it said it'd do.
PETA wants people to send found dogs and cats to their central, where they will get a new home. However, several people claim that this didn't happen. In fact, PETA reported only around 1-3 dogs have been reassigned to a new home. However, there were a lot more dogs and cats sent to the Headquarter. Where have they gone?

PETA, the organization for the ethical treatment of animals(!!!! what an irony), first denied that those puppies and kitties were killed and said it had sent them to local pet shops. Those pet shops however said that they were willing to take some of the animals, if PETA had contacted them.
So, what else might have happened to those lost animals?

They have been killed by PETA, at least the CCR believes this. I am not sure, but the whole evidence points in this direction, but go and check it out. See for yourself and judge whether PETA is as cruel as those people say.


Sunday, May 22, 2005

The Stupidity of the Wealthy

I have been posting about Green-craziness for some time now and I think it is still the most important challenge we will face in the coming century.
Not that there is a problem with environmentally conscious thinking in itself, but it has to be applied sc ientifically and in context. This is the way which has been lost by the advocates of environemntal movements (who were against pollution of air and water (both issues that have been resolved)) and also has been confused by those celebrity no-brainers that advocate "stopglobalwarming.com".


Just take this little example, which shows nothing drastic, but the stupidity of an environmentalist who poses the "rescue of nature" (whatever that is) above the well-being and comfort of her family.

The battle of comfort vs. conscience has begun. Stay tuned to see who wins!

I dearly hope that it is not the so-called "conscience" that wins, because this consciences is about some superstitious belief, rather than an actual fact or situation. If she followed her conscience, she'd be more concerned about the well-being of people close to her, as to some disputable fact of global warming, that may or not may occur with or without the help of humans.
But, heh, there have always been stupid people around, so why should it change now.

Saturday, May 21, 2005

Greenpeace and Poverty

Greenpeace does not only claim to act in protection of the environment, but often in the protection of poor people. Actually, they are doing the complete opposite, they destroy people's workplace.


Today they stopped the production of Land Rovers in the UK for one day, thus giving the company a loss. You know why those car companies try to get their factories to China, Africa and other Asian countries, because of wackos like these. They don't help anybody by chaining themselves to an assembly line thus hurting the workplaces of the already "poorer" workers in the UK.
But, of course, this is acceptable for the greater good, because those student hippies don't have such monetary problems. They are well fed and closed in contrast to the workers.
It is always easy to complain about "environemntally unsustainable methods", while you sit at a table full of fine Champagne and a long menu ahead and your own car waiting for you in the garage.

I didn't have the "luck" to live and sleep in any of the poor and dirty cities/villages of the poor African or Asian towns, but I call myself lucky and I work not to have to do it. I know that science has got us so much and we have to take advantage of it, because otherwise nature takes on us. I don't like the conditions down in Africa, but I am also not running around saying that they live so much better, because they have a life in harmony with nature.
And I am not someone who sleeps in youth hostels in the East and comes back to Europe and proclaims he has experienced the every day life of the truly enlightened nature-loving people.

So, I might not entirely know how it is to be poor and living in a hell hole (or what modern Leftists call a hell-hole), but I know that I don't want to experience it, because I have no romantic visions about it.

Malaria and Aids

Living in an age and a location, where Aids is more a problem than Malaria, it is of course hard to see that some want DDT for themselves. Despite many tests, DDT is a hell of a chemical that might not directly injure people in short-period of application, but still is nasty (not only the smell). It is like high-grade paint and spray utility.

However, there is a major difference between the two major diseases of this century, the already erradicated believed malaria and the hyped AIDS. There are many projects underway to contain AIDS epidemies (if such a thing exists), but there are less projects and less propaganda on the way for malaria.
On the one side, we have malaria, a disease that has been erradicated through-out the industrialized world, on the other side we have AIDS, an illness that is not in itself deadly, but weakness the body immune system.
But there is one significicant difference between AIDS and Malaria. The former is caused by neglect of safety measures, while the second is caused by a fly that can be destroyed by human scientific means. The first is caused by the individuum that wants to have unprotected sex by his own decision. The second is caused by a community who doesn't want people to evolve and science to thrive, by environmentalist and protectionist politicians.
I see no epidemic danger in the first one, but I see a threat in the latter one.

More Infos, here:

Thursday, May 19, 2005

Divine Mission or Craziness

Although there is fine weather outside and my joy is on a heighth and also I appreciate that my health and my environment are so friendly as to allow me to have some free time, there is still one thing that still enrages my from time to time. It is that people tend to ignore errors in persons, and I don't speak about the insignificant whims, but the curcial errors.

One of this is the continuous support of Mr. Bush in his crusade for Christianity, not only in the Far East, but also in the US. There is countless facts and references that show that he truly believes in his cause. Many libertarians and objectivists tend to ignore that, because they believe that the results justify the means (even if it takes 10 years or so). They tend to allow a man to go for his mission even if it is out of the right reasons.

There are so many facts that indicate Bush believes that his mission is divine and thus makes it morally right. There is countless reference, too much to count it up all here in this short post (amongst others: http://coldfury.com/reason/index.php , and Articles by Adam Reed here)

But I know one line from the Series Babylon 5, which is a good series if you want to know how Authoritarian and Totalitarian regimes come about, (Episode 21 "Comes the Inquisitor", Season 2) that ultimately captures Mr. Bushs mental theory. It is such a good line, because President Bush himself once said that he admires the series Babylon 5 for his insight, although he most obviously wanted to be like John Sheridan (the hero of the series).
However, I must say that he sounds a lot more like Mr. Sebastian (perhaps this is even more articulate than Mr. Bush himself):

"The city was drowning in decay [about London around 1888]. Chaos, Immorality, a Message needed to be send. Pledged in blood, for all the world to see - A Warning. In the pursuit of my holy cause, I did things, terrible things, unspeakable things. The World condemned me, but it didn't matter, because I believed I was right and the world was wrong. I believed I was the divine messenger. I believed, I was chosen.."

It indeed sounds polemic, but it still is so damn right to the point. "I believed I was right and the world was wrong" and he didn't even consider for a second, that maybe the world was right and he was wrong.
To consider this and still to be able to perform the task you know (after thinking over everything) is right, is to command and to decide. But it also includes the moral imperative to live with the consequences and to obey to the consequences. The first I am not sure Mr. Bush understood, the latter he didn't obey.
These words were fabricated by Mr. Strazynski (the author of Babylon 5) and laid into the mouth of Sebastian, the alleged Serial Killer in London 1888, whose last sighting was on November 11th. I don't want to say that Mr. Bush is a serial killer, but he has made a serial error and he didn't cope with reality and the consequences. All his politics are made under one premise, to white wash his errors and to make the truth and the consequences unidentifiable.

Right about now, he has succeeded and with the support of the US citizens, he will continue so.

Monday, May 16, 2005

Why did the US appease Communism?

Indeed, I have no real answer to this question, except that the president of the US never anticipated that the Soviet Union would survive the Second World War.

Why I am going back to this old shoe and re-examine it once more?

Well, one thing is this report from Der Spiegel. The other is the way people defend the US president today for his unrelenting view on attacking Iraq and how they compare it to the resolve of the US during World War II. They say that the president is persuing the goal of freedom and liberty as the US did during the Second World War and that there will be the same effect as then.
I don't think so. It might be, that it works, but only if the president would really believe in liberty and peace, which he does not. His constant appeasement of religious leaders in Iraq have shown his weak side as much as the still nationalized oil wells. Both issues are signs of limited resolve, but it is increasingly like and unlike WW II.
It is unlike WW II that it has not the necessary philosophic grounds to apply a liberal democracy and a unified country, like Germany and Japan. Instead, Iraq is rooted into three different social tribes (Kurds, Shiites and Sunnits) and it has a philosophic background that concludes in a theocratic authoritarian dictatorship.
So, the formal aspects are clearly different compared to World War II.

So, perhaps the personal and ideologic aspects of the "liberator" are perhaps comparable? Yes, they are, but only on those aspects that led to the 40 year reign of the Soviet Union.
For example, and I think this is the strongest evidence, we have the resolve of the US president to form a democratic Iraq and destroy any remaining "Terrorist"-threat. Since the threat is rooted in radical Islamism, he has to prevent this theology to become dominant in Iraq. He has failed in this.
Now, the comparison to World War II shows that the Allied Forces also failed in this. They bargained with evil (or better Stalin) about West-Berlin and lost most of the later DDR territory to the UdsSR. They had already seized Leipzig and other cities in Eastern Germany, but instead of driving further against the threat of socialism. They stopped and returned the truly liberated territory to the Soviets.

The same thing happens in Iraq, instead of solidifying a liberal position in Iraq, president Bush has appeased the Islamic forces in Iraq (Shiites mostly).

So, let's not draw yourself into the false aspects of the comparison between the Iraq situation and WW II. The aspects that led to a success in Germany are utterly different from Iraq and the aspects that compromised the probability of a maximum victory, are the only ones one can compare.

Saturday, May 14, 2005

Global Warming seizes the USA

While Bush is still ignorant to Global Warming (RIGHTLY SO!!!), 130 something cities have adopted the Kyoto Protocol on their own, thus delivering their cities and the economy to the evil of Fearmongers.
The full report in the New York Times.

I don't like Bush and most of his policies, because they are either socialistic or downright lies and unjustified accusation. However, I always respected his move not to succumb to junk science and its greenish/socialist supporters. And I think even his negative stance towards the UN is a good thing.
However, the bill for this move by several mayors will lead to controversy not only in the relationship between federal and local government, but also to a negotiation between Kyoto-cities and other cities.
It will cause a deeper rift inside the US federal and local governments that could worsen the situation further.

Despite the political implications, it already has drawbacks for many citizens. For example, LA had to urge boat owners to resupply their ships with motors off and the power plants will have to increase their prices. It will lead to a feedback that hurts the small people the most. And all this is accepted for some hypothetic achievement of a hundreth of a degree in ten years. It is obvious insanity to subscribe to such a bad treaty and it shows the decline of the US from a liberal society of individual rights to a society no better than the European Socialism.

Farewell, Good Ol' US.

Ragarding the United Nations illegitimacy

What is the United Nations and more so who is the United Nations? Some say it is the first step to a world government, other see it as a tool to distribute peace and a place to negotiate. But finally, both are wrong, as I have been wrong for a long time in my assessment of the United Nations.

Despite popular European belief, the United Nations is not a tool to distribute peace and a place to negotiate for the different nations. It is not a round table, where the entire community can come to a general aggrement.
However, it is a fully funded intergovernment-panel of beaurocrats and politicians. It is a body where democracies and dictatorships are equally welcomed and where human rights often end at the side table.

It also is not the socialist European dream of a world government, because there has never been constitution that has been ratified by the only legal body capable of forming states: The People. Also, it couldn't be a democratic body with liberal rights as a foundation, because this would be contradicted by the very existence of the dictatorships within the United Nations.

So, what else is it? It is a moloch created by socialist governments and fully funded by the stronger nations to display good will to their own people. It is a organisation that has outgrown its usefullness by being too corrupt and far too expensive and inefficient.
It neither had any chance in securing peace, nor have their means to deliver Development Aid ever succeeded. Instead the UN grew year after year, while still failing in all their objective goals. If something like this occured in a company or in a legitimated government (if there is such a thing), then the voters or the shareholders would take action and change the course. But none of this is going to happen to the UN, it will even grow further and it is not the guilt of the USA as many Europeans say.
The UN is heavily influenced by NGO's (Special Interest groups) than by any government. This can easily be proven by the agendas that have been released and are almost word-to-word copies of Greenpeace and other concerned Leftist institutions.

So, why I had always admired the possibility of a intergovernment panel to discuss global problems and more so to discuss differences before going to war in a neutral area, this is not what the UN is. Instead thugs and thieves carry the word, those little buggers like North Korea, Iraq, Syria and Iran. All those countries, which are, not even to the most socialdemocratic person of this world, democratic or constitutional nations, have a vote in the United Nations, there word is equal to democratic and peacefull nations like Poland, Italy or Ireland.
This is, in my eyes, an insult to those countries and a disgrace of any organisation that plans to promote peace to the world.

That's why I support the idea of Tom DeWeese (here) to abolish the UN.

He has a good summary of the state of the UN:

Today, fifty years after the inception of the United Nations, the
international community is a dangerous place
. Instead of peaceful,
prosperous, stable trading partners, the world is full of brutal, murdering
dictatorshipswhich starve and torture their own people while threatening the
security of their neighbors, as once-great powers cower and use
diplomatic doublespeak to ignore responsibility
. Most of these
international thugs have two things in common. 1) Each has a voice
and a vote in the United Nations
. 2) None would be a threat if they

Wenn du nicht verwirklichst was du predigst...

So könnte man die Verbindung zwischen den Grünen, ihrer Politik des Umweltprotektionismus und ihrem Selbstverständnis bezeichnen. Schon immer war die Politiker der Grünen sehr auf die Erhaltung der Umwelt gegenüber jeglicher menschlicher Einflüsse bedacht. Das solche environmental-engineering Projekte noch nie geklappt haben, hält die realitätsferne Ideologie der Grünen nicht davon ab, doch ausgesprochen zu werden.

Doch interessant dabei ist zu sehen, dass nicht einmal die Realpolitiker der Grünen dieser Mundpropaganda viele Taten folgen lassen, wenn es sie selbst betrifft. Sie sind, wie auch Greenpeace und Konsorten, gut darin Worte zu spucken, die andere dazu zu zwingen ihrem Reichtum und ihrer Entwicklung abzuschwören um wieder im "Einklang mit der Natur" zu leben - was so viel bedeutet, wie sich der Natur zu unterwerfen, auf Gedeih und Verderben.
Leider unterläuft den Naturfanatikern, Fahrradfahrern und Joggern der grünen Fraktion immer mal wieder ein Fehler, der zeigt wie sie wirklich denken. Es geht ihnen nur darum, dass andere diesen Idealen folgen, nicht aber sie selbst.

Woran man das erkennen kann? Nichts ist leichter als das. Es gibt immer wieder kleine Hinweise auf die eigene nicht sehr ökologische Haltung, denn sollte nicht eine Partei als Vorbild funktionieren für die Werte die sie vertreten?

Nun hatten die Grünen bei ihrer Wahltournee zur letzten Bundestagswahl nicht nur das umweltfeindlichste Auto aller Parteien, sondern seit neustem auch noch den umweltfeindlichsten Strom.
Wie der Spiegel berichtete, steht auf der Stromrechnung der Grünen 100% billiger Atomstrom, während bei der CDU und der FDP sogar 10% grüner Ökostrom verrechnet wird. Das scheint nicht unbedingt für eine Konsistenz der eigenen Politik zu sprechen. Und seit dem die rot-grüne Bundesregierung auch noch eine neue Flotille Diesel-Autos geordert hatte, kann man von einem von einem Lippenbekenntnis zur Umweltschutzbewegung sprechen.
Nicht das dies unbedingt ein Fehler wäre, da es ja nur zeigt, dass sie genug Verstand haben nicht ihren eigenen Lügen anheim zu fallen.
Nur schlecht ist, dass trotzdem noch so viele Menschen auf diese ecolies hereinfallen.

Monday, May 09, 2005

Demokratie Ahoi!

Wiederinmal feiert sich die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, nein, besser die Parteien selbst, diesmal heißt es "Tag der Demokratie" und soll die bestehende demokratische Ordnung loben. Doch nicht alle Parteien scheinen gleichermaßen davon überzeugt zu sein.

Der Spiegel berichtet über den Tag der Demokratie:


Dabei stellt er interessanterweise eine Differenz bei der finanziellen Beteiligung der Parteien fest:

Doch während SPD und Grüne den Aktionstag mit mehreren zehntausend Euro
unterstützten, ließen CDU und FDP ihre Geldbörsen zu.

Ist es Knausrigkeit der die CDU und die FDP davon abhalten dahingehend zu investieren oder gibt es noch andere Motive? Bei der CDU ist die Frage eindeutig, sie wollen sich nur nicht an einem Fest der Gewerkschaften beteiligen, wobei die Frage bei der FDP schwieriger zu beantworten ist. Da die FDP in traditionell Lieberaler Position argumentieren würde, wenn sie noch wäre was sie nie richtig war, aber doch am Anfang durchscheinen lies: nämlich eigentümlich Liberal.
Stattdessen wird die FDP einfach nur fiskal nichts für eine so zweifelhafte Sache ausgeben, leider hat das mit ideologischen Gründen nichts mehr zu tun.
Denn die FDP fühlt sich sehr wohl in der heutigen demokratischen Gesellschaft, in der sie von einer kleinen Mehrheit im Parlament gehalten werden.

Doch das ist natürlich noch nicht alles, nein, der Tag wird noch weiter von sogenannten demokratischen Institutionen genutzt, darunter fallen heutzutage: Die Kirchen und Gewerkschaften.
Das die Gewerkschaft natürlich auf einer Feier der Demokratie nicht fehlen darf ist klassisch klar, allerdings fragt man sich doch was die Kirchen dort suchen. Keine der dort vertretenen Glaubensgemeinschaften hat auch nur im Entferntesten mit Freuden die Demokratie unterstützt. Immerhin sind durch sie, der Kirche wichtige Privilegien und Vorteile flöten gegangen, die früher gesetzlich verankert waren.

Mangel an Ingenieuren...

...Oder wie ich Probleme produziere, wo keine sind. Leider kann ich mit dieser Einschätzung des Spiegels (http://www.spiegel.de/unispiegel/jobundberuf/0,1518,354915,00.html ) überhaupt rein gar nichts anfangen, da ich leider ein ganz anderes Bild vermittelt bekomme. Als ich 2004 angefangen habe in Karlsruhe Maschinenbau zu studieren, haben diese Idee noch 600 andere Schulabgänger gehabt. Für 2005 erwartet die Uni Karlsruhe so viele Studenten, dass sie ernsthaft darüber nachdenken einen Numerus Clausus einzuführen. Dies ist für Maschinenbau in Karlsruhe unüblich, da noch 2002 nur 300 Studenten das Studium begonnen haben.

Es ist also eine Verdoppelung der Anfängerzahlen zu beobachten und das nicht nur in Karlsruhe sondern auch in Darmstadt und Aalen, eben den Spitzenuniversitäten des Faches Maschinenbau.
Nun mag es sich eventuell um ein Einzelphänomen in Süddeutschland handeln, allerdings ist es bezeichnend für das Interesse an den Ingenieurswissenschaften. Ich kann also in keiner Weise ein "Desinteresse" am Fach erkennen, sondern eher eine Priorisierung der Qualität des Studiums.