Wednesday, December 22, 2004
So, here is the first follow-up post on the HBO show: Jeremiah. I know it is a bit late, because I promised to post it at once after the first one, but I got delayed.
However, here we go. I strongly advise you to read the first part and to watch at least the first season so you can follow my explanations.
Jeremiah hasn't got an overall steady plot, but it moves in a consecutive line with some out of the way episodes in between. So let us consider the type of anarchic societies present in this show. We have a huge variety of examples, starting with the first episode and going long into the second season.
First we have Cleo and her gang ruling a town in the Western part of what was once the United States of America. She rules the town with an iron fist and values brute strength over any kind of compromise. Cleo also has a high regard of science, but only as long as it suits her and leads to more power. She is an ambitious ruler of the small town, set to conquer the surrounding villages. We have here the standard tyrannic type of anarchic society, which is most notably known in todays society.
One ruler or a gang of brutes have a harsh iron hand over the population taking whatever they need. However, there is one nice trait about Cleo, she cares in so far for her people as she doesn't enslave them nor kill them without a good reason. (Of course, this can be said about most dictators.. they have their own reasons for killing people, not all justifiable) She preserves a status quo and peace and justic in the societies. But this anarchic type is not the liberty loving one.
So, let's go a step further.
In a later episode we see that Cleo is not the only settlement around and there are more peaceful, stable and less violent ones. None is stronger than the other and so they reached an equilibium which perserves peace (balance of power!). Now, this comes closer to the anarcho-capitalist view of Anarchic societies. However, those settlements do not work together in any peaceful way, but rather hunt each other down waiting for an opportunity to claim some super-weapon that gives them the upper-hand. We still have some sort of government (may it be one man or an entire squad or group of the society),so it is despisable.
What other societies does JMS show? Well, we have a religious settlement in one of the episodes of the first season. They are peaceful and law-abiding and instead of a government, they have a circle of elders to guide them. However, those elders are only the judges of the town, so this might be a close call to an anarchic society. We will see that this is not true.
Those elders have to get their legitimate power from two souces, first the kind of election and then the legitimation of the power itself. The first one is based on age and experience, which are two good factors, although it is age and experience in the bible and not in life.
This leads to the second factor of legitimation, the manifest on which the society builds and from which it derives its ideology. In this case it is some thwarted religion that calls the commandments their law-system and thus clings on a god-fearing path. Since this eliminates the prospect of full-fledged human choice of living as in anarcho-capitalism, we have some traits that don't correspond. These are the fallacies that almost kill Jeremiah and Curdy in this episode.
However, in the second season everything changes. A foreign power threatens the decentralised West and thus forces all of them to talk with each other. We then have a new constellation that goes back to the founding days of the United States and the beginning of the founding-father's ideas.
Those tyrans of each settlement come together to talk. And for the first time they are forced to trade and see the long-term benefit of such a system. The military society of Thundermountain gets them to work together and in return offers them their vast military abilities to fight the enemy.
We now have something that comes close to an anarchic society or at least a nightwatch state.
The military of Thundermountain is funded by the different settlements and in return gives them protection. On the otherside those villages have to adopt something like the Bill of Rights and thus leaving their people to the freedom of choice.
At the end of season 2 we have the final victory of the forces of Thundermountain over the foreigners and thus the victory of a Minarchist state over nature.
So, there aren't any other dangers to anarchic societies?
Well, there are two different dangers. First, anarchic societies can fall for racism or authoritarianism and this is the most dangerous enemy for these societies.
I will show in the next essay the compatibility of racism and authoritarianism in Jeremiah and the picture it draws of authoritarian or totalitarian societies. Those kind of ideologies are to be seen everywhere in JMS work (especially in Babylon 5).
He also underlines the importance of faith in any authoritarian society in several of episodes during the second season, but that's for different post ;)
I must apologize for some of my assumptions about Germany. It isn't socialism that is still present in germany (or better on the rise). No, it is something we had a few decades ago and of which I talked yesterday.
I found this short paragraph in Ayn Rand's novel "Capitalism: The Unkown Ideal":
"[W]elfare-statists are not socialists... they want to 'preserve' private property -- with government control of its use and disposal. But that is the fundamental characteristic of fascism" (page 211). So, I made the error in this. Well, in the future, I will be more certain in my judgement and perhaps I should review some of my reports, but I don't think they are faulty in any logical sense. Still facism and socialism have similar ideals, to limit personal choice-making and this is true free private property.
by Max Schwing( email@example.com)
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Of course, it was a big gamble, but it was certainly a victory for Schroeder. He has done the country no favor, but he has expanded his political status in several countries around the world. What I am talking of? The deal between Schroeder and Putin, of course! He didn't do it for his country or for anybody else, but himself and his network of political clients. The billions payed back by the Federal Government of Russia will be used to clear-wash Germans financial balance at the end of the year. Of course, he also did some coroporate-statism getting the German industry (more exactly: Siemens) a big contract with the Russian National Railroad about constructing and delivering 60 ICE's.
This will give him a lot of credit in our national media and among his politic friends. The everybody on the street will cheer him, because he will create some more positions to employ people. However, they tend to forget that first of all, those jobs will be only temporary, because the deal did not work on market demand, but on political network connections, thus the Russian Railroad might not deal with German contractors next time, if the political situation is different from now.
Secondly, Schroeder has again left a moraly continuous way. He may not be a Hypocrite by definition, but he isn't very steady in ethic challenges either.
Instead of condeming the Putinism and the war on Checheynia, he spoke only about topics, which are not in his resort, but part of free-market decisions.
We can see the pragmatic stand of Mr. Schroeder in all of those decisions and it is not only the viewpoint of Mr. Schroeder but of many politicians nowadays. It is the erosion of values, virtues and self-dignity and the rise of relativism in large scale that gave way to this kind of spineless persona!
We will hear more from flip-flop Schroeder in future and it will only reflect the state of our nation, or even better of our society and culture.
We have left the path of self-interest and egoism after the fall of the NAZI regime and the negative effects of those realizations still cling to our nation and to ourselves.
This might come from the constant preaching of our guilty in school's history lessons (although they are very valuable and a must be, we should tend to denounce the NAZIs explicitely and not every German).
Yes, German Totalitarianism has caused the death of millions and millions, but this was a generation ago and we are not the same as 6 decades ago. And I tend to say that the children does not inherite the guilt of the parents. I think that every child is a unique lifeform, which might be influenced by its parents here and there, but can be completely opposite to its parents and teachers. Thus it'd be injust to put all the guilt of a generation that slaughtered millions on this innocent child. How should it learn to respect itself and to claim the dignity to act as a free person, if you punish it for deeds it has not done...
And the result of this fallacy in history has brought creatures like Mr. Schroeder who evades any moral responsibility he has. But we are even more guilty for it, because we ignore it and make the same choice again and again.
I just recently watched "Jeremiah" again, all two season there are. Although I am a big fan of Jay Michael Strazynski (known for the infamous Babylon 5 series, which ran over 5 seasons and had the best-thoughtout plot ever seen in television series), I can still say objectively that everyone should at least take a look on this series. It is compelling and science-fiction in its truest meaning.
Instead of just posing technology of the future, this series tries to show a society and how it could work. Although, this is not the true purpose and main theme behind this Show. I don't want to give away too much, so I just summarize it a bit.
The show takes place in a near future and develops a post-apocalyptic scenario. Governments and nations no longer exist and sceptics would say that the "survival of the fittest" is on the run. This is certainly true and there is a big blackhole of injustice or self-justice in this future. But there are still small settlements or groups that cling together and work peacefully with each other. Instead of money, the currency is tradable material. You get a beer for two cans of rice and so on.
How our world collapsed, you might ask now?
Well, that's easy. There was a Big Death, a super-virus that killed all people over the age of innocence. Everyone over the age of 30 died and the kids had to fend for themselves.
But instead of babaric uncontrolled violence or a tyranny of the strong, it created a lot of settlements who trade peacefully with each other. Of course, there were tyrannic regimes in some of the settlement, but they were not strong enough to rule all the other settlements.
Then everything changed when the remainings of the former military started to annex what was once theirs. They try to enforce a military dictatorship that would finally introduce the safe-authoritarian state which can be seen in 1984 (George Orwell).
But there is one small military base under control of the decendants of the military inhabitants of that base and this refuge starts to fight the forth coming future, the military dictatorship of the U.S. Army.
This show is about love of freedom, individuality and anti-authoritarianism. It is staged around two heros, Jeremiah and Cody. It outlines the morality of self-interest and the longing for independency. Building on this it features the core-theme of Authoritarian against Anarchic societies.
I will go deeper into the show in my next post. However, I recommend to watch at least some of the episodes, because the next post will reveal lots of the plot and thereby might make the show uninteresting to you.
We will look at how the show employs the anarchic society and what question it poses against it. I will also dwell on the two different authoritarian fractions the show gives us in the two seasons it has.
In the end, I will look at the exact picture of individuality and liberty in this show, which will be a difficult task, because it is thwarted in many ways.
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
And it really had a tricky and well-thought out story line, the stylistic cinematographic work was except only a few flaws, good handcrafted work (less special-effects, more solid camera techniques) and it had several different themes. All in all, it was a rather funny fun-movie with an ambigious moral (not to say no moral at all ;) ) and an underlying principle that shouldn't inspire people.
We have an Nietzschean background in this movie that is screwed in several scenes and never truly the focus of the movie, which ruined it somewhat. However, there are other themes (which never present a solution) like a conflict of Youth and Elders, conservative against rebellious youth, egalitarian against snobism and of course, rich against poor.
I will return to that later, after you read the following summary of the movie (ATTENTION SPOILERS INCLUDED!!!). Just one last word before we start, the rich are portrayed stupidly and poorly as the amoral, evil snobs without any form of caring or insight, which is typical to nowadays movies, especially in Europe. However, it also has a true ring in respect of the Rich. They have lost philosophy and forsake it for their own disadvantage, because they regarded it as unnecessary. That's why the hostage Bernd cannot defend his position properly against the terrorist youth that confronts him with philosophic problems of todays world.
Let's start with a brief summary:
******* SPOILERS (DON'T READ IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE MOVIE) *********
There are three young people, I'd say in the mid-twenties. Two male and one female, they are all into alternative way of living and they demonstrate against Sweatshops and the society in general. In the beginning of the movie, we see a few idealist youths(with the girl in the scene as a newly hired recruit for the anti-sweatshop demo) having a demonstration against violation of human rights and the unjust habits of the richt western-world against the so-called 3rd World.
This short scene is very important for the whole theme of the movie, so I will explain it in detail.
We see some of the young idealist enter a shop for shoes which have been produced (at least, the young ones proclaim it) in Indonesia by child labor. They try to convince some costumers, also young people, to boykott those products of the unjust capitalism of greed. The owner of the shop slowly, but forcefully, albeit formal and polite, pushs them to the door. There a German police unit already waited for those punks and they get beaten inside a police van.
Now, the story continues, when we see that Jule (the girl) moves to the apartment of the two boys Jan and Peter. Peter is her boyfriend so this is alright. Lisa works as a waitress part-times and had to sold her apartment due to unpaid bills. She also owes a debt to a rich person of about 96000 Euro. Lisa believes that her future life is destroyed by that money, although she never knew what to do with her life, later she admits that she only wanted to live from moment to moment.
We don't know what Jan does for a living, but Peter works for a security company and they break into houses which are equipped with security installations of former company. They don't steal anything, but instead they rearrange all the couches, chairs, paintings, pictures, sculptures and so on. They are rather creative in it and show a certain amount of style.
Then they leave a message behind, in form of a letter, that either says:
"Die Fetten Jahre sind vorbei" or "Sie sind zu reich" (The good years are over or You are too rich)
Those flyers are always signed with "Die Erziehungsberechtigten" (The Guardians). They do this, at least they give that reason, to change the world, to give birth to a more social conscience to those who don't have as much money.
Now, Lisa falls in love with Jan after some time and they break into the house of the person, which Lisa owes the money to. Of course, Peter doesn't know anything about it, because he is in Spain at that time. They not only rearrange the furnitures this time, but also leave a trail of destruction in the house. However, when they leave the house, they forget Lisa's cell-phone at the place.
When Peter returned from Spain, Lisa and Jan don't tell him, but decide to get the phone by themselves. This turns out to be a bad idea. While they are inside, the owner of the house "Bernd" returns and Lisa get caught on first sight. He remembers her, but can't alarm the police, because Jan hits him unconscious. They call Peter and the burglary turns into a kidnapping. They take Bernd as a hostage and flee to a mountain log cabin.
There the relationship between Lisa and Peter collapse, because she finally admits herself to love Jan. However, they reunite after some hours and at last they even get friends with Bernd. He understands their motives, but not their means. The hostage is reminded of his own youth as a member of the 60s movement and his rebellion against the state.
At last, they apologize and return him to his home, where he swears not to call the police and to rethink the 96000 euro debt of Lisa. However, as soon as the three kids left, he becomes thoughtful and falls back in his conservative role. Meanwhile the three youngsters finally decide to go on with their job to wake up the world against the capitalist greed.
Next day, the police is in front of the apartment where they lived. The special forces units rushes in but finds the place abandoned. A letter is pinned to the wall:
"Manche Menschen ändern sich nie!" (= Some people don't change!)
We see an intercut with Bernd in the police car, guiltly sneeking around.
Then we see the three young people in a spanish hotel, checking out. They take Bernd's mediterranian Yacht and rush of into the sunlight to a distant island, in order to cut three satelite transmission towers, which would end the TV transmission to all the people in Europe for days.
********* END OF SUMMARY ***********
You will see that this is a huge source not only for political philosophy, or political argumentations, but also for philosophy, psychology and several other interesting viewpoints. The amount of relativist moral, subjectivism, utilitarism, altruism and other new-age socialism parts, common to the "NEW" Berlin generation, is very high. But instead of informing the audience of the socialist background, Daniel Brühl (playing in "Good-Bye, Lenin!") this times plays the young rebel with a Che Guevarian inspirationism.
Since it is late, I will continue depicting the amorality of the movie and the rich-bashing that is so common in Germany and the sources for that when I have time at hand.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
I have just received the new "Spiegel", from whom I have discussed reports before. This time they have an interview with Weder di Mauro, one of the youngest economically wise-men, as they are called, here.
The worst remark of the 39-year old economy advisor is that she criticises the ideologic layout of the parties. This is in my eyes, a terrible miscalculation, because only strict reforms (strict to their ideologic and philosophic basis) can improve anything. Everything else is a half-baked try that has lost its meaning, because the inner-logic of the reform will be lost due to contradictionary influences.
The good thing is that she stresses the need of more investment by the people, who need not to be afraid and she also attacks the myth of massive out-sourcing. This fear, however, is not made by the politicians only, but also by the Euro itself (as I have discussed below).
However, her lack of understanding basic ideologic, politic and philosophic premises and evading the issue by ignoring any ideology, is deeply dissatisfying and in a way an expression of the new social order. Premises are not to be judged and/or followed!
This is what Ayn Rand has written in her famous book "Atlas Shrugged", where the new-age college boys have not gasped the complex problem of economy and political influence in it.
They can only use the politics for their own needs, but they don't really understand the ideologic agenda they follow, obviously, because they won't take part in any logic ideology.
Therefore, my stand that philosophy is a pre-requisite for economics, as is ethics, should be honored. Academia should give those topics a little more thought in the future.
But meh, that won't happen anywhere nowadays....
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
I have said it innumberable times in the past, Germany is drifting towards socialism, even if it is a soft kind of socialism. But this kind just substitutes the metal gun with the velvet gun. In the end, they are very similar in words and in action.
Of course, nobody wants to see it and nobody takes me seriously. They think it to be a bad habit that there is so much beaurocracy, but they are unwilling to change anything (politicians even less than everyday men and women, because they'd diminish their own position of power).
A good example has been brought up by "Der Spiegel", a famous German newsmag. Germans are security fanatics, even if it is not necessary, or it would drive many companies out of business. The newest gadget of the law-abiding politicians of the authoritarian-side is the life-boat rule. Inland-boat traffic on the river rhine was always a very safe thing, until the government decided otherwise.
Now, it is dangerous, and we have to protect against the new huge 20 cm waves and the long distance to reach help or the shore (20 m?!). To protect the poor citizens, who could die on the river rhine, the government invented a new law that made it necessary for the boat captains to buy expensive life-boats. Those life-boats are usually seen on high sea ships, where they are necessary for your survival. On those small tourist boats on the rhine, however, those boats are unnecessary. The life-boats are so expensive that the quantity needed for your boat and the care-taking could easily wipe the economic balance of those small tourist companies, who undertake rhine-tours by boat.
So, you tell me that the state does not interfere with business? That we have a truly free-market or even a social market? What is social in killing business out of fear of the improbable?
Damn you, Authoritarians!
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Let's see when I will find time again, perhaps I will post a short story the next few days :)
Thursday, October 28, 2004
He writes in his column for telepolis.de:
Take, for example, America's proposed CAPPS II, a law which represents a
scary example of the extent to which a government seeks control. According to
this law, all airline passengers would be screened and their records would be checked against the FBI's NCIC (National Crime Information Center) database -- which, ironically, is exempt from requirements to ensure that its contents are accurate.
This means in short, that they can take all data or hold persons which may or may not be guilty, because there is no sort of verification necessary. This is a new high in government observation and an addition extension of the Big Brother state.
Most likely, you cannot even get the information about the criteria via the "Freedom of Information Act" (which is not nearly as free as you think), because those data would fall under national security. Incidentially, those are listed under a category which is exempt from this Act. Tragical and pure luck, isn't it....
The talks about the joining of turkey to the European Union has gone into the second round and they didn't lose momentum. In fact, they even built momentum in the last few days. Famous politicians, writers, artists and other stars have commented the attempt to include a partly-islamic country into the European Union.
I want to demonstrate the problem via the discussion in Germany. The socialist party hopes to get Turkey into the EU, because they believe that it would set an example to the rest of the world. What kind of example should that be, you ask?
Well, they want to demonstrate that there is no difference between an islamic-secular country and the western world and they want to show that we can live together peacefully. They hope to get access to the Middle East and disolve the resentments of the Mullahs and Theocracies.
Then there is the conservative party, the CDU, which doesn't want them to join. In the wake of the anti-Turkey voices of the conservatives swims the liberal party FDP. And once the liberals have made the choice out of the right reasons.
Turkey, they reason, is still not ready to join up, because they still violate human rights, aren't truly secular, because they still prevent the ancient rule of patriachic nations. The administration of Erdogan does nothing to prevent abuse of women by their husbands and they still torture their prisoners if necessary.
Those violations of human rights are no small things and should alone stop the integration until they are solved sufficiently.
So, my opinion is clearly towards more talks, but no integration until we have a truly democratic turkey with safe civil liberties.
German Bild endorses George W. Bush as President
The Spiegel reports of some truly stupidious and bad explained acts on behalf of the George Bush campaign team:
Wanna log on to George W. Bush's re-election website? No problem. If you happen
to be in the United States that is. For everyone else on the planet, the Web
site www.georgewbush.com is blocked. "Error message 403. Access denied." The
move by Bush campaign officials to block the site to visits from outside the US
comes following an attack on the domain last week that shut it down for two
days. The assault was a so-called "Denial of Service" attack, whereby a huge
number of computers are hijacked and used to simultaneously log-on to the same
site. The site's server crashes under the strain. The site was blacked out on
Monday. "We took this measure for security reasons," Bush spokesman Scott
Stanzel said on Wednesday following days of silence on the issue. (1:45 p.m.
Of course, security reasons is only the obvious part. Most likely, they don't want to have more anti-bush comments with proper reasoning and logic on their servers. And perhaps they don't want to terrify their European counter-parts with their theocratic agenda. Who knows?
When German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder pledged, in 2002, to oppose a US attack on Iraq, the image of Germans in the mind of most Americans went down the tubes. Now, however, a new poll offers hope that the transatlantic ice age may be ending. US pollster Magid, working with the German Information Center, asked Americans how they viewed German-American relations and found that 35 percent felt they were "excellent" or "good," up from only 17 percent in a poll taken a week after Baghdad fell in April 2003. After Britain, which got an 88 percent approval rating, 57 percent of Americans further said that Germany was the country's most-important European partner. Nevertheless, the Foreign Ministry in Berlin still has its work cut out for it: 45 percent of Americans still think Germany is a stray ship. Still, "the trend is going in the right direction," Germany's ambassador to Washington, Wolfgang Ischinger told reporters. (12:38 p.m. CET)Is it? I don't believe it, just because a poll said that more people like Germans. I don't want to be liked by people who support someone I despice, because this only gives you goose-bumps. They might actually know something, you don't and it will surely be to your disadvantage. Another precious detail in this poll, when applied to our anti-war policy, is the short period of hatred against Germany, which has decreased (as the poll indicates) and I can only affirm it, because I have been to New York in Mid-August.
It shows that you can even succeed with an unpopular policy, if you stick to it and you think it was right. If it was right, the truth will win and so it did (or at least the memory of the American citizen is very short).
So, I think Schröder went in the right direction and the American people start to believe him. That's what the poll indicats in my opinion.
Lest you think that everyone in Europe is anti-Bush, the German tabloid
Bild comes through on Wednesday with "Ten Reasons George W. Bush is the Better
1. Bush has clear priorities.
2. Bush has learned that military strength is the only answer to
3. Under Bush, the US will continue to bear the financial, military and
casualty burden in the fight against terrorism.
4. Bush will do everything he can to prevent nuclear proliferation.
5. Bush has learned that America can defeat every country in war, but needs
allies in peace. Thus, his second term will be characterized by cooperation with
6. Bush knows Europe is militarily weak, so he won't ask them for
7. Under Bush, America will remain a strong partner for Israel in its fight
8. Republicans have always been stronger supporters of free trade than
9. Every new American administration makes mistakes. Bush has already made
10. With Bush, we know what to expect. With Kerry, we don't. (Wednesday,
4:18 p.m. CET)
German's biggest newspaper, that's right, but still the most supid one. I don't know anyone who truly appreciates the opinion of the "BILD Zeitung". Instead they think it is flat and not very detailed, oftened too sensational to be taken seriously.
But, well, let's go to their reasons, why Bush is the better alternative.
Bush has clear priorities, yes, and these priorities are the reason why not to appeal to him, because he is in favor of a theocratic democracy, because he applies a new form of socialism by the Right-Wing and he has the worst record on civil liberties I can think of (Patriot ACT I / II).
Bush has learned that force is the only way to make war on terrorism! That's another lie in itself. He didn't learn it, he just applied it and irgnores any consequences or logical fallacies in it! Instead Iraq is a shattered nation, terrorism is on the rise in all other countries. He has brought Iran to proliferation and Syria will surely follow to be at peace. Bush has ignited the Middle East in a new Jihad also affecting Israel and Palestine. Bush has started to impose sanctions on free trade and research (stem-cell imports and research f.e.). He has stopped the trade of work-force via the anti-terror policies. The once proud nation of immigrants has become a isolated suspicious island!
On the last two issues:
Bush has made errors and mistakes, but instead of admitting them or even performing better by learning from them. He will do them again and again! I don't this is a solution or an argument in this case.
The last one is stupid, because it is no valid argument for Bush. Yes, we know Bush and perhaps this is the reason, why we would even go with an unkown?!
All in all, this evaluation of Bush is again short and stupid, even for BILD standards.
Some other interesting parts
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
This is a site you should check out of you are interested in realistic and meaningful paintings/drawings and/or scultpures. Quent Cordair presents some beautiful images of aspiring and inspiring artists, especially the degree of realism is sometimes disturbing.
All those images are well crafted and show some of the virtues of Objectivism and more so Liberalism. The freedom of man to do what he needs to be happy, the liberty to free himself of his restrictions, the ascent of happiness.
This is one of those pictures I love. It is named "Mind over Matter" and was painted by Sylvia Bokor. She grandly captures the theme of Mind over Matter, while the blue sky represents the sky without limits and thus shows that we are not limited by Earth, because our destiny is up there. The blue represents freedom of mind and thereby freedom of the individual. It also gives the impression of a moved image with the clouds in the middle-lower picture.
Above the clouds you can see a plane crossing the sky, leaving a white line behind. The plane could also represent freedom, but most likely turns on man's achievement to dominate, control and understand nature. Ultimately, it shows how man used nature to conquer it in a peaceful and gentle way. Again you see the two dominating colors in it, blue and white. Those two colors are also meant to symbolise liberty and individualism, because they refer to the U.S. Independence War.
Of course, there are still more symbols, analogies and impressions in this picture, but I only wanted to demonstrate some of its qualities.
So, now, you are off to look for yourself and perhaps get yourself some of this wonderful works of art.
Yet, there are still so many lies and a deceiving administration that blocks any attempt to get an objective truth out of the dozen reports. Fakes, like Bush's hysterical terror warning, sheddered my truth in any good information policy in the current government of the USA.
Despite all the uncovered truthes, that Iraq was no direct threat, that there was no link to Al-Qaida before 9/11 and so forth, there are still people in the U.S. who stick to this lying example of a spine-less person.
Instead of facing the truth, he continues making up his dream-world (as seeing in the faked terror-alert). Can YOU trust someone, who does not trust this world, who doesn't believe in a real world?
The old hype of the Republicans, that most media-channels are in control of the Democratsm is history if you watched TV lately. Just take FOX News, which is clearly patriotically and right-winged, but the problematic thing is that it can reach millions of homes at once. And what leftist media stands against it? CNN? It's not that left-sided....
And where is a liberal channel by and for liberals? There is no such thing in the most liberal country on Earth (still).. Or at least, there is no country-wide channel and thus the liberal party will never claim what could be a middle path between the two extremes. But, meh, this is again very biased, isn't it?
But, well, it is still yours to decide what is true and what not...
Monday, September 20, 2004
Während der Iraq im Chaos versinkt und Afghanistan zu einem zweiten Somalia verkommt, werden in Deutschland Pax Christi Kirche in Essen Palestinensische Terroristen geehrt, wie der Spiegel-Online http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/0,1518,318818,00.html berichtet.
Die Gemeinde ehrt alle Jahre wieder Menschen, die bei einem Gewaltakt ums Leben gekommen sind und alle 5 Jahre werden neue Opfer hinzugenommen. Dabei unterscheiden diese Christen jedoch nicht zwischen Täter und Opfer, sondern schmeißen alle Menschen in einen Topf.
Dabei werden eben neben dem Enthauptungsopfer-Nick-Berg auch noch Terroristenchefs der Hamas gewürdigt.
Dagegen haben jetzt Bürger aus Essen einen Unterlassungsbescheid eingereicht.
Pfarrer Steprath meint jedoch, dass es sich dabei nicht um eine Ehrung handele, sondern nur um einen Hinweis auf die Gewaltakte der Menschen. Da selbst diese Täter Menschen waren, so wäre es anti-menschlich sie auszunehmen. (Aber sind sie wirklich Menschen, oder eher Unmenschen?)
Steprath sagt, dass man damit das Böse nicht verhamlose, sondern eben das wahre Böse, die Gewalt anprangere.
Doch, das ist doch nur eine schwache Ausrede. Die Gewalt existiert ja nicht als eigene Entität, sondern wird erst durch einen Initiator ausgeführt, weshalb die Schuld nicht bei der abstrakten Gewalt, sondern beim ausführenden Element liegt.
Doch auch dort windet sich Steprath mit einem Satz, der die wirkliche Gefährlichkeit des absoluten Christentums und des unbeschränkten Altruismus erkennen lässt. Es ist eine neue Form des Appeasments, die oft unterschätzt wird.
"Letztlich steht ein Urteil allein dem zu, der am Ende gerecht richten
wird", sagt Steprath.
Damit gibt er die Verantwortung für moralische Entscheidungen an eine höhere Instanz ab, deren Existenz nur in seinem kleinen Kreis von Menschen ohne Hinterfragung existiert. Gleichzeitig liefert er sich selbst allem Bösen, als wehrloser Mensch ohne Selbsterhaltungstrieb aus.
Wie schlecht und unwahr diese Einstellung ist, lässt sich durch ein einfaches Beispiel erklären. Niemand würde sich, so er nicht ein Psychologisches Problem mit Depressionen hat (Suicide-Gefahr), von jemandem anderen einfach so töten lassen, ohne sich zu verteidigen. In diesem Moment, der Initiation der Verteidigung, hat das Individuum für sich beschlossen den Gegenüber als Gefahr einzuschätzen und somit ein moralisches Urteil zu fällen. Da jeder Mensch so handelt, aus reinem Instinkt, kann Herr Steprath nicht seine Behauptung aufrechterhalten, er würde anders handeln.
Es ist unmenschlich anders zu handeln und er besteht doch so sehr darauf ein Mensch zu sein.
Urteilen ist menschlich und es ist notwendig, sonst kann das "Unmenschliche" frei herrschen.
Es geht hier also nicht um eine blose Ehrung von Terroristen, sondern um die Abstinenz von Moral, der Egalisierung von Gut und Böse und dem Befürworten von gewissenlosem Handeln.
Wie schnell Menschen die Vergangenheit vergessen können und zu alten Irrtümern zurück finden, hat sich dieses Wochenende wieder einmal in Ost-Deutschland gezeigt.
Nach den Landtagswahlen in Sachsen und Brandenburg sind Links-, wie auch Rechts-Extreme Parteien im Parteitag vertreten.
Nicht in einem kleinen Kontingent sondern als 2. bzw. 3. stärkste Partei, also mit significantem Machtanteil.
Die PDS hat in Brandenburg und Sachsen jeweils 28 % bzw. 23 % der Stimmen erhalten, was sie jeweils auf den Platz der zweit-stärksten Partei katapultiert. Natürlich ist die PDS nichts weiteres als die Nachfolgepartei der kommunistischen SED und auch wenn sie öffentlich gemäßigt auftreten, so weis man doch nicht ob sie sich wirklich zu einem limitierten Rechtsstaat bekennen würden, hätten sie die Macht.
Noch schlimmer ist jedoch, dass die NSDAP-Nachfolgeparteien DVU/NPD jeweils 9 bzw. 6 % der Stimmen erhalten haben und damit in die Landesparlamente einziehen konnten. In dem Land, das vor 60 Jahren noch den Schrecken des Nationalsozialismus exportierte und versuchte sich selbst zu befreien, scheint nichts daraus gelernt zu haben.
Dies liegt nicht allein an Rache-Wählern, wie die schrecklich hohe Anzahl an Jungwählern, bei NPD und DVU zeigt. Wären die Städte Dresden oder Leipzig nicht gegeben, wäre die NPD sogar noch vor die SPD gerutscht.
Doch woraus resultiert dieser Rutsch zu den Extremen? Er ist wieder einmal ein typisch deutsches Produkt. In Zeiten der Globalisierung und des Engagements des Individuums, versuchen verlorene Seelen sich von starken Symbolen und Persönlichkeiten ( in diesem Falle eines autoritären Staates) leiten zu lassen. Solche Symbolen und einfachen Haltestrukturen versprechen eben NPD oder PDS. Sie stehen für das Sinnbild des autoritären Vaterstaates nach sozialistischem und (im Falle der NPD) national-deutschem Vorbild.
Es ist nicht der Ablehnung einer Regierung, welche versucht die Deutschen mit Steuern auszubeuten. Wäre es jene Reaktion, dann hätten doch die Bürger logischerweise eine Partei gewählt, die einen freiheitlichen und anti-autoritären Staat bevorzugt, also die Grünen oder die Liberalen.
Da dies jedoch nicht geschehen ist, oder nur im Kleinen, wollen die Deutschen entweder etwas anderes, oder sie haben nicht verstanden wofür jene Parteien stehen.
Ich hoffe die Deutschen sind einfach nur verwirrt, wenn nicht sehe ich schwarz für Deutschland, Schwarz-weiß-rot und nicht Bundesdeutsch...
Thursday, July 22, 2004
I didn't think I would post lyrics here. But I had run over this song by Hooverphonic and it is, the tunes aside, one hell of a song.
Inhale the joy
Inhale the fun
Now it’s time for me to get on top
Of the world
Inhale the music and the warmth
The crowd is ready to bring me to the top
Of the world
Cause the world is mine
I won’t stop this time
Cause the world is mine
And I’m feeling so divine
I’m part of this illusive show
Time for me to get on stage
Tomorrow you’ll be at my feet
Saturated senses set me free
It’s all I need
The world the world is mine
And I’m feeling so divine
Despite being sung from a musicians point of view, it has some major values in it.
The rhythm and melodie drive the whole track and give it the serene and hymnical ambiente. The text itself depicts an individuum free to persue its own interest to joy and happiness.
It shows in the first lines that the individum is in need of joy and fun. It wants to inhale it, because she/he missed something in his life.
"Now, it's time to get on top", shows that something has ended and the person is ready to take his own life in his hands and rise to live it. More so, it seems that she sees himself with what she got (a good show and a fullfilling career as musician) as divine. Therefore Hooverphonic describes humans that persue their own interest as Gods, as divine creatures.
It's the feeling you get as a reward for being independent and selfish.
All in all, this song has a positive vibe about mankind and more so about the individuum and its liberty to do what it wants.
There is only one thing to say: "The World is Mine and I don't stop this time!"
Monday, June 28, 2004
I have been absent due to some private issues, but I hope to put forth some more small essays in the next days before my vacation starts.
There is one particular topic, I'd like to cover, because I think it rather interesting and important. Many Liberals in the United States of America talk about a so-called "War on Drugs", drawing a colorful picture of the evils inherent in state police work. They want a more liberal and free evaluation of drugs and thereby a free access and the right to spread drugs.
I have to concur, because I live next to a country that promotes this very ideas. The result is pain-staking to say the least. Children who have no idea about drugs, get hold of ecstasy/heroin and coca even in the seventh grade. This is a time in school, you can't hope that those students (all of them kids of about 11-12) all have the brains to distinguish the danger.
A rise in alcoholism, drug consume and "socialising" of Cannabis are the end product. You can't compare this new "Super Skunk" to the relatively harmless products during the 60s. The Hippie Cannabis had only 2 % THC, the actual neurotoxic, while the new ones have up to 10 %.
This and the increasing in drug caused problems in mental hospitals have led to a disblief regarding the Netherlandish "liberal" approach to drugs.
Albeit I am also opposing the Swedish "hard-core" state regulatorism, because it doesn't serve anything. Instead this way only shifts the problem from the illegal to the legal drugs like pills, amphetamins, morphium, alcohol and smoking.
And even in this "War on Drug"-countries the amount of drug-users is rising and it is doing no good.
I don't have a solution to the whole problem, but I can say that liberalizing of drug access will not make it better, only faster.
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
If you ever believed there is a big gap between Europe and US politics, than you are completely mistaken.
Just read this little piece by Chris Matthew Sciabarra:
Kush and Berry
It clearly shows the similarity in acting, ideology and reasoning between the two opponents in the forthcoming election in Novemeber. But this is not only a problem of the United States, Europe and in particular Germany, are facing the same merging of perspectives. Instead the whole election is based around the personalities and not the program of the both competitors.
Would anyone dare to read the programs of socialist and conservative party (SPD and CDU) and then compare it with the program of the FDP (the liberals), they see that it has been copied from the FDP principal program and they would think that the FDP would exactly support the point of view they all advocated. But people don't read the stuff behind the obvious, instead they believe the few radio talkshows or the politic propaganda events like Sabine Christiansen.
So, we are facing the same problem as the US, a generalization of the election and the opponents. They are expandable by each other without a significant change in politics.
Most horrible is that many people don't even try to know anything about the party they vote. There is no other explanation, why a party like the Greens could get 11% votes for showing a program that is a simplified version of the communist parties credo...
Cherio, Germany.. We are better Americans than we thought.
As I have recently read, there is the theory of imposing ebonics on children in classrooms. So, instead of teaching them proper English, they would learn to write their slang-english, because it would then become a real language, beside standard-english.
Ebonics is an equivalent to Cockney in London. It is a language designed to represent the "lower-class" slang in a written form. (A perfect example is Rita in Educating Rita)
Now, this reminds me of the German socialist teachings in the mid-80s, when they tried to teach immigrants an easier version of German.
Later, this changed to no-German teaching at all and resulted in the slang "turkisch-Deutsch", which means a slang mostly seen being spoken by children of turkish immigrants.
They never learned to speak German correctly and at home, they only spoke turkish. In the end, most of these children of immigrants had no chance to attend a normal school. And soon teachers had to work with these new grammatics and language structures. Today, the teachers in some immigrant regions (like Frankfurt am Main, Berlin or Hamburg) have to deal with the remains of this stupid immigrant handling. They not even had to attend to VHS-courses (Volkshochschul-courses), but could obtain a German passport without any requirements.
Now, some freaks could think about adopting an ebonic-way in Germany. It'd scare me to death, but it is very likely to happen with today's no-value politics.
Monday, May 24, 2004
I have recently compared the United States and Europe to George Orwell's book, 1984 and said that the news is more and more about "newspeak". Well, finally, other people in the media have taken it up.
You just need to watch the latest Episode of Simpsons (Serie 15, Episode 21).
This episode is about Patriotism and the oversized nationalism, that has brought so much despair on many liberal people. It is about Bart, the son of the Simpson family, showing his ass in front of the US flag (he couldn't know the flag got unfolded for the anthem, cause he was deaf at the moment). This incident gets exaggerated by the local newspapers and the Simpsons known as unpatriotic. They had to live a life as outlaws, until Lisa mentions the principles of free speech as written in the Consitution's Bill of Rights. This only gets them in bigger trouble, ending up in the Regan Reeducation Facility for political free-thinkers. This all reminds me of the US after 9/11 and more so of 1984, where liberal thinkers (against the party) were either brain-washed or vaporized.
It seems that even the mainstream media has got a hang on the dangers of too much patriotism. Let's hope it influences the climate in the US. Sadly, there is nothing comparable to it for Europe...
look at this (German): Quo VadISS - The failure of constructing an International Space Station
It was planned, by government funds, to be the Space Station to support future space exploration. Now, after years of continuously wasting tax-payers dollars/euro, we are farther away from the goal than ever before. Of course, they blame the USA and their new Space Defense programs for the failure, instead of the true reason: Government spending is not working, because there is no urge to compete. The project, which was initiated 1983 by Ronald Reagon, was estimated to cost around 100 billion dollars and even Germany is pouring 100 millions into the project each year.
Now, with the fall of the space shuttles February last year, they put a stop to the whole project and hopefully they bury it, until they get some private company to run the thing.
There is a major difference between the USA and Germany in respect to immigration. The United States of America are a country built upon the principles of liberty, individualism and self-caring. This is totally opposite to contemporary Germany ideologic stand.
The United States of America can easily open their borders and should so, because everyone entering the country is on his own and everything he does is in his responisbility. This is not the case in modern social-democratic Germany.
You think this is not true? Well, simple example, immigration. Our parties are arguing about a law to open Germany's immigration principles at the moment and they do it in the interest of all Germans! In Germany, immigrants are not responsible for their own life, instead they are nurtured by the state from the beginning. When you become a German, you have a "right" on social insurances and welfare, which is exactly the reason, why I am opposed to unrestricted immigration. Those people get tax-payer-money without having done anything. They are fed by the state, thus they are parasites in the first month. I am not against immigration, but I am against unequal immigration in this circumstances.
They don't contribute to their own life, but live on welfare and thereby ruin the few we have left of our social welfare system.
So, there are two possible solutions, either abolish social welfare (which I'd recommend) or put a stop to immigration (latter would be a disgrace and slap in the face of individualism). But there is no way, both will work in the long run.
P.S.: I am not a racist, although some might interpret it that way. And I don't say that immigrants are generally lazy welfare-parasites, it just happenes that with the "self-interested" immigrants, there come the parasites...
I have seen very strong comments against the pushing of Che Guevara and more so I am amazed about the unusual fame he gets lately, so I tried to dig a bit about this role-model of a rebel.
It seems that we have all misunderstood "Che Guevara"-ism, as I tend to call it. Most of todays admirers of this "heroe" believe in him, in an innocent, but sometimes dangerous way. Che Guevara is not a follower of communism (like Castro, his fellow mate in the liberation of Cuba), but is clearly a Marxist. This means that he is an enemy of the strict totalitarian states like Cuba. He was once asked, whether he believed that there would be a free country (while he was on Cuba). "What? In Cuba?", he said laughing. So, Cuba wasn't a role-modle for a socialist country in his opinion.
However, this is merely history stuff and most "kids" of todays Hype are not using Che as either Communist or terribly misguided Marxist.
Today, Che Guevara is seen as the Spirit of rebellion, which means a movement against the status quo. As much as I mistrust the roots of this believe, I still like that children don't accept the state as an unquestionable object and I also think that the Hype around Che is more about fashion, than morality or ideology. Most children don't even know much about Che Guevara, except that he was a rebel and somehow cool. So, they don't get in touch with his misguided ideals. This might be troubling on the one side, because it shows the lack of knowledge nowadays, but it also decreases the actual danger of Che Guevara.
Thereby, I see no danger in having a new wave of Che Guevara fashion, if he is used as a motif of rebellion against state, rather than a supporter of Marxism.
On another side note, the Commandante Che Guevara wasn't an easy figure and you couldn't easily put him on the moral evil side, because he acted very human during the war. He was harsh and deadly against any kind of disobeying orders and other war crimes (oftened excercising death penalty), but on the other side he showed mercy and human reason towards POW (Prisoners of War). He disarmed his POWs and sent them back home, if they hadn't commited any crimes against the public (literally).
In contrast to this noble field behaviour stands his time as a leader of a prison, where he had 500 executions observed and ordered. Che even showed personal interest in the torturing and interrogation of some of these (mostly) "political convicts", which had commited crimes of thought (traditional Marxist/Communist crimes, implying that the intention is equal to the deed).
So, it is yours to judge the whole case. I dislike the historical figure, but I can live with the role-model of a rebel against the establishment, questioning that what others accepted as a truth.
Sunday, May 23, 2004
Today, the Israeli Minister of Justice, Josef Lapid, member of the bourgeoise-secular party, said that the current Operation Rainbow in the Gaza Stripe is a disgrace to the Jewish people and the impressions from the "field of engagement" remind him of the Holocaust.
This is an extraordinary conclusion, since the Holocaust has never been mentioned within the Israelian politics for almost as long as Israel exists. The whole issue of Holocaust was a tabu and strictly obeyed by every member of the Israel government. Lapid critizes the military Operation as unhuman and unjewish. He further claims that this action will further damage the reputation of Israel as a democracy and a nation built upon human rights. He fears a huge decrease in foreign relations, especially to Europe, and in specific Germany, and the Middle East Arab community.
Of course, the right-winged Likud party was angry about this comparison, which is only about pouring oil into the fire. Although I have to say that the comparison is a bit far fetched, the circumstances are increasingly similar. We have an oppressive regime that tries to erradicate a different nation by means of national security. This is in part a description of fascism, since the Jews also play the "we-have-been-prosecuted-since" card and the issue of Antisemitism. The question is, who is antisemitic?
If Israel persued his own roots, they would find that their Palestinian neighbours are Semits like them, genetically spoken.
Obviously not even Sharon can handle situation, because there is a deep rift between him and his party. While he is inclined to decrease and abandon settlements on Palestine territory, the Likud party has refused this strategy in a referendum. Isn't it the worst sign, when the father of the national settlement movement (who had started the whole plans after taking over the Administration) himself decides to stop it!
Reason obviously has left this neo-fascist state that is run by an Administration that has no power over the legislation.
My hopes go with the people, that try to put an end to this war of the state.
...At least in small amounts.
Look at this hillarious article (German):
Bush fell off his bike
Beside all the sad news lately, like the torturings, false accusations and political ignorance, there is this little funny part. It cheers up and sometimes, you just need such a little joke.
Read and enjoy, for there is at least justice in the small things.
For all those that are not German-speaking:
It is about a bicycle tour, George W. Bush was on, when he fell off his bike. The mightiest "emperor" of the world fell off a simple bicycle, that's the funny irony. This is the second prominent bicycle accident of the last months. The would-be president Kerry also fell off his bike and now commented on Bush's accident: "I didn't even know that he had a bike!"
Well, you may not be a Green to ride a bicycle, he! This is one of the prejudices against Conservatives, that you think they do not enjoy nature. We do, but we still are not obsessed by it.
Sometimes, I am deeply dissatisfied with this country. A century ago, we have been a Monarchy, but people seem to forget bad things faster than they learn new things.
It is a disgrace, that in a vote on teletext, whether Germany should have a Monarchy, 63% voted for YES.
This is tragic because of two different issues. First, they obviously cannot tell the difference between a constitutional Monarchy (as in Britain f.e.) and a true absolute Monarchy (as it is nowhere nowadays). This first issue is a problem of education and knowledge and shows the deep ignorance of people to their environment and society.
The Second issue is that they obviously wouldn't object to a new Monarchy, in a Willhelminian style.
Why did we get human rights, when only two generations later, people would volunatrily work for their destruction?
Perhaps, I overread it, but on the other side, it is a perfect example on "doublespeak" and political language. Since 63% the population think that Monarchy is equal to this new fancy 'Spanish-Norwegian'-Marriage things.
This is a fair example, why Democracy, as well meant as it is, does not work the way it is intended, too.
I'm disgusted of 63% of these voters, they obviously didn't think about what they voted for...
Ever wondered which political/ideological direction you follow? Choose which is your favorite:
10: What techniques are best for maintaining discipline in the classroom?
CONS: If just one student misbehaves, severely punish the entire class.
LIBL: Force boys who refuse to settle down to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin and Prozac.
LBRT: Anyone who doesn't want to be in class can leave.
COMM: Anyone who doesn't want to be in class can be made an example of.
Cons: Conservatives (CDU)
LIBL: Liberal Leftists (SPD)
LBRT: Liberal Right (FDP)
COMM: Communists (PDS)
So, choose, for I chose Individualism (3.).
Who should be the World's policeman?
CONS: The United States
LIBL: The United Nations
LBRT: Local Authorities
COMM: The Communist Superpowers
Again, I am with the LBRT. :)
Saturday, May 22, 2004
Beside Bigamy, Gay Marriage and Incest, there is another important war on People going on in the United States. It is the war on the poor soldiers, which proudly (at least most of them) served at home and in Iraq.
Today a member of the National Guard (Florida)was found guilty of Desertion.
It is one of the first trials on Soldiers in Iraq, however, this trial is only loosely connected with the tortures and killings at Abu G. prison. Indeed the full case is about leaving service during war without permission.
It didn't speak in favour of Mr. Mejia, that he turned himself in. He still got 1 year jail and a bad conduct discharge. Both of these sentences will most likely affect his life after the military service seriously. For example, every future employer he will apply to will see his military files and most likely deny him any position.
The reasons for Mr. Mejia's absence were, so he called, motivated by protest against the war. He wanted to get the status of a conscientious objector and thus set a signal. However, the jury, consisting of 4 officers and 4 enlisted soldiers, decided after 2 hour that this was not the case.
In favour of Mr. Mejia also speaks that he, as citizen of Nicaragua, may not serve more than 8 years, however, he already was enlisted for 9 years. He also said that he didn't protest against the war itself, but the political errors commited in and before the war. He said, he acted in behalf of his fellow soldiers and in respect to his belief.
In my opinion, he was right and someone else should get a year detention for his stupid thoughts: Right, Mr. Bush, it's you.
Thursday, May 20, 2004
It'd been a long time, since I read Georg Orwell's "1984" the last time, but the recent events and the overall change from a self-possession of mind to a government-media mind-controlled society brought me back to this particular book, that shows so extraordinary detailed the Danger of Facism and Totalitarianism.
The art of playing with language and most of all the dangerous distortion of the actual meaning of a word is becoming more and more familiar not only in the military ( (German article) Empire of Fear, but also among politicians. This is no new trend, because most politicians in history used language to their benefit until the most recent climax of this misuse brought World War II. Goebbels, the chief of the Propaganda Agency of the NAZI regime, had been the one of the alleged best rhetorics of all times.
Now, George Orwell's book deals with an artificial language that tries to redefine the meaning of many words and introduces new ones that have utterly distorted meanings. This language is called newspeak and reflects the actual trend to a specific news language that plays with the meaning of words like Patriotism. They often don't even look up the word in the dictonary and use it in context where it does not belong.
So watch out, for newspeak is spoken in news.
Most time, you have to search them with a Magnifier, because there just about.. well, 5? I'd have to guess for it. But at least, one new famous person joined the club of mindless Republicans with a rather stupid argument, showing the intellectual leak of todays 'Elite'.
Lara Flynn Boyle said to the Washington Post: "I'm Irish Catholic, so a Democrat by blood."
There is nothing wrong with that, since most Irish Catholic vote for Democrats, however, you can't just say that Irish Catholic is somehow a magical addiction to the Democrats (too much simplification).
But then, she revealed the reason, why she won't vote for Bush: "I'm 100% for Bush. I want my President to be like my agent: Not afraid of People, but wants my best interest!"
So, what does it mean? She thinks of Mr. Bush as her agent, that is acting in her interest and is not afraid of the people. However, despite his speeches, Mr. Bush's policy looks like his only fighting for and with himself, trying to live up to his idol, Bush Senior.
On the second part, you can easily tell that Mr. Bush is in fact afraid of the people in any circumstances. Why else would he tell so many lies about WMD, Economics and so on? It's a thin line between truth and lie, but he has clearly stepped over it multiple times.
Also, this sentence shows Mrs. Boyle in a rather shady light, seeing that she by this sentence, voted for the War of Lies on IRAQ and also is against gay marriage, among other anti-liberal stands.
Surely, this is a sign of intellectual bankruptcy and discovering the true malfactors of the American society.
Mrs. Doyle think or abstain from speak, you are just getting everything wrong. That's at least my advice for you.
Many more interesting things here: Washington Post article
Monday, May 17, 2004
Or at least so it could be called. Yes, of course, the Sarin Gas is a WMD asset, but first of all this bomb has exploded after the war. We have seen multiple times, that Saddam has rejected the use of chem./bio. weaponery against Coalition forces. This might be out of fear, but even if it was out of fear, then there was no reason to go to war, because no danger was imminent.
Also, this news is vastly overrated, since the bomb only injured two soldiers and was smaller than everything Saddam could have put up. Also, Sarin gas could be easily acquired by rogue elements like the Al-Quaida and this group of terrorists started major engagements in Iraq, AFTER THE FALL OF SADDAM!
We, hereby, can deduce that Saddam almost prevented WMD attacks and that the war did not lessen the danger of terrorist attacks, but even increased it.
So, here the call of the Sarin gas: It cries for peace and for dignity. So, President Bush, take it like a man and apologize for your mistakes. The first step would be to leave Iraq to an elected government, obviously it can't get any worse without you.
Since World War II, Germany has built its whole culture on a negative image and everyone trying to evaluate, critize or to change it is being denounced by the elites in order to perserve political correctness.
The shadow of the Third Reich still looms over the whole country and threatens to erradicate any signs of a new culture, a more liberal approach to the past.
And Kunkel and Hohmann are just the latest examples in this war on intellectual freedom. The first has been attacked for his new book, which did not explicitly critize the Nazi Regime, but just portrayed the luring aspects of it. Before even anybody could read the whole book, the German magazin 'Der Spiegel' condemned the book and the author to be pro-Nazi.
Martin Hohmann had the same problem, when he held the speech about the Germans as the 'Tätervolk', arguing that this was a wrong description.
His speech wasn't politically correct, thus he got bad PR all over the place, leading even to an almost expell from his own party, the CDU.
I don't want to say, here, that I agree with his national-conservative-right-winged views, but the reasons he had been critized for, are utterly and truly despisable. They didn't discuss the content of his speech, but the mere reciting of Nazi-Sources.
This is a common example for Germanys culture, today. Instead of going into an in-depth analysis and then concluding in a debate, we discriminate every non-conform content and oppinion.
This is almost as bad as censorship, and the beginning of a totalitarian atmosphere.
Another perfect example is Prof. Wolffson, a Bundeswehr proffesor, who has argued in favor of torturing terrorists to protect Germany from terrorism.
All the while this argument might be lacking on several intellectual levels, the outcry was not about the torturing alone, it was more about the sheer thought. There was no discussion about it, but only despisable arguments that it is inhuman and a reminder to the Nazi regime.
There were no thouroughly explained arguments, just personal denouncement and offence against Prof. Wolffson.
Again, I do not agree fully with Wolffson's interpretation and argumentation and I don't want to be connected to it. However, I have to argue in his favor that he has the right to express his thoughts and should do so. It should have been a discussion about this topic, rather than a denunciation of the person who has spoken his mind.
Kunkel Interview on 'Endstufe'
It is an undisputable fact, that women are treated worse than anything in many developing countries such as Sudan. But it is not very commonly known that boys and men are even as often victims as women. In Sudan, for example, there is more violence against men than women, resulting in a domination of women (60%) in the population of Sudan.
This is just one example for the hidden violence on men and the cover up and censoring of this very violence.
Amnesty International, an alleged non-goverment organization for the protection of human rights, is forwarding public relation campaigns against violence against women, but is silent in respect to violence against men.
Now, human rights watches in the United States and Europe are repsonding to these discriminations and call for more active support of more publicity in regard to this disgrace of human rights.
Another aspect in this battle for equality is our school-system. While our government supports and subsides the advance of women into science and focus on "equalizing" girl's interest in school and their "closing-in" on the patriachalic world, they leave boys alone. Statistics show that the average boy is one grade below the average girl, which indicates that either the school system is wrong, or the politicians have forgotten about boys (and unnaturally subsided females).
Is this just?
Of course, it is not. We may not make a difference between boys and girls, thus the government should not support either girls or boys explicit, but only scientifically interested kids, which means the gender is of no importance.
Also read (German): Eifrei - Amnesty International and Sex-discrimination
Sunday, April 18, 2004
Sometimes it is good to hold to your promises, but on other occasions, you should review your promises on wether they are still reasonable or not.
This is the problem of the Spanish socialists, which won the election because of their Anti-war stand in regard to the invasion in Iraq. To win the elections after the Madrid bombing, they pronounced their believe that the Iraq War was a mistake and that they would call all troops home if they won the election.
Sadly, the Socialists won the election and Mr. Zapatero is dead set to recall the troops. Today, he gave the orders to reallocate Spanish troops from Iraq to Spain.
However, this consequent interpretation of their electoral promises hits into a period, where it fits most unfortunate.
Not only that it will most notably suit El Kaida and their system of blackmailing and threatening, it also comes at a time, when the United States of America need all resources available.
Since the recent uprisings within post-Saddam Iraq and the kidnapping of civil and military personel everywhere in Iraq stressed the US-led Coalition forces resources to its limits, every loss of support might affect the security and (what is left of it) stability within Iraq. Worse, it could also inspire or move other governments to do likewise. For example, the population within Poland might influence the government to remove their troops and support from Iraq, since most of the population is against war.
So, the Spanish consequent realisation of their electoral promises might, in the end, ignite the armed conflicts rather than serving peace.
To back down now, might be seen as an example to other countries and display defeat in the most unfortunate way.
The teaching that might come from this example are mainly those:
- Other "institutions" or "groups" might see it as a chance that by threatening countries, they can force them to do what they want
- It will give a negative example to all nations in the world that nation-building and western democracies in general is impossible, because of the virtuelessness and weakness of those governments.
So, in this situation, the Spanish government should review their own principles, goals and how to reach them in the long-term. Right now, they act short-sighted and might damage more than they gain in the end.
Thursday, April 15, 2004
If you have followed news lately, you may already heared of the newest step by the El Kaida. This time, the assumed Mr. Bin Laden has pulled the righteous thread to weaken the western Alliance against terrorism.
Instead of openly agitate aggression and call to arms against the western world, the El Kaida wants to bargain with those worlds which are supposedly not part of the War against Islam states.
However, the El Kaida is underestimating the western Democracies or at least trying to play on time if it truly believes that such an offer will be heared and positively answered.
Perhaps, they don't know what they demand of a western country, but most likely they know what it would mean to any nation.
The El Kaida clearly wanted to seperate the United States of America and its powerful European allies. Although Germany, France and others were not part in the Iraq war, they still supported the "War against Terrorism" in Afghanistan, thus taking part in the campaign against racist and aggressive Islamism. The El Kaida now tries to split this alliance by sending a message of peace to the pacifist countries in the heart of Europe. This offer, directed to Germany and France, must not be answered, because it would damage the relationship with the United States and all the western Democracies, that are closer in terms of values and culture than any Islam country.
Still, the El Kaida hopes that some European countries might take this offer, or at least be silent for a period. This would settle doubt in their partners across the ocean and thereby weaken the whole alliance. It's the very notion that had Great Britain and Italy respond so very quickly. They wanted to be sure not to be misunderstood. Despite their differences about the Iraq war, none of these nations will quit the pact with the United States of America.
A few hours ago even the German chancellor reassured Germanies backing of the international war against terror and thereby closed a gap which could have been a river growing to an ocean in the trans-atlantic partnership. Sometimes it is as important to stand for what you believe in, as it is to oppose what you are against.
A good link (in German):
An unholy offer
I also recommend for all German speaking folks:
Danger of Islamism from the viewpoint of a Moslem
I knew I couldn't trust all those Egalitarian German pacifist, who always denied any danger coming from uncontrolled teachings of the Koran. In this statement, a Moslem shows that we should take those fanatics seriously, because the Islam is in contrast to the Christians not a peaceful nor a human rights movement. It is even more comparable to the Christianity of the medieval times, when Crusades took place and Jews were discriminated.
We have a belief-system that has not yet undergone the transformation of the age of enlightment and it is dripping on a population that could not master the division of state and religion.
The danger of those two components is imminent and the third reich has shown us that believing is a strong tool in the hands of the wrong leader.
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
Nothing is impossible (in German)
For all those, who are not able to read German, I will give you a brief summary.
An engineer from Great Britain has a daughter that is confined to a wheel-chair and couldn't speak. At a state hospital, the doctors didn't give the kid a slightest chance to be a normal person. But as Peter Randell isn't a person that accepts a no, he searched for an alternative.
In the end, he found an institute in Birmingham that believed it possible to solve his problem. However, the treatment was expensive and the state healt-care wouldn't pay for it. So, Mr. Randell had to get the money all by himself.
The treatment for the tongue cost 4000 pound and could be affored. Afterwards, his daughter learned to speak and even the drooling stopped. Peter Randell said that he had never been so happy in his life before. The tongue had been grown into the flesh of the mouth and could easily be cut off, a fact the state doctors didn't observe.
Even to the wheelchair problem, the doctors believed that a three year training course could help the girl to move freely. HOwever, the treatment would cost up to 85000 pound, 50000 for the legs and 35000 for the arms.
Randall got the 35000 pound for the arm-treatment and after a year he had a photo with her daughters arm on his shoulder. She had moved the arm herself.
He never wanted to tell how he got the money, but there is no 'impossible' to Mr. Randall.
Now, he is trying to get the money for the leg treatment, but it isn't easy to get 50000 pound. So, he tried to sell his kidney, because he has two and thought that her daughter was worth losing one, over e-bay. The company stopped the offer before any replies were counted.
Then the 'Sun' stumbled over the story and published it. They got contributions up to 20000 pound, but it wasn't enough and the sun linked those contributions to an end of his kidney-sale-attempt. However, the sum was not enough to buy the treatment, so he rejected.
Up to this point, he had received three offerings for his kidney on E-bay (USA), but they stopped the auction before he could contact the bidders.
After a quarter year, Randall is again where he started. So, if you have a kind heart contribute a little, it will surely help. Or if you know somebody who is in need of a kidney and willing to pay try to get the address from the 'Sun'.
I hope Mr. Peter Randall will succeed in his mission, because a life is at stake.
The first thing that occured to me re-reading the topic was the question which war, because lately wars emerge like parasites everywhere. There is this omniscient war against terror, which knows no countries, no engagements, but only tragic events like 9/11 or the Madrid bombing.
Then there are the two representative wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (Yes, those are still wars or armed conflicts, since the objectives to accomplish victory are not met) and genocidal slaughter in Kosovo and the constant warfare in the middle of Africa.
I don't want to comment on the buzzphrase 'War on Terror' which is nothing more than a construct by some hawks in the United States Government, but rather on the actual situation in Afghanistan.
A lot has changed since the Taliban regime has been defeated. The capital of Afghanistan is the Mekka of democracy in Afghanistan, most unfortunate that Mr. Kursai is not an democratically elected Leader. Mr. Kursai, however, is confined to the capital, because in the other parts of the country, warlords harvest drugs and keep a tight reign over their regions. Some warfare defines the borders of each warlord's conclave and the only export the Afghans have is their drug traffic.
In this glorious environment, the German chancellor has sent his troops to watch over the situation. The problem is that the Bundeswehr is restricted to a certain area 'Kundus' and that it might not interfere with local administration, in other words the drug traffic, because it is too dangerous.
Again the U.S. army has started a new attack on the Ansar el Islam in the noman's land between Parkistan and Afghanistan, which will as it stands today, fail again, because the clans in the high land are refusing to take part in the US crusade.
The Parkistani government on the other side, half-heartedly supports the attempt with their troops, but, how most unfortunate, they are already stopped by terrorist groups and can't advance any further.
What glorious partners did the United States of America gather to support their war....
I have no answers to the miserable state of Afghanistan and I believe that there is no paper-solution to this. Instead individuals have to decide from case to case what to do and therefore a more liberal approach should be tried rather than controlling everything.
As an Atheist, I have no answers, only questions and they will be asked in regard to the Afghan war.
Perhaps I will continue this tomorrow, when I found my notes about the bellum justum.
Sometimes I think you might be right, that a government is more trouble than its worth and I can easily prove it with the newest incident in my hometown.
It has always been a difficult situation to drive by car in my neighbourhood, because speed limits and narrow streets are the consequences of German "Safety-fanatic" legislators. But the latest incidents were beyond imagination. They thought that another round of lowering speed limits could ill-effect their campaign for re-election, thus they turned to more pervasive methods.
Instead of declaring a formal speed limit, they introduced beacons to the car-driving community and narrowed the streets at several segments. But again the safety-crazyness was conducted without forethought and proved to generate more confusing than safety.
The strategic planners from the legislative chamber did not include busses, trucks, coaches and other big vehicles in their "safety-first" campaign and created a monumental distortion in the public traffic system.
In an cry of outrage, individuals collected votes against these newest government harassment and finally succeeded.
Perhaps this was only possible, because of the proximity to the next elections, but It is worth it. However, I fear that the legislator have already prepared the newest punch against reason by talking about decreasing of right of way thoughtout the town.
It wouldn't be that bad,if it really supported and forwarded security on our streets, but it does not. In the end, this is just a fanatics crusade by the local administration to gain a few votes from families and conservative persons. It's a play constructed to rip hearts and appeal to emotions rather than intelligence.
Sad, but true, this is the only way to get elected these days.
And we need it fast. The situation Europe encountered during the Medieval age, a life under the edicts of Faith, is returning, not to Europe, but to the United States of America. The Bush administration is maybe the most religious administration since a long time and it is not restricted to the war on Iraq. Like you might have observed already, this behaviour spread all over your nation. Research is only conducted and state-sponsored if it contains words like anti-terrorism, anti-anthrax or national defence. Other programs, the government had sponsored in the past, like AIDS-, cancer- or heart-research are on the brink of running out of money.
More than 60 famous scientist now acted, signing a letter to the change the christianisation of science. They complain about a government that distorts scientific facts, bends truth and builds obstacles in front of scientific research. The new immigration policy is just on of this obstacles. In the wake of 9/11, the national security has taken on immigration thus shrinking the immigration of valuable scientists. Those people now have to go through humiliating checks and interviews that last weeks until they are permitted to enter. This has already spawn consequences. The immigration of Chinese students to the Cornell University has decreased 36 per cent and more and more possible immigrants follow this trend. Charles Weissmann, for example, a famous Prion-expert should have taken over the leadership of an Institute in Florida by March, 1. He could not, because the Federal Agents had to check his Prions, because they were on the list of possible terrorist material.
This is just one example for the religious believes and fears taking over the former freest country in the world. Another grave development is the denial of certain theories which do not fit in Christian Theology. However, scientific subjects at school, like Biology or Chemistry, should not be affected by religious belief. The purity of scientific and thus provable, knowledge has to be preserved to prevent America from sliding from a secular state to a Theocracy. It is a shame that High Schools in certain Southern States teach the story of Adam and Eva as the only imaginable way of Earth’s creation, in Biology. This issue should be moved to religion and only religion, since it is not a result of scientific research thus has no right to influence biology. In this respect, I have to add, that in some schools they don’t even no Darwin’s theory of man’s development, which also plays on the same level as the one mentioned before.
Another example would be AIDS prevention, which is totally based on Faith and good will. Bush wants to extend the budget for Aids and child pregnancy prevention to 270 Million Dollars. This sounds good, but the actual application is horrible. Instead of supporting condoms as a mean to contain AIDS, the teachers are urged to teach Christian values of purity and virginity. They may not use words like promiscuity or condom.
The Bush administration approves of this way of deceiving children, because they say that it would prevent children from having sex too early or promiscuity. However, one of the most religious states, Texas, is amongst the states with the highest teenage pregnancies.
Abstinence, the Bushists claim, would solve the problem without the use of condom. They are right in a twisted way. Most children have sex a few years later, but then they don’t use a condom at all. The potential to receive or spread AIDs, because they know nothing about it, is even higher than with a condom. Another example of this terrifying course is the application to the heartland of AIDS, Africa. There, the Bush government uses the same reasoning and preaches abstinence and loyalty rather than showing the population the use of a condom.
There are more scientific reports on the effectiveness of a condom and the danger of AIDS than one could summarize on both hands, but still the religious right-wings neglect such theories, because they are scientific and not god-given.
All these drastic restrictions have led to an uproar of these sixty scientists and a change of course in Harvard. The government had promised 60 stem cells to the science community, but they go only 15 lines which are usable. This is why Harvard University decided to do it on its own. They plan to invest about 100 million dollar in the construction of a private stem cell center, which should be one of the biggest in the world. This project is financed by the University and private companies without state-sponsoring. IT will be completely independent from the religiously influenced Washington Administration and thus show the superiority and independency of privately financed research. The scientist George Daley added in respect to this intention: “Harvard has the resources, the knowledge and to be honest the liability to do so!
It was meant to be the most "humane" form of capitalist markets, but it grew to be the most dangerous and life-threatening disease since the end of communist planned markets.
I hereby refer to the social-capitalism formerly introduced by Ludwig Erhard on the principles of free market with an eye on the unfortunate and poor people.
It should have worked like that. The state will not interfere within enterprises and de facto monopolies. The market is a seperate instance beside the state, supreme in itself. On the other side, all citizens should pay taxes equally to support the well-fare programs. Those programs were intended to provide for the old, the disabled and so on.
But as with all good intentions aside from reality, it went totally wrong. Now, Germany is sitting in a bowl of water and only the head is still on the surface of the water. We are on the eve of being drunk. The problem is not our attitude of lazyness or our hang to mindlessly follow government authority. This time, the enemy is the misunderstanding of the roots of capitalism and the greed of the German socialist party (SPD).
While Germany had its booming time during the 50s, there was no problem in redistributing wealth from the working force to the unemployed and into the insurance and health-care systems. But during the 70s and 80s, the boom was gone, but still the socialist government put more and more money into the well-fare system, extending it beyond the credibility of the tax-payers.
Although the administration wasn't purly socialst during the 80s, with the CDU taking control over the Administration again, the way they acted on the markets and on the tax-payers was strongly influenced by socialst manners.
The pay-off we see today, bankrupt insurance companies (AOK etc.), high deficite (EU deficite law suit against Germany), high rate in company crashes (around 30% of all start-ups in 2003) and high unemployment. The regional and local administrations are next to bankrupt and are continuously losing money to the federal system (best example, the city of Berlin).
Despite of all this, the government even has time to surpress/oppress and threaten the one field, which it has always supported with subsidies.
The farms and agricultural companies have always been kept alive and out of the competition of the markets by German and EU fundings. Instead of keeping their businesses competitive, the farmers had changed towards producing those goods that got the financial support by the government, regardless of the demand of the market and the environmental requirements such as the right soil/climate and so on.
This is how the European Union had produced this extreme output of milk, tomatoes and other agricultural products, which could be acquired cheaper and easily from aboard and oversee. However, all the products from oversee that had to run competition against German food had no chance, because in return for the subsidies, the farmers had to follow the prices the European Union/German government set.
Today, the german government thinks about reducing these subsidies, but are we prepared to do so?
The whole economic tree isn't competitive anymore, since they had lived in a controlled, planned environment so long. But there is hope on the horizon, since the Commitee of Young Farmers had announced that Germany indeed could operate agricultural companies that could be competitive to the international market.
However, this would result in a competition which would leave all those farmers behind who weren't prepared to work on their results.
In a country like Germany, where the sympathy always goes with the loser, despite of the circumstances or the man's behaviour, such a unfair competition is beyond sound reasoning.
It will cause an outrage, if the next government pursues this course. And the outrage will come from those who don't want to work, those who don't want to achieve, those who don't want to create, but to argue about everything.
So, let them call out, because we are prepared.
Monday, April 12, 2004
I have always wondered, why so many Liberals are opposed to the United Nations, because I am not and I still see me as a liberal person. Although I don't want to be strictly pushed in one philosophical categorie (such as Conservative, Objectivist, Classic-Liberal, Socialist etc.), I still prefer to see me as an ambassador of Liberty.
So, I know the usual prejudices against the United Nations. Liberals see it as a classical collectivist council, where the supremacy of the individual country is diminished for the greater good, or even worse the good of small communist/dictatorial countries.
They fear that all the small and unliberal countries could override their will and impose sanctions and laws on the free countries in this world.
But history has shown us that the United States of America, for example, have used a veto to stop laws against a violator of liberty or himself multiple times.
They rejected the ruling on Israels aggressive expansion and later the ruling (not directly from the United Nations) agains their "free trade" tariffs on steel.
So, the United States of America, most excessive denouncer of the undecesive UN, used it whenever it suited their benefit.
They said multiple times that they don't want to be ruled by a different institution anymore, but the United Nations are not "ruling" the USA in the same way as the central government is ruling over the States of the Union.
The United Nations can only suggest solutions and compromises, because it does not have any power to impose a ruling.
The United Nations is thereby more a place to meet and negotiate, to find a compromise, rather than to approve or make laws.
The power any nation has given to the United Nations, can be easily recalled, when the nation is dissatisfied with the United Nations with regard to all consequences such an act would impose. So, there is no real collectivism in the United Nations, but rather a place to discuss for independent and individual nations.
And even if you think otherwise, you would have to show where there is the border between a national and multinational state.
If you try to confine a state to an ethnic/religious or cultural beliefs and habits, you would certainly fail to explain how the United States of America can be called one nation.
If you believe that a nation is only defined by a common history, then you certainly never visited Alsace-Lothringen, which has changed ownership during the 19th/20th century multiple times.
In my opinion, nations are defined by the powers in charge and by statist tradition, most guilty in regard to this are conservatist who always pronounced those values.
So, change will come slowly, but in the end we will have a supranation, a new nation, called the European Union, here in Europe, but it will be a century or so, before this happens. In the future, the only chance for survival of the western states is the dissolution of nations and the construction of a supra-nation. The first stones have already been laid by the free market, who is trading without much consideration of borders.
So a new supranational state would still be a nation and therefore no collectivist, but rather some sort of Minarchist government. I can understand that it would be collectivist if we had to bow to the command of some poor little communist or dictatorial nations, but this is not the fact. So there is nothing unliberal in the marketplace of the United Nations, except that invalidates Individuals to a certain point. But well, this is already true for any government.