[60] News from Absurdistan - Bad Little Boys or Failing to See the Wood for the Trees

While the public is being entertained by stories about a boy starting the devastating wildfires in California, government sees the blame that should be placed with state organs eclipsed by the presumed mischief of a minor.

"Officials blamed a wildfire that consumed more than 38,000 acres and destroyed 21 homes last week on a boy playing with matches, and said they would ask a prosecutor to consider the case."

As all too often, mere suspicions make headlines instantly to sink in with the resonance of solid facts. And the storyline is simple enough for us to feel we have understood the matter. Much in the same vain, global warming - an all-purpose causal like Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda or the Taliban - is presented as the culprit behind the wildfires, even though anyone who cares to do a little research will soon find out that we are actually dealing with just another of those "facts" (still) immunised against rational assessment by folkloristic pride, pomp and circumstance. (See: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22235)

Be this as it may:

Here is a different story, presented by William L. Anderson - click the post's title for the full article - :

During much of the 20th century, government forests were "managed" mostly to serve timber interests, and often engaged in outright policies of subsidizing logging firms. While the lumber industry thrived under those conditions, there were two problems. First, there was the issue of economic calculation in which the value of things depended as much on the political whims of Congress and the executive branch as the value that such resources would have in a free market.

Second, and more important to the present-day situation, the politics of forest management and fire suppression underwent important changes. While the Forest Service temporarily suspended its "Smokey the Bear" policy, a spate of huge wildfires in 1988, including the conflagration at Yellowstone National Park in which a "let it burn" policy was in effect, led to a huge public (or more specifically, political) outcry, so the policy was abandoned and Congress once again demanded fire suppression.

During the late 1980s, and especially during the Bush I and Clinton administrations, the government began to aggressively push the Endangered Species Act as a way to "preserve" western forests. Doing an about-face from its policies of permitting lumber firms from logging western forests, the policies were changed to "leave the forests absolutely alone," a policy that changed the character of the forests.

For one thing, no logging meant that trees would grow more closely together, making forests so dense that it became inevitable that once-routine fires would turn into conflagrations. While these policies were popular with environmentalists, they were disastrous for people who once depended on logging for a livelihood. (Let me also point out that many of the anti-logging and anti-mining directives of the Clinton Administration had the effect of impoverishing those counties that had the effrontery of voting for Clinton's political opponents in presidential elections. Whether this was by coincidence or by design is left up to the reader to decide.)

But while the loggers moved out, the millionaires moved in. Wealthy people who wanted to get away from the crowded West Coast cities built new homes in areas adjacent to national forests. However, environmentalist-dominated governments refused permission to these homeowners to clear land near their homes, which meant that if the nearby forests caught on fire, their homes would almost certainly burn down. Application of the Endangered Species Act to prevent homeowners from removing nearby natural fire hazards also helped to ensure that new homes would be vulnerable to fires.

his is especially true in the coastal mountains of Southern California, where the latest spate of fires have occurred. People have built their "dream homes" in the cooler and more scenic higher elevations, hoping that the danger of fire would remain only a danger and not reality. State and federal policies, citing the Endangered Species Act, have specifically prohibited individual landowners from protecting their own homes and property by changing the nearby landscape to lesson fire dangers.

Fires are natural in that they have always occurred on earth, and will continue to occur. The real problem with the current fires, however, is government. Governments — in the name of "scientific" and "ecological" management — have grossly mismanaged the natural environment. Environmental policy has operated on the assumption — as so eloquently stated by Lew Rockwell — that "private ownership is the enemy." He writes that environmentalists believe:

Nature is an end in itself. So it must be owned publicly, that is, by the state. The state, in its management of this land, must not do anything to it. There must not be controlled burning, brush clearing, clear cutting, or even tourism. We can admire it from afar, but the work of human hands must never intervene.

Indeed, we see the handiwork of such policies: utter destruction of human and animal habitat.

Those endangered species that the law was supposed to protect are swallowed up along with the million-dollar houses that environmentalists hate. So much for the state that "protects" nature. In fact, government has dealt with the natural environment in much the same way that the US Armed Forces dealt with Vietnam: they have destroyed it in order to "save" it.

[59] News from Absurdistan - The Old Man and the Sea ...of Corruption and Apathy

More than three months ago, former French President Giscard had announced the scandal loud and clear.

His message: The EU is stealing power. The EU is sneaking the Constitution (it had devised by and for itself) past the people. The EU is pushing its Constitution through despite member state referenda rejecting the document.
The response? No response. Read this post from EU Referendum on Giscard's second attempt to make the fraud known:


This is the second time. The first was in July, when Valéry Giscard d'Estaing told the world that differences between the (proposed) new treaty and the EU constitution, "are few and far between and more cosmetic than real".

Now, in a way that could be hardly more spectacular and public, he has written an open letter to Le Monde declaring, "the tools are exactly the same ones, only the order was changed in the toolbox".

Picked up by The Daily Telegraph, we learn that the treaty was "rewritten" in a different order just to avoid the need for referendums.

In the letter, he says that "the constitutional draft treaty was a new text, inspired by a political good-will, and replaced all the former treaties." For the treaty of Lisbon, the lawyers of the Council "reverted to the traditional way followed by the institutions of Brussels." This, he says, consisted of "modifying the former treaties by way of amendments."

Thus it is that the treaty of Lisbon is exactly in the line of the treaties of Amsterdam and Nice. The lawyers did not propose innovations. They retained the text of the constitutional treaty, from which they extracted (broke out) the elements, one by one, and returned them, by way of amendments to the two existing treaties of Rome (1957) and Maastricht (1992).

Thus, Giscard confirms, the treaty of Lisbon ends up as "a catalogue of amendments" to the former treaties. It is illegible to the citizens, he adds, "who must constantly refer to the texts of the treaties of Rome and Maastricht, to which these amendments apply". But, "the result is that the institutional proposals of the constitutional treaty - the only ones which counted - are found complete in the treaty of Lisbon, but in a different order, to be inserted in the former treaties."

So does Giscard expose the "constitutional concept lie" so egregiously peddled by Brown and his cohorts, one which the high profile, pro-referendum campaigners have singularly failed to address.

But the question remains is why should a man who regards himself as the "father of the constitution" apparently put his treaty at risk?

At first sight, it looks like extraordinary arrogance – the most extreme form of hubris – but there may be a more pedestrian explanation: an old man's vanity. It was his constitution - his bébé - and he wants it recognised, to say nothing of his own part in producing it. Such is his confidence that it will go through, he is not worried by the prospects of a backlash. The dramatist John Webster (c. 1630) had it:

Vain the ambition of kings
Who seek by trophies and dead things
To leave a living name behind …

However, it seems inconceivable that Giscard's statements will have no political effect. Not least, published in a leading French newspaper, it must surely wake up the French to the fact that the result of their referendum is being ignored. And, in British politics, it so clearly exposes Brown's lies that surely he will have some difficulty repeating them with a straight face.

Of that, we can but hope, but in so doing, we take a little comfort from Webster, who said of the "vain ambition" that all the kings manage is to, "weave but nets to catch the wind."

Also, see for more my post: [58] News from Absurdistan - The European Harmony between the Fuckor and the Fuckee

And let me add: should the odd European care to pay attention to the fraud, you can be sure to hear this excuse: Well, that's politics, that's the way. Can't be helped. It will always be like that.

The same guy is likely to feel proud about European troupes spreading our political system to other countries - at the barrel of a gun.

Well, if you do not institute a Constitution designed to protect liberty - an ambition unknown to the peoples of Europe - you are right to expect nothing but egregious corruption from politics.

But what the heck are these Europeans proud about?

Donna D'Errico about Ron Paul

It is not uncommon among Europeans to think of Americans as uncultured hill billies. Contrast the obtuse European belief in government (portrayed in my last post) with the insight and intelligence that the young American actress Donna D'Errico displays in less than half a page.There are millions of Americans like her, who are just waiting and, indeed, taking action to find their mature, freedom loving beliefs represented and materialising in politics. Europe is light years away from anything comparable - and will only catch up when America becomes America again, in which case liberty will become a fashion in Europe and, perhaps, some day an attitude lived in earnestness.

For more, see my post: [58] News from Absurdistan - The European Harmony between Fuckor and Fuckee

Read what Donna has to say:

About Ron Paul

Take a look around at this country today. Do you think it resembles the kind of country that the founding fathers aimed to establish? We have land confiscation to be sold to corporations; imprisonment without charges; torture; pre-emptive war under false pretenses; the Federal Reserve's inflation; IRS domestic terrorism; deficit spending financed by China; and a dollar that is continuing a freefall in value. We have loss of sovereignty through GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, the UN. We have a secretive movement to establish a North American Union to integrate the US with Mexico and Canada. We have the government taxing you and I to pay for the welfare of illegal aliens. Meanwhile the government wants to force you to get a National ID Card so that the law enforcement can Gestapo you for your "papers" at a whim.

This is not what the founding fathers wanted for America. But there is only one candidate for president who is right on all those issues. He stands for the Constitution. He stands for personal liberty, as granted us by our Creator. He wants sound money and a humble foreign policy. He wants fair trade instead of managed trade for the benefit of insiders. He wants a small, fiscally responsible government. He wants to get the government out of manipulating your health care. And he supports your right to bear arms. He has been referred to as the founding father of our time. And, John McCain once said -- before he vied for president -- that this man is the most honest man in Washington. The man I am speaking of is Ron Paul. If you want your country back then vote for Ron Paul for president. And let freedom ring, as it did in 1787.

Please visit RonPaul2008.com to read more about the man who is America's only hope, and who is my hero.

[58] News from Absurdistan - The European Harmony between Fuckor and Fuckee

The people of Europe are so conditioned to feel strongly about hollow concepts, they are incapable of realising what is really going on.

Even in Germany, the media have at least occasionally reported about politicians, including Chancellor Merkel, tricking their subjects into acquiescence vis-à-vis the legal underpinnings of the European super-bureaucracy that is to rule them with even more unchecked power and still less democratic say.

You would think issues concerning the fundamentals of power in society would trigger alert responses.

Not in countries completely dominated by show-biz-democracy.

The people just do not care.

The odd politician yells at the people:

"Hey, you - we are screwing you."

No reply.

The politician yells louder:

"Hey, people - we are screwing you! Like in a big way!"

No reply.

The politician to his buddies:

"All right, they're fast asleep. We're ready for the next step."

And when the people wake up to some unpleasant surprises, they will be told:

"But it is the law."

"Oh? Is it?"

"Sure, it is the law."

"Well, if it's the law, it's the law."

But should this surprise us?

Not the historian of ideas, who is aware that the original concept of liberty that emerged in Britain entered the rest of Europe in the form of an originally French bastardisation of the concept of freedom - which was to become the standard throughout Europe - to this day:

"Gallican Liberty," wrote Francis Lieber in 1848, "is sought in the government, and according to an Anglican point of view, it is looked for in a wrong place, where it cannot be found. Necessary consequences of the Gallican view are, that the French look for the highest degree of political civilization in organization, that is, in the highest degree of interference by public power."

This has become second nature to most Europeans - and, hence, the European harmony between fuckor and fuckee.

One of the "necessary consequences of the Gallican views", the fatal wish for "the highest degree of interference by public power" is faithfully embodied in the institutions of the European Union.

Do not expect much resistance to the European super-state. The people of Europe simply do not understand why they love to be governed and what is wrong with that passion. No catastrophe (including communism, WW I and WW II) brought about by the "Gallican" state is horrific enough to spoil the Europeans' taste for more of it.

Incidentally, the "Gallican" conversion of the original (and only consistent) meaning of liberty is preserved in the terminology of American politics, where the term "liberal" is reserved for the enemies of liberty (in its original and genuinely liberal denotation). And the Hegelian idolatry of the state so popular in Germany is reflected in the German word for the rule of law: Rechtsstaat, law-state, whereby "state" implies the government and its state organs. And here we come full circle with Lieber's observation: that according to the distorting "Gallican" redefinition "...Liberty is sought in the government...in the highest degree of interference by public power" - which is precisely the opposite of what the rule of law is all about.

Today (as for hundreds of years), the countries of Europe embrace the Gesetzesstaat, the rule of legislation, where law is whatever the holders of power declare it to be.

In a free society protected by a meaningful constitution (securing individual liberty and restraining the power of government) a manipulative attempt such as the one described in the below dispatch would cause general outrage and require the immediate deposition of the government(s) perpetrating the sleight of hand. Not so in a society where people feel that law emanates from government.

Government knows best how we should be governed - that is what the apathy of the European subjects boils down to.

For more, see my posts:

[53] News from Absurdistan - Legality Instead of Justice - Technically Refined Barbarism
[52] News from Absurdistan - Why Germany Does Not Care

EUobserver titles: Lisbon Treaty Made to Avoid Referendum, Says Giscard:

The EU's new treaty is the same as the rejected constitution - only the format has been changed to avoid referendums, says Valery Giscard d'Estaing, architect of the constitution.

In an open letter published in Le Monde and a few other European newspapers over the weekend, the former French president seeks to clarify the difference between former draft constitution - which was shelved after French and Dutch voters rejected the text in 2005 - and the new Lisbon Treaty which EU leaders agreed earlier this month.

"Looking at the content, the result is that the institutional proposals of the constitutional treaty … are found complete in the Lisbon Treaty, only in a different order and inserted in former treaties," Mr Giscard d'Estaing said.

The former chairman of the European Convention - the body of over a hundred politicians that drafted the 2004 EU constitution – suggests the new more complicated layout was only to avoid putting the treaty to a referendum.

"Above all, it is to avoid having referendum thanks to the fact that the articles are spread out and constitutional vocabulary has been removed," he says

Mr Giscard argues that the Lisbon treaty represents a way for the EU institutions to take the lead after the "interference" of the members of parliament and politicians who were in the European Convention.

"They are therefore imposing a return to the language that they master and to the procedures they favour, and in doing so alienate the citizens further," he said.

Mr Giscard's word are likely to fuel the calls for referendums in the UK and Denmark where the governments are arguing that there is no need for a public poll on the Lisbon Treaty because it is sufficiently different from the EU constitution.

[57] News from Absurdistan - Cutting Out the Constitution

David Henderson discovers how the Vice President of the USA tries to cut out the Constitution.

Here is an excerpt from the article, for the full click on the post's headline:

Am I the only one who noticed? I hope not. But just in case, let me note that Vice President Dick Cheney made a huge misstatement to his West Point audience on May 26. I hope that, at a minimum, the West Point history majors noticed it. Near the end of his speech at the United States Military Academy commencement, Mr. Cheney stated:

On your first day of Army life, each one of you raised your right hand and took an oath. And you will swear again today to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is your vow, that is the business you're in."

Well, not quite. Here is the actual oath that newly minted officers in the U.S. Army take:

"I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God."

Notice the difference? Mr. Cheney claims that U.S. Army officers vow to defend the United States, but as the oath quoted above shows, they don't. Instead, they vow to defend the U.S. Constitution. As a former student of mine, an officer in the U.S. military, said, "Professor, isn't it interesting that our highest obligation is not to protect the United States but, instead, is to protect the U.S. Constitution?" Yes, it is interesting.

Note, even under the oath's version doctored by the Vice-President (read "vice" as "depravity"), American soldiers are deployed unconstitutionally, as American forces are not defending anything but engage in unprovoked, unilaterally aggressive warfare.

For more see my post:

[54] News from Absurdistan - The Irrationality of...American Foreign Policy

Ron Paul for President

Below find a comment by a certain Bob Miller - picked at random from thousands in a similar vein - referring to (an article in The Washington Post on) Ron Paul's growing visibility in the American public.

I am afraid, Ron Paul will not have enough time ahead of the preponed primaries to make himself known to a sufficient number of people, but his popularity will grow at any rate. He has already changed politics in America. While there is only one Ron Paul today - soon there will be more representatives of liberty of his outstanding calibre.

"I travelled to visit my aunt in Louisiana this past week, and she had never heard of Ron Paul. After listening to the man speak for 10 minutes on YouTube, she declared she was sold. Ron Paul would be the instant front runner in this race if the American people at some point were actually exposed to the man's positions on the war(s), taxes, immigration, debt, monetary policy, big government, personal liberty, privacy, domestic spying, secret prisons and torture. We live in a day and age where we are forced to pick a candidate that has a single progressive position or maybe TWO; Ron hits the nail on the head so many times its mind boggling to believe that anyone existed who could be so responsive to the needs of the American people. Has anyone read this man's writings? He is truly the educated gentleman farmer type of 1776. I can't imagine GWB (laughs) or any of the current crop of candidates actually writing something worth reading. And better yet, he has had the same positions for over 30 years and didn't tailor any of them to this election. Alot of people out there, especially the Dems, think that warmongering GWB represents what Republicanism is supposed to be about, and verily GWB has hijacked the party and inverted its values. I'd recommend to those people a little reading and discover why Ron Paul is feared by the establishment neo-conservatives in his own party. Don't let the GOP sticker scare you or convince you that you know everything you need to know about Ron Paul. If you oppose this war (and warmongering in general), know that Hillary will not even commit to bringing the troops home before 2012. The Dems have not offered an answer for our national fatigue, tax relief, the restoration of civil liberties, the national debt, or illegal immigration. This man is a conservative Libertarian running on the GOP platform. Please check out his positions on the issues, either on his campaign site or Wikipedia. It will be the best 10 minutes you'll spend this week."

[56] News from Absurdistan - Deutsche Kreuzritter (German Crusaders) Alive and Kicking

Public opinion in Germany tends to oppose the West's aggressive war against Iraq. There is no notable movement to protest the horrific goings-on, however, and the fact is not challenged at all that operations emanating from German territory and the involvement of American facilities here play a vital role in the ongoing occupation of Iraq.

At the same time, Germans tend to approve of the war against Afghanistan, unperturbed by the fact that the nature of this war and the rationales presented for carrying it out are analogous to the Iraq case: regime change, nation building, tyrannicide, the imposition of democracy at the barrel of a gun.

I have predicted for quite some time that attacking and occupying Afghanistan is likely to meet support in Germany only as a matter of transient "political correctness". The untenability of this position is increasingly being recognised, and soon it will be politically correct, i.e. the fashion of the day, to stay out of Afghanistan.

For the time being, to acquire a license to kill from Germans, just call the target "Taliban" - retroactively, in unsubstantiated anticipation or otherwise.

During the Nazi years, one could not observe broad sections of the German population demanding the killing of Jews - in fact, the Nazis knew that they would be going too far in disclosing or aggressively advertising the systematic extermination of Jews and, therefore, carefully hid the vile business from the public.

Today, it is easy to find support among the German public for the killing of certain sections of the Afghan population - just call them Taliban, and it will be deemed fine to take them out.

After all, German soldiers are over there for a "humanitarian" purpose - helping to support and stabilise (by bribery and other most dubious means) war lords and political coalitions in Kabul that on closer inspection betray, perhaps even more pronouncedly, the repugnant aspects implied in the term Taliban, a designation conveniently employed as a supposedly irrefutable all-purpose condemnation that must be accepted if one is not to commit the unspeakable sin of not being politically correct.

The media are largely silent about the actual circumstances of German collaboration in Afghanistan, portraying instead German involvement as a touching case of compassion and a generous act of bringing cultural advancement to savage tribes.

The encroachment of German forces upon foreign territories meets with unhesitant popular consent in Germany nowadays, the gullible population being literally instructed by the government, politicians and the media that such action be of a "humanitarian" nature.

When no WMD were found in Iraq, the invaders quickly relabelled themselves to pose as armed missionaries in pursuit of humanitarian causes - and, despite wide disapproval of the attack against Iraq in Germany, the "humanitarian" idea of "killing a bad man" (Saddam Hussein) was readily endorsed by Germans, while in the meantime the public remains oblivious to the gigantic humanitarian catastrophe set in train by the Western alliance's "philanthropic" tyrannicide.

The principle of non-intervention has vanished from the German mind.

"Humanitarian" aggression is not only the government line with regard to Afghanistan (and indeed other places), it is the position assumed by a growing industry of militarised charity. To my horror, I heard on the radio recently, a representative of CARITAS - a charity of the Roman Catholic church - demanding that German forces remain in Afghanistan to protect CARITAS in the pursuit of their various projects.

The spirit of the crusades has returned to Germany.

And for my German speaking readers, a few remarks that I contributed to a recent on-line discussion of the presence of German military forces in Afghanistan (for the full thread, click on the post's headline):

Der Gipfel deutscher Heuchelei:

Bundespräsident Herzog warnt: keine parlamentarische Demokratie mehr in Deutschland (80% aller für Deutsche bindenden Gesetze stammen von einer undemokratischen Bürokratie in Brüssel); ganz Deutschland ignoriert den Brüsseler Staatsstreich und gibt vor, so sehr an Demokratie interessiert zu sein, dass es sich an einem Jihad zur Verbreitung der Demokratie mit Feuer und Schwert in Afghanistan beteiligt - allerdings nur, um den Verbündeten zum Töten und Getötetwerden zu verhelfen (Tornados zeigen genau, wo hinzuschießen) - keine Kampfeinsätze für Deutsche, deutsche Soldaten sollen mit dem Transport von Schulbänken glänzen. Feinde (z.B. die Taliban, die effektiv den Status von Untermenschen erhalten, oder schert sich jemand in Deutschland um das Leben eines Taliban) Feinde abschlachten - völlig in Ordnung, nur das machen besser die Amis, deutsche Soldaten haben Fototermin beim Stern, der ihre "humanitären Großtaten" verweigt. Seit Somalia 1993 besetzt Deutschland wieder fremde Länder ohne Rechtsgrundlage, das Volk spielt längst wieder mit - wir entdecken unsere internationalen "Pflichten", wenn wir ganz sicher sind, zu den Stärkeren zu gehören, und gehen stiften, schon wenn's nur ein bisschen weh tut. Ein Volk ohne Prinzipien beliebig mainpulierbar durch drittklasige Politiker. Bravo Deutschland. Liebe WELT, berichtet bitte mehr von RON PAUL in den Vereinigten Staaten, damit deutsche Leser eine Chance haben, überhaupt zu verstehen, wovon ich schreibe.

-

Der wohlmeinde deutsche Schaukelstuhl-Imperialist nimmt sich der Wilden an, über deren heimische Verhältnisse, Recht und Pflichten er natürlich am besten bescheid weiß.

-

ch saß 1993 in einem Restaurant am Kurfürstendamm und versuchte meinen Freunden klar zu machen, dass der Einsatz deutscher Truppen außerhalb der Nato und zu anderen Zwecken als dem der Verteidingung Deutschlands unrechtens sei. Genauso gut hätte ich 1939 auf dem Kurfürstendamm sitzen können und dagegen wettern mögen, dass der Überfall auf Polen unrechtens sei: In beiden Fällen handelte die deutsche Regierung politisch korrekt (nach der für sie maßgeblichen politischen Mode).

1993 war auch dehalb ein Scheideweg, weil sich Deutschland für das "Recht des Stärkeren" in der internationalen Politik entschied - das Prinzip der Nichteinmischung gegen das der "preemptive wars" austauschte. Wenn wir lustig sind: marschieren wir ein wo wir wollen, um der letzten politischen Mode zum Erfolg zu verhelfen.

Ich schrieb bereits unten: die politische öffentlichkeit in Deutschland hat jedes Bewusstsein für die Bedeutung von Prinzipien verloren - schielt nur noch dem, was gerade "in" ist - deshalb mein Rat: Deutsche, schaut nach Amerika und befasst euch mit der RON PAUL Bewegung.

http://www.iht.com/articles/1993/07/16/command.php

-

Man hat uns in den Afghanistan-Krieg hineingelogen mit der Behauptung, man wolle Bin Laden habhaft werden - wozu ein ganzes Land deshalb mit Krieg überzogen werde muss, zeigt sich erst als die anderen/wahren Motive des Überfalls auf Afghanistan öffentlich wurden - Nation building, Demokratie-Jihad. Bin Laden hnat man nicht ernsthaft verfolgt und wie die Amerikaner im Irak, sagen die Deutschen: wenn wir schon in Afghanistan sind, dann können wir auch noch dies oder das tun - rein humanitär gemeint, versteht sich.

Um es ganz klar zu sagen, Altobello: Wir haben nichts in fremden Ländern verloren, die uns nichts getan haben. (Die Taliban, wohlgelitten durch westliche Regierungen bis 911 - waren bereit Bin Laden auszuweisen, doch daran waren die USA bald nicht mehr interessiert - damit wäre ja der ganze Krieg schon zuende gewesen.)

-

Wir können nicht jedem Unbill in der Welt entgegentreten und schon garnicht unter Missachtung vernünftiger Prinzipien, sonst müssten wir unsere Truppen z.B. aus Afghanistan abziehen (grundsätzlich und aus anderen Gründen bravo!), um sie zum Schutz der irakischen Bevölkerung im Irak gegen die USA einzusetzen...


-


Die Invasion Afghanistans und die Iraks sind gleichermaßen unrechtens.

-

Was halten Sie von der Idee, deutsche Soldaten im Irak...? Sind sie immer noch so wild entschlossen, Menschenleben zu retten - auch wenn es diesmal gegen Goliath geht?

-

Schon die Bombardements und die aggressive Embargo-Politik der USA hat in den 90er Jahren über 500 000 Irakern das Leben gekostet - bevor der jetzige Krieg begann. Albright hat dies nicht geleugnet, sondern im Gegenteil als "worth it" bezeichnet. Und wenn "nur" 1 Iraker durch den durch nichts zu rechtfertigenden Einmarsch der USA in den Irak ums Leben gekommen wäre - es wäre einer zuviel.

-

Genau: Deshalb sollten wir unbedingt unsere Truppen auch in den Irak schicken, um die Demokratie einzuführen und den schlechten Menschen dort das Handwerk zu legen und den Guten zu geben, was sie verdienen. Und dann müssen wir dringend in Nordkorea einmarschieren. Pläne sollten auch hinsichtlich Ruanda und anderen afrikanischen Staaten gemacht werden. Pakistan ist auch kein schlechtes Stichwort - die dortige Demokratie müsste auf Vordermann gebracht werden, wenn wir überhaupt von einer Demokratie sprechen dürfen. Und dann wäre da noch....

-

Deutsche Vergangenheitsbewältigung 2007: Die deutsche Öffentlichkeit unterstützt wieder imperialistische Angriffskriege mit deutscher Beteiligung. Es gilt inzwischen als völlig legitim, militärische Invasionen vorzunehmen, um die politischen und sonstigen Ziele, die eine deutsche Regierung in einem fremden Land erzielt zu sehen wünscht, durchzusetzen.

Schizophrenerweise gelten den Aghanistan-Kriegsbefürwortern die Argumente, mit denen sie einen deutschen Einsatz dort gutheißen als nicht anwendbar auf den Irak. Anlass für militärische Einmischung in angeblich humanitärer Absicht gibt es im Irak und und in zahlreichen anderen Ländern zur Genüge. Solche eklatanten Widersprüche in der Argumentation rühren daher, dass nicht das Grundsätzliche bedacht wird, sondern nur das jüngste Mediengewäsch nachgebetet wird.

Ich kann es nicht oft genug wiederholen: Während Roman Herzog konstatiert, dass eine funktionierende parlamentarische Demokratie in Deutschland der Vergangenheit angehört (80% aller für Deutsche bindenenden Rechtsakte stammen von einer undemokratischen Herrschaftsbürokratie in Brüssel), wärmt sich Deutschland an der Vorstellung, die Demokratie in anderen Ländern mit Feuer und Schwert zu verbreiten.

Bald wird es für eine deutsche Regierung nicht mehr nötig sein, die Teilnahme deutscher Truppen davon abhängig zu machen, dass das Töten den Allierten überlassen sei (allerdings dienen deutsche Truppen dazu, den Allierten präzise anzuzeigen, wo die zu Tötenden sich befinden) und die deutschen Kontingente sich als Entwicklungshelfer vorteilhaft in Szene setzen.

-

[Es spricht Bände]... dass die Umfrage-Box von DIE WELT (siehe oben) keinen Platz lässt für jene Meinungen, die im Einklang mit dem stehen, was fast 50 Jahre Politik der Bundesrespublik Deutschland war: Keine Angriffskriege, keine Kreuzzüge, um mit militärischer Gewalt einem anderen Land die Vorstellungen der deutschen Regierung aufzuzwingen.

[Die Frage und die Optionen lauteten:

Soll die Bundeswehr auch im Süden Afghanistans eingesetzt werden?

Ja, für eine dauerhalfte Befriedung Afghanistans ist ein Einsatz im Süden unvermeidbar

Ja, wir können unsere internationalen Partner die gefährliche Arbeit nicht alleine machen lassen

Nein, die Stärke der Bundeswehr ist der Aufbau, nicht der Kampf

Nein, wir wollen keine Soldaten in Särgen nach Hause holen]

-

Invasoren sind immer bemüht, sich den Anschein lupenreiner Legitimität zu geben und entsprechende Marionettenregime einzusetzen. So auch in diesem Fall.

Die westliche Öffentlichkeit wurde ursprünglich mit dem Argument getäuscht, gezielte und beschränkte militärische Einsätze, die in einem klaren Zusammenhang mit den Sicherheitsinteressen der intervenierenden Länder stehen, vorzunehmen. Worüber sich durchaus reden lässt. Absicht war aber, das ganze Land mit Krieg zu überziehen und alsbald wurden Demokratierung und Regiemewechsel als weitere Argumente nachgeschoben.

Die Legitimität der derzeitigen Regierung Afghanistans ist mehr als fraglich - doch ungeachtet dieses Gesichtspunktes hat sich Deutschlands Militär auf die Verteidigung des eigenen Territoriums zu beschränken und schon garnicht, militärisch oder anderweitig Partei zu ergreifen in den heillosen internen Streitigkeiten eines anderen Landes.

Marionettenregime zur nachträglichen Legitimierung lassen sich zwar häufig leicht finden, vermutlich besonders leicht in einem Land mit so vielen rivalisierenden Gruppen wie Afghanistan - aber Erfolg lässt sich mit deratigen Machenschaften sehr viel schwerer erzielen. Die reichsten Länder und stärksten Armeen des Westens haben seit vielen Jahren kaum militärische Fortschritte gemacht, von der humanitären Lage und dem Entwicklungsstand des Landes ganz zu schweigen - jetzt glaubt man sogar deutsche Truppen im Süden zu benötigen.

Was mich überdies ganz besonders schockiert, ist der Umstand, dass die Überzeugung in Deutschland um sich greift, man müsse nur ein Anliegen haben, das beliebt genug ist (vorübergehend), um berechtigt zu sein, seine Vorstellungen einem anderen Land mit militärischer Gewalt aufzudrängen.

In wenigen Monaten schon, spätestens in in zwei Jahren werden militärische Invasionen in Afghanistan nicht mehr als "politisch korrekt" gelten - dafür leider sicherlich solche in anderen Ländern. Und die ersten Dissertationen werden geschrieben werden, in denen man sich wundert, wieso ausgerechnet die Deutschen sich wieder am Überfall eines anderen Landes beteiligten.

Was glauben Sie, wie schnell Deutschland sein Herz für Afghanistan wieder verliert, wenn es ein paar mehr Verluste auf deutscher Seite geben wird und die Kosten der Präsenz ernstlich zu kneifen beginnen oder andere Interventionsgelüste akut werden - da wartet ja noch einiges auf uns: Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabien...

Solche Einsätze wie in Afghanstan sind leider eine Modeangelegenheit geworden und nicht eine von durchdachten und daher zur Dauerhaftigkeit. geeigneten Prinzipien.

-

Afghanistan ist überfallen und besetzt worden von einer Gruppe von westlichen Alliierten, zu denen sich Deutschland von Anfang an hinzugesellt hat. In einem beispiellosen Akt der Heuchelei ist die deutsche Politik bemüht, unsere Truppen als "Entwicklungshelfer" zu nobilitieren; doch, glauben Sie mir, es gibt zahllose Afghanen, die die deutsche Rolle als imperialistische Hilfstruppe durchschauen, und der Afghane, der sich eine Stinger-Rakete wünscht, um deutsche Tornados, die ihn "ausgucken", damit die Amerikaner dann die Drecksarbeit des Tötens übernehmen, dürfte keinen Zweifel darüber verspüren, dass sein Land einem Überfall zum Opfer gefallen ist.

Zivilcorage ist eine Resource die offenbar in großer Fülle in Afghanistan vorhanden ist, jedenfalls finden sich genügend Afghanen, um die Invasion ihres Landes für den Angreifer zu einem Trauma werden zu lassen.

Ich wünschte wir würden uns eine Scheibe davon abschneiden, um uns zuhause um die Verteidigung unserer an Brüssel verlorenen Demokratie zu bemühen, die Souveranität unseres Landes zu verteidigen und den Versuchen wenigstens auf die Spur zu kommen, eine EU-Verfassung hinter dem Rücken des Volkes einzuführen. Allerdings setzte das voraus, dass wir den Sinn einer Verfassung verstehen, der nicht darin besteht die ständig wachsende Macht der Regierung zu zementieren, sondern einzig und allein, jegliche Regierungsmacht wirkungsvoll zu begrenzen.

Deutschland, kämpfe mal lieber auf eigenem Territorium für die Freiheit. Mach' erstmal deine eigenen politischen Hausaufgaben. Lerne wieder was Freiheit bedeutet und welche wichtige, aber untergeordnete, d.h. an höhere Prinzipien gebundene Rolle die Demokratie für eine freiheitliche Gesellschaft spielt, bevor du dich in Neokolonilalismus übst.

-

Perseus schreibt: "Die Taliban selbst sind eine ausländische Macht in Afghanistan.
Sie rekrutieren sich vorwiegend aus Pakistanis."

Jeder kann leicht im Internet nachprüfen, dass Perseus' Angaben falsch sind.

Wie es überhaupt immer wieder erstaunlich ist, wie wenig die Menschen, die für eine Einmischung in afghanische Angelegenheiten eintreten, sich tatsächlich mit dem Land beschäftigt haben.

Hanebüchen: Die einfachen Vorstellungen über ein Land, das aus zwei Bevölkerungsteilen besteht - den Guten und den Bösen -, die unsere Regierung auch genau zu unterscheiden weiß, sodass es den Guten Entwicklungshilfe leisten und die Bösen umbringen lassen kann - durch die Amerikaner, Kanadier, Briten etc, denn den Deutschen ist das Töten als solchem zu unangenehm - nicht aber das genaue Herausfinden und Angeben (per Tornados), wo die zu Tötenden sich befinden.

-

ch beziehe mich nochmals auf die falschen Angaben, die Perseus gemacht hat, indem er schrieb: "Die Taliban selbst sind eine ausländische Macht in Afghanistan.
Sie rekrutieren sich vorwiegend aus Pakistanis."

Demgegenüber: Nur ein Hinweis aus zahlreichen anderen Quellen, die leicht im Internet aufzusuchen sind: "The Taliban are Pushtuns, who account for almost 48 percent of the Afghan population and their area is mainly the southern half of Afghanistan. To rule Afghanistan, the rulers have to have the support of the Pushtun; all the rulers of modern Afghanistan since its founding in 1747 have been Pushtuns." Weiteres unter: http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=1517

Wer Krieg führen will, braucht immer brutale Vereinfachungen, das liegt in der Natur des Krieges.

Die Taliban, die beileibe nicht die einzigen sind, die der westlichen Invasion Widerstand leisten, auf ein so einfaches Feindbild zu reduzieren, das jede Hemmung abfällt, sie zu vernichten, ist sachlich verfehlt und moralisch verwerflich.

Was immer die unüberschaubaren internen Streitigkeiten Afghanistans, Deutschland hat sich darin nicht einzumischen.

Und denen, die sich der Illusion hingeben, den westlichen Besatzern Afghanistans läge das Wohl der dortigen Bevölkerung am Herzen, empfehle ich auch über die geopolitischen Motive des Einmarsches (Ölzufuhr) nachzudenken - ein Thema, das soweit ich es überblicke überhaupt nicht angeschnitten wurde in den Kommentaren unten.

Selbst denen, die das Prinzip der Nichteinmischung in die inneren Angelegenheit anderer Länder nicht beherzigen wollen, wird bei genauer Analyse der Lage klar werden, dass imperiales Parteiergreifen bedeutet, Unentscheidbares und Widersprüchliches mit brachialer Gewalt zu vereinfachen - woran bislang jede imperialistische Macht früher oder später zerbrochen ist.

Freilich gibt es in Afghanistan hunderte, ja tausende verschiedene Fraktionen, von denen jede ganz eigene Vorstellungen hat, was deutsche Truppen zu leisten haben, um ihren Ansprüchen und Erwartungen gerecht zu werden.

Weiten Sie den "Polizei"-Anspruch Hilfesuchender an die deutsche Politik und ihre militärischen Möglichkeiten auf die ganze Welt auf, dann werden Sie erkennen, dass es mehr als genug Länder gibt, die noch "bedürftiger" erscheinen (nur dass, sie gerade nicht im Einflussbereich des letzten amerikanischen "geopolitischen Aufwasches" und deshalb auch Abseits des aktuellen Medieninteresses liegen). Und selbst, wenn es Deutschland, wie einst erträumt, möglich wäre, die ganze Welt zu "befrieden" (sind wir Herrenmenschen, die dazu befähigt sind?) - ist es das, was wir wieder wollen?

Afghanistan ist kompliziert genug, um allein schon aus dem Grunde, Anlass zu geben, die Finger von ihm zulassen.

Bismarck wurde einmal gefragt, ob es überhaupt jemand gäbe, der den Balkan verstünde. "Ja", antwortete Bismarck, "zwei Menschen."
"Wer?"
"Ich."
"Und wer noch?"
"Der Andere ist verrückt geworden."
(Internationale wie nationale, möchte ich ergänzen) "Wohlfahrt", schrieb der große deutsche Liberale, Immanuel Kant, "kennt kein Prinzip.“ Sondern nur Sonderinteressen, wovon sich die durchzusetzen pflegen, deren Nutznießer am lautesten schreien und politisch am besten organisiert sind.
So fremd, diese Aussage Kants vielen erscheinen mag - ich empfehle jedem herauszufinden, was er – neben dem bereits von mir Angedeuteten - damit gemeint hat - statt sich vom letzten Medienklatsch irre machen zu lassen.

-

Das tägliche Brot unseres politischen Systems: Beschriftung einer Fahne - mit undefinierten, undefinierbaren oder falsch definierten Begriffen. Oder es ist ein andersartiger Etikettenschwindel im Spiel. (Soll man die Leser z.B. damit überfordern, dass in Deutschland niemand verstanden hat, dass wir entweder eine soziale Marktwirtschaft oder einen Rechtsstaat haben können, nicht aber beides?)

Es spielt ohnehin keine Rolle, wie wahrhaftig die Losung ist: Recht hat, wer sich in der politischen Arena oder auf dem Schlachtfeld durchsetzt.

Das ist die ganze Essenz der politischen (Un)Kultur Deutschlands.

[56] News from Absurdistan - A Diplomatic Solution

The Washington Post has this dispatch:

Facing staff shortages in Iraq, the State Department announced Friday that diplomats would have no choice but to accept one-year postings in the hostile environment or face losing their jobs.

Harry Thomas, the State Department’s human resources director, said about 250 “prime candidates” for vacant Iraqi posts would be notified Monday of the decision. He said that they would have 10 working days to respond to the demand that they go to Iraq in summer 2008, and that only those with valid reasons, like a medical problem, would be exempt.

Until now, postings to Iraq have been on a voluntary basis and often hard to fill.

“If someone decides they do not want to go, then we would then consider appropriate actions,” Mr. Thomas said. “We have many options, including dismissal from the foreign service.”

Many American diplomats say they fear being posted in Iraq because of the risks of working in a war zone. It is a so-called unaccompanied posting, meaning children and a spouse cannot go with the diplomat because of the dangers involved.

There are about 200 American diplomats in Iraq who serve on a one-year basis. That must rise to about 250 for next summer, Mr. Thomas said.

For more, see my post: [54] News from Absurdistan - The Irrationality of...American Foreign Policy

[55] News from Absurdistan - Brits Tired of Genocide Return to a Home Country Lost

They killed and killed and are tired of it now, soon to return to a "home" country that does not exist any more, courtesy of the EU.

See for more my posts:

[43] News from Absurdistan - EU Wagging the Dog, Brits Perplexed
[42] News from Absurdistan - British Death Wish(es)

The Telegraph reports:

One of the most senior British commanders in Iraq has claimed that there is no point in fighting on in Basra, likening British troops in the city to "Robocop" and admitting that innocent people were hurt as a result of their actions.

The officer, who spoke to The Sunday Telegraph on condition of anonymity, said commanders had concluded that a military solution was no longer viable.

"We are tired of firing at people," he said. "We would prefer to find a political accommodation."

The officer, who is responsible for thousands of troops, said the decision to pull soldiers out of the centre of Basra last month came after commanders concluded that using Iraqi forces would be more effective. "We would go down there [Basra], dressed as Robocop, shooting at people if they shot at us, and innocent people were getting hurt," he said. "We don't speak Arabic to explain and our translators were too scared to work for us any more. What benefit were we bringing to these people?"

British forces have struck a deal with Shia militias to withdraw to a single base at the international airport in return for assurances that they will no longer be attacked.

Yesterday, former military commanders and politicians expressed outrage at the officer's comments.

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said: "A lot of those who have served in Iraq will be disappointed and angry at being portrayed in this manner."

The former SAS deputy commander Clive Fairweather said he was appalled by the message coming out of Basra. "One wonders whether the Union Jack or the white flag should be flying over Basra airfield," he said.

And The Asia Times has this report:

WATERTOWN, New York - Iraq war veterans now stationed at a base here in upstate New York say that morale among US soldiers in the country is so poor, many are simply parking their Humvees and pretending to be on patrol, a practice dubbed "search and avoid" missions.

Phil Aliff is an active duty soldier with the 10th Mountain Division stationed at Fort Drum. He served nearly one year in Iraq from August 2005 to July 2006, in the areas of Abu Ghraib and Fallujah, both west of Baghdad.

"Morale was incredibly low," said Aliff, adding that he joined the military because he was raised in a poor family by a single mother and had few other prospects. "Most men in my platoon in Iraq were just in from combat tours in Afghanistan."

According to Aliff, their mission was to help the Iraqi army "stand up" in the Abu Ghraib area of western Baghdad, but in fact his platoon was doing all the fighting without support from the Iraqis they were supposedly preparing to take control of the security situation.

"I never heard of an Iraqi unit that was able to operate on their own," said Aliff, who is now a member of the group Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW). "The only reason we were replaced by an Iraqi army unit was for publicity."

Aliff said he participated in roughly 300 patrols. "We were hit by so many roadside bombs we became incredibly demoralized, so we decided the only way we wouldn't be blown up was to avoid driving around all the time."

"So we would go find an open field and park, and call our base every hour to tell them we were searching for weapons caches in the fields and doing weapons patrols and everything was going fine," he said, adding, "All our enlisted people became very disenchanted with our chain of command."

Aliff, who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), refused to return to Iraq with his unit, which arrived in Kirkuk two weeks ago. "They've already lost a guy, and they are now fostering the sectarian violence by arming the Sunnis while supporting the Shi'ites politically ... classic divide and conquer."

Aliff told Inter Press Service (IPS) he is set to be discharged by the military next month because they claim his PTSD "is untreatable by their doctors".

According to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the number of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans seeking treatment for PTSD increased nearly 70% in the 12 months ending on June 30.

The nearly 50,000 VA-documented PTSD cases greatly exceed the 30,000 military personnel that the Pentagon officially classifies as wounded in both occupations.

VA records show that mental health has become the second-largest area of illness for which veterans of the ongoing occupations are seeking treatment at VA hospitals and clinics. The total number of mental health cases among war veterans increased by 58%; from 63,767 on June 30, 2006, to 100,580 on June 30, 2007, according to the VA.

Other active duty Iraq veterans tell similar stories of disobeying orders so as not to be attacked so frequently.

"We'd go to the end of our patrol route and set up on top of a bridge and use it as an over-watch position," Eli Wright, also an active duty soldier with the 10th Mountain Division, told IPS. "We would just sit with our binoculars and observe rather than sweep. We'd call in radio checks every hour and say we were doing sweeps."

Wright added, "It was a common tactic, a lot of people did that. We'd just hang out, listen to music, smoke cigarettes, and pretend." The 26-year-old medic complained that his unit did not have any armored Humvees during his time in Iraq, where he was stationed in Ramadi, capital of the volatile al-Anbar province.

"We put sandbags on the floors of our vehicles, which had canvas doors," said Wright, who was in Iraq from September 2003 until September 2004. "By the end of our tour, we were bolting any metal we could find to our Humvees. Everyone was doing this, and we didn't get armored Humvees in country until after we left."

Other veterans, like 25-year-old Nathan Lewis, who was in Iraq for the invasion of March 2003 until June of that year while serving in the 214th field artillery brigade, complained of lack of training for what they were ordered to do, in addition to not having armored Humvees for their travels.

"We never got training for a lot of the work we did," he explained. "We had a white phosphorous mortar round that cooked off in the back of one of our trucks, because we loaded that with some other ammo, and we weren't trained how to do it the right way."

The "search and avoid" missions appear to have been commonplace around much of Iraq for years now.

Geoff Millard served nine years in the New York Army National Guard, and was in Iraq from October 2004 until October 2005 working for a general at a Tactical Operation Center.

Millard, also a member of IVAW, said that part of his duties included reporting "significant actions", or SIGACTS, which is how the US military describes an attack on their forces.

"We had units that never called in SIGACTS," Millard, who monitored highly volatile areas like Baquba, Tikrit and Samarra, told IPS. "When I was there two years ago, there were at least five companies that never had SIGACTS. I think 'search and avoids' have been going on there for a long time."

Millard told IPS "search and avoid" missions continue today across Iraq. "One of my buddies is in Baghdad right now and we email all the time," he explained, "He just told me that nearly each day they pull into a parking lot, drink soda and shoot at the cans. They pay Iraqi kids to bring them things and spread the word that they are not doing anything and to please just leave them alone."

[54] News from Absurdistan - The Irrationality of...American Foreign Policy

Ron Paul recently referred to Ronald Reagan writing in his memoirs of "the irrationality of politics in the Middle East".

The most worrisome contribution to the irrationality of politics in the Middle East is being made by the USA.

If terrorism (against the homeland) were such an urgent problem, we should have seen attacks carried out on American domestic territory. They would be easy to accomplish, as the borders of the USA remain unprotected.

While episodic terrorism (conducted by individuals or small groups) can never be completely avoided, the probability that you or me will fall victim to it is substantially lower than you or me getting struck by lightning; indubitably, episodic terrorism should be dealt with by genuine police activities or precisely targeted strikes (which the US Administration refused to carry out in Afghanistan, preferring to cover the country with war, while Iraq had definitely nothing to do with 9/11, though contentions to the contrary continue to enjoy wide currency).

It is an immensely dangerous and, indeed, vicious practice of dishonesty to blur the profile of episodic terrorism with the demagogic intent of merging it into a threat scenario based on insinuations or outright claims that the world is faced with a massive force specifically dedicated to bringing unprovoked devastation upon the American people.

What is dubbed "terrorism" is, in fact, the resistance of peoples against the unjustified occupation of their countries by American troupes, and the consequence of participating injudiciously in the violent internal strife in Post-Saddam Iraq or Post-Taliban Afghanistan. Such meddling is not compatible with the constitutional purpose of employing American military forces.

In an ongoing series of ad hoc reasons to justify leading a war in Iraq, reference to "oil" is being made increasingly in recent months - only to epitomise the irrationality of American policies in the Middle East: while the Administration does not seem to have a consensus on whether oil is or is not a rationale for sending troupes in the region, to the extent that this argument is actually advanced and acted upon, it should be noted that it is based on a raptorial fallacy - economically, and ultimately politically, too, there simply isn't a more expensive way of "securing" oil supplies than by violent robbery, which, indeed, tends to foster anti-Americanism and destabilise further countries. Pakistan is making notable advances in that direction, a nuclear power and a country too large and populous to be "policed" imperialistically by American troupes, who have already failed and must fail at such efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The reasons added ad hoc in favour of continuing the occupation of Iraq are ill-conceived attempts to correct failure by new recipes for failure. Instead of holding the Administration accountable for its misleading claim of the existence of WMD in Iraq (which can only have WMD, it appears, when given them by the USA, as in the past) and demanding the withdrawal of troupes sent over there based on that false assumption, the political system (and part of the public) keep accepting new rationales that promptly turn out erroneous: tyranicide to improve the lives of the Iraqi (no business of the USA) has failed, the people of Iraq are worse off than under Saddam; introducing democracy (in the manner of a crusade) does not work, especially not, when the invader makes a mockery of democracy in Iraq by overruling it whenever considered expedient (e.g. when the democratic Iraqi government refuses to allow American bases).

It is to turn matters topsy-turvy to speak of a Muslim jihad against the West, when there is a unilateral jihad being conducted (for decades) by the superior forces of the West against Arab-Muslim territories.

Later, nation-building and regime-change were proudly announced as reasons for invading Iraq. It did not work and should never have been engaged in, to begin with, a position on which George W. Bush ran for President in 2000.

With this unchecked "ad-hocery" of "good" reasons to be at war, the only circumstance to stop the frenzy, other than observance of the Constitution, is the (presumably financial and economic) collapse of the aggressor.

Like Nazi-Germany, the USA seem to have reached a barbarian stage, where it can be stopped from conducting aggressive wars only by its physical incapability to continue the practice.

If the official positions of the US administration on legitimate occasions for military intervention are taken as the standard, there is an endless and unstoppable supply of reasons to go to war - ironically, America is bankrupting itself morally and economically in a war that has been producing evidence every day for years of just how unjustified and pointless the American aggression is. The most expensive war in US history, the Iraq war, has produced no benefits whatsoever to balance its costs (a positive cost-benefit ratio, of course, not being a sufficient justification for conducting a war, to begin with). That is why there is a need to come up with constantly renewed rationales for it; keep the public busy with new worries, feed them new threats faster than they can falsify earlier spin.

Our troupes are now marginally safer over there, that is why we increased their number and will keep them over there - that seemed the bottom-line of Petraeus' report, awaited like the ultimate in truth and wisdom, while, in fact, nothing but a report by a dependent underling of the decider. Withdraw the troupes and they will be safe.

On the crucial point of any deployment of US military forces, the General tersely admitted that he does not know whether safety for America has been increased.

Even those, who buy into the spurious reasons given to justify being at war and extending aggression to other countries, should realise that America is economically and militarily incapable of following up on the proposed scheme of "policing" increasing numbers of foreign countries.

(I cannot go into the matter more deeply here, but I recommend our readers to study the structure and working of the global oil markets, to appreciate that peaceful arrangements are the best and cheapest way to secure oil supplies (and a great incentive for unfriendly regimes to cooperate), and that "oil" cannot be controlled militarily, unless one were to conquer all major oil producing countries in the world.)

Vague and unsubstantiated allegations of terrorist threats, including potential ones [let us bomb Iran, for it might posses nuclear weapons in a few years time], presented, however, with great psychological effect, are enough to create a willingness among those exposed to the warmongering spin-offensive conducted by large sections of the media, to endorse a policy pattern that would imply the bombing and conquest of Italy if a number of Americans were to be killed by the Mafia (and when those bombed and conquered were to resist the occupation, they would qualify as terrorists, which (re-)branding would then be used to "prove" how large a problem "terrorism" is).

Mind you, in the past years, American lives have been lost only to the extent that American foreign policy has put them wilfully and unnecessarily in harm's way.

It seems easier for Iranians to control Mr. A. (who is not the dictator as which he is being portrayed in the West) than it is for the great American nation to rein in its own President, who has been pursuing a demonstrably irrational foreign policy of manifest terror, destruction and annihilation of human life.

The great challenge for the American public is to understand the irrationality of American foreign policy.

[53] News from Absurdistan - Legality Instead of Justice - Technically Refined Barbarism

In my last post, I suggested by way of quote that..."[o]n the basis of laws [meaning: anything legislated and thus formally given the status of law, I.G.T.U.] the modern state permits itself everything, much more than the police state did."

The expansion of legalistic nation states into a bureaucratic superstate is a natural corollary of the destruction of the rule of law (the disinterested and consistent practice of justice) and its replacement by the rule of man (the enforcement of an agenda of special interests by those best organised politically).

It never ceases to amaze me that a few people still seem to notice the deplorable aberration, as does the politician quoted below, when recognising that

"Legislation....has its own momentum, overriding both national and European parliaments."

PA reports that Liberal Democrat MP Richard Younger-Ross has announced that he will oppose the revised EU Constitution in the Commons and will vote for a referendum. He argued that the treaty does nothing to fill the "democratic void in Europe." Younger-Ross, a member of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs and European Scrutiny Committees, said: "Europe is vital to Britain's interests, but as Europe has grown, it has become less democratic and more centralised. Legislation is not properly scrutinised. It has its own momentum, overriding both national and European Parliaments. The Reform Treaty does not address these problems. Gordon Brown has said that there will be no further treaty changes for at least 10 years. That is to freeze in place an undemocratic and centralising system. I cannot accept that. For the sake of democracy, I must oppose this treaty and support calls for a referendum on it."

With regard to the below quote (available from the same link), may I warn that mere democracy is not sufficient to stop arbitrary, runaway government.

Also, in the absence of sound constitutional principles, quite naturally, people are interested in democracy only to the extent that it will support their specific demands and leanings; if the latter can be achieved with less democracy people will be happy with it. If it cannot be achieved, they will ask how strong the powers that be are, and comply meekly, if they find them to be strong enough. With people disposed in this way, it will not be too difficult to ensure that the powers that be hold sway over them.

Our religion of democracy (as an end in itself) is shallow, unprincipled and opportunistic. No one will defend it, if defence comes at a net cost.

Open Europe’s Hugo Robinson has an article on the Open Democracy ‘Our Kingdom’ site. He argues that “If the EU is to survive as an entity fit for an age where citizens demand real democracy, it simply cannot continue to plough on with the outmoded formula of integration by stealth. Europe’s citizens expect better, and deserve better than this. In the long run, the EU can only survive if it is built on the mandate of popular legitimacy”.

[52] News from Absurdistan - Why Germany Does Not Care

There seem to be a few chaps in Britain who object to their country being swallowed up by the European bureaucracy.

As I have repeatedly pointed out in this blog, the Germans could not care less.

They like a powerful government. Given that the EU elites obviously trump the German government (and other governments in Europe), they must be a powerful government, thus concludes the German soul, and, therefore, a good thing to have.

Hauptsache, wir werden regiert ("Main thing, we are being ruled"). Kaiser, Führer, Volkssouverän, europäischer Superstaat - the stronger, the better.

The below article concludes naively:

"Coming only days after agreement on the new EU treaty, which further undermines national sovereignty, one would have thought that there would have been a sharp political reaction in Germany towards this display of EU power [overturning the "Volkswagen Law", see below. I.G.T.U.], over-ruling long-held economic practices at the heart of their regional governments, to say nothing of the implications for other member states.

Maybe that reaction is yet to come but, for the moment – in the light of the muted reports – this looks decidedly like one of those occasions when the dog didn't bark."

As for the wider population, Germans subscribe to such rudimentary and blurred concepts of politics, they would not notice such niceties. And to the politically active the matter is of minor concern: they have their lobbying teams in place at the new Imperial courts in Brussels and elsewhere.

Also, regarding the alleged concern of Germans for federalist structures (see the below quote), it is more useful to work on the assumption that there are no exceptions to German subservience to government - Germans tend to follow the most assertive authority. They have never been acquainted with the idea that authority is to be restrained by law, instead they believe that authority is to be expressed by law. In other words: they keep growing up - generation by generation - conceiving that law derives from governmental authority (see especially my conclusion and the quote inserted at the end of this post).

In 1933, the Germans were told to believe in the collective culpability of the Jews and played along. In 1945, the Germans were told to believe in the collective culpability of the non-Jewish part of the German population, and played along.

Germans are always politically correct, and political correctness is defined by the strongest in the political arena.

For more, see my posts

[43] News from Absurdistan - EU Wagging the Dog, Brits Perplexed
[42] News from Absurdistan - British Death Wish(es)

EU Referendum has this story:

A total of 610 posts on Google News tell the story of the ECJ yesterday overturning what is now being called the "Volkswagen Law" – thus preventing German Länder from holding blocking shares in local businesses, preventing them being taken over.

However, almost all of the reports take a business perspective, with much speculation as to whether the ruling will now allow Porsche AG to take control of Volkswagen, Europe's biggest car maker.

However, when we first picked up this story in July 2004, what came over was how intensely political it was, to the extent that we wrote:

The VW firm is part-owned by the Land (Region) of Lower Saxony, of which Schröder was once president, who also sat on the VW board. And it is this type of financial arrangement – replicated in other Länder with other major firms – which underpins the autonomy of the German regional governments.

The commission, therefore, is challenging the core political structure of Germany, where regional loyalty is much stronger than is any feeling towards the federal government. This is almost a case of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object.

All we get from the current reports, though, is that the ECJ decision is expected to have "wider ramifications" across Europe, where many governments have tried to protect companies they see as vital to their economies from takeovers, particularly foreign ones.

Yet, this ruling does indeed strike at the heart of the economic sovereignty of member states, and for that reason had been hotly contested by the Länder which had been defying the EU commission for years until it lost patience and took Lower Saxony to court on what was clearly a test case.

Coming only days after agreement on the new EU treaty, which further undermines national sovereignty, one would have thought that there would have been a sharp political reaction in Germany towards this display of EU power, over-ruling long-held economic practices at the heart of their regional governments, to say nothing of the implications for other member states.

Maybe that reaction is yet to come but, for the moment – in the light of the muted reports – this looks decidedly like one of those occasions when the dog didn't bark.

The idea of constitutional restraints on government is utterly alien to German thinking. Hence, Germans are not that excited about fundamental constitutional issues. He, who does not understand the rule of law ("Rechtsstaat") does not understand the significance of a constitution. This is the reason why Germans are intellectually incapable of grasping the worries that nationals of countries with a strong constitutional record feel in the face of plans to supplant their constitutional structures by a constitution of the EU.

This being so, Germans do not even suspect that their country has been the spearhead of the destruction of the Rechtsstaat, i.e. the rule of law, and have remained completely unperturbed by its absence to this day. Rechtsstaat is just a word to Germans, made additionally malleable in the "Grundgesetz" (a document hoping to be something like the German constitution) by prefixing it with the the elastic term sozial ("social"). Germans think that they live in a Rechtsstaat, simply because the term is frequently used in conversation. And they are immensely proud of it, even though something like a Rechtsstaat does not exist in Germany.

Here is a glimpse into why there is no such thing as the rule of law in Germany, and, therefore, not much interest in constitutional matters:

"It was [beginning in the second half of the 19th century, I.G.T.U.]...here [in Germany, I.G.T.U.]that the ideal of the rule of law was first deprived of real content.

The substantive conception of the Rechtsstaat, which required that the rules of law possess definite properties, was displaced by a purely formal concept which required merely that all action of the state be authorized by the legislature.

In short, a "law" was that which merely stated that whatever a certain authority did should be legal. The problem thus became one of mere legality.

By the turn of the century it had become accepted doctrine that the "individualist" ideal of the substantive Rechtsstaat was a thing of the past, "vanquished by the creative powers of national and social ideas."

Or, as an authority on administrative law described the situation shortly before the outbreak of the first World War: "We have returned to the principles of the police state [!] to such an extent that we again recognize the idea of a Kulturstaat [the best contemporary equivalent would be "a state in conformity with political correctness", I.G.T.U.]. The only difference is in the means. On the basis of laws the modern state permits itself everything, much more than the police state did. Thus, in the course of the nineteenth century, the term Rechtsstaat was given a new meaning. We understand by it a state whose whole activity takes place on the basis of laws and in legal form. On the purpose of the state and the limits of its competence the term Rechtsstaat in its present-day meaning says nothing."

(F.A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, Chapter 16, The Decline of the Law, p.237, Chicago 1978)

[51] News from Absurdistan - Kids with Guns, Now and Then

Alan Scholl of the John Birch Society shares his reflections on changes in human behaviour - click on the post's headline to read the full article:

Paranoia runs deep on the East Coast. A drawing of a water-pistol spreads panic among parents, violates a "zero-tolerance" policy, and draws a school suspension for a seven year old boy. What a sad, strange world.

What a distorted world. Can anyone recall what it was like before the world was turned seemingly upside down? I can.

I recall that from the 5th grade to the 8th grade, (ages 10 to almost 14) I used to take a shotgun to school with me so that I could hunt the ditch banks for quail, pheasant, squirrels, rabbits, ducks, and doves on the way home. Yes, I also killed furry woodland creatures and birds — we ate a lot of them. Don’t get me wrong, I love little furry woodland critters and birds — especially with mashed potatoes, and good gravy. Sorry PETA.

That old 20 gauge single-shot shotgun sat in the corner of the coat closet near the front door at my school all day, unloaded, with the shells on a high shelf to keep them out of the hands of the "little kids" (Kindergartners and 1st through 4th graders). Everyone knew it wasn’t dangerous if unloaded, and everyone knew enough to unload it if it wasn’t being used for the purposes for which it was designed. This last is a simple bit of elementay firearms safety that every generation of Americans for 230 years has known.

The principal, who was about 65 then and had taught there for four decades, was also the only teacher of the 4th through 8th grades at this two-room schoolhouse. He did once comment about my shotgun being at school. He picked it up, looked it over, sighted down the barrel out the window, and said: "Nice 20-guage Alan." Then he put it back where I had leaned it in the corner of what was called the "cloak room" and returned to his class. Other students knew better than to touch it, either because they knew it wasn’t theirs and respected the private property of others, or because their parents had taught them not to play with guns or touch other peoples' property. They knew then that they would risk punishment of various kinds at the hands of the owners or their own parents or the teacher, who carried and used a thick oak ruler to administer corporal punishment.

Today, as an adult of 55, if I returned to that school with the same shotgun in a locked case, unloaded, locked and untouched in the trunk of my car, I could and, likely would, be arrested for simply owning it and having in within some arbitrary distance of a public school.

What was right with the world in my youth, that is wrong with the one we live in today? A lack of consequences, responsibility, discipline, education, and common sense, not guns. It's about ime to restore those values and practices, I think.

[50] News from Absurdistan - LOST, Drowning in Power Machinations

Behind the thin veil of democracy, special interest groups, bureaucracies, political elites and the likes feeding on the money forcefully extracted from the people are engaged in an uninhibited free-for-all to collect their prize.

In a frenzy for loot, the West has ceased to be a civilization, becoming a mass producer of irrational outcomes of the most dangerous kind.

When will the public begin to understand that Western countries are the most corrupt, irrational and systematically immoral force worldwide?

The West has been involved in a massive, unilateral crusade against the Muslim world for decades, but the media speak of an "Islamofascist Jihad" threatening our part of the world, something that has never taken place.

Iran is to be attacked because it is supposedly dominated by a dictator [sic] irrationally bent on nuking the West, or undermining its culture, or conquering it, or...

The frightening thing is that the West's actions increasingly add up to something very irrational and, unlike its imaginary enemies, it has the resources to act out its irrationality powerfully and recklessly - and it does not care who the victims of it all will be, that is: including itself.

Courtesy of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, here is another example of the self-dissolution of the traditions that once gave the West the ability to discover, understand and care for modern civilization:

“The Law of the Sea Treaty would assert United Nations control over all ocean resources and channel all mining and development through a vast new U.N.-created bureaucracy,” explained Fred L. Smith, Jr., president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

“NGO environmental groups would use provisions in the treaty to force Kyoto-type climate change regulations on the U.S., all without a single vote in Congress,” Smith added. “Ratification of LOST will almost certainly lead to judicially-implemented restrictions on CO2 emissions.”

Despite the implications of ratification, the Senate has held only two hearings on these important issues, both by the pro-treaty Foreign Relations Committee.

Washington, D.C., October 23, 2007—With United Nations Day celebrations coming up on October 24, Senate Democrats are leading an effort to pass the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would cede massive powers to a new U.N. bureaucracy.

“If our lawmakers are determined to push through this disastrous treaty, they should at least vet it before committees responsible for national security, economic oversight, environment, agriculture, commerce, and the military,” said Smith.

[49] News Absurdistan - Clean Air Regulation Hazardous to Health

I am picking this bizarre piece of governmental improvement for the worse at random from innumerable, similar instances - for the full text, click on the post's headline:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a new and unreasonable federal standard for ozone air pollution that is much stricter than the current limit, say H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis and Joel Schwartz, an NCPA E-Team Adjunct Scholar.

A more stringent ozone standard might be worthwhile if current ozone levels posed a significant threat to human health. However, under the current standard, levels of ozone and the pollutants that combine to form it are declining. For instance:

* Levels of NOx (oxides of nitrogen [NO and NO2] produced during combustion) decreased 37 percent between 1980 and 2005.
* Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) fell 47 percent.
* Peak 8-hour ozone levels declined 20 percent, and days per year exceeding the 8-hour standard fell 79 percent.

Making the standard stricter will not be cost free:

* The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates that every $7.5 million to $12 million in regulatory costs imposed on the economy results in one life lost.
* The EPA estimates that attempts to meet the new standards would cost $10 billion to $22 billion per year, making it among the most expensive federal regulations ever.
* The OMB estimates new ozone regulations would result in at least 833 to 2,933 premature deaths, as Americans' incomes are diverted to complying with the EPA's regulations and away from housing, food, education and other things that improve people's health and welfare.

The newly proposed EPA standard poses a significant risk of public harm with little reason to expect much in the way of benefits. The EPA should withdraw its proposal to tighten the ozone standard, and acknowledge that the current standard already protects Americans' health with room to spare, say Burnett and Schwartz.

Source: H. Sterling Burnett and Joel Schwartz, "A Clean Air Regulation Hazardous to Health," Brief Analysis No. 598, National Center for Policy Analysis, October 22, 2007.

For text:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba598/

[48] News from Absurdistan - The Global Warming Swindle

An interventionist government - the ideal of all Western political systems - is incompatible with and fatally destructive of the rule of law.

Democracy, as we practice it, is a system whereby a majority must be bought (largely by the promise to serve special interests) or otherwise manipulated to satisfy the delusive notion of a government consented to by "the people".

The winner in this game is granted exceptional powers to interfere with our lives.

Therefore, he and other contenders of such power must dramatise the need of the proposed interventions. Hence, the tendency to accord many issues on the political agenda war-type urgency. Hence, the many wars our government is fighting - against foreigners, drugs, environmental threats, and so on.

Whether a military attack on Iran or measures supposedly needed to curb global warming, the great causes of our governments conform to the same pattern of over-dramatisation, at the root of which lies the structural deficiency of modern democracy - its invitation and, indeed, compulsive requirement to appeal to absolutes for a power-seeker to appear supremely important to be awarded democracy's ultimate prize: the status of absolute ruler.

In this way, the rule of the people - originally devised to restrain absolute power - is cleverly used to reinforce in the our minds the need for absolute power.

Insights into the processes of compulsory deceit and manipulation inherent in our political order can be gathered from the below excerpts from a notable contribution by Richard S. Lindzen: "Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus"

Amazingly, this piece was published in...1992.

For the full article, click on the post's headline.

Richard Lindzen writes:

The Temptation and Problems of "Global Warming''

As Aaron Wildavsky, professor of political science at Berkeley, has quipped, "global warming'' is the mother of all environmental scares. Wildavsky's view is worth quoting. "Warming (and warming alone), through its primary antidote of withdrawing carbon from production and consumption, is capable of realizing the environmentalist's dream of an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favor of a smaller population's eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally.'' In many ways Wildavsky's observation does not go far enough. The point is that carbon dioxide is vitally central to industry, transportation, modern life, and life in general. It has been joked that carbon dioxide controls would permit us to inhale as much as we wish; only exhaling would be controlled. The remarkable centrality of carbon dioxide means that dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas--some legitimate, some less so: energy efficiency, reduced dependence on Middle Eastern oil, dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), international competition, governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power.

The very scale of the problem as popularly portrayed and the massive scale of the suggested responses have their own appeal. The Working Group I report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested, for example, that a 60 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions might be needed. Such a reduction would call for measures that would be greater than those that have been devoted to war and defense. And just as defense has dealt with saving one's nation, curbing "global warming'' is identified with saving the whole planet! It may not be fortuitous that this issue is being promoted at just the moment in history when the cold war is ending.

Major agencies in the United States, hitherto closely involved with traditional approaches to national security, have appropriated the issue of climate change to support existing efforts. Notable among those agencies are NASA, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy. The cold war helped spawn a large body of policy experts and diplomats specializing in issues such as disarmament and alliance negotiations. In addition, since the Yom Kippur War, energy has become a major component of national security with the concomitant creation of a large cadre of energy experts. Many of those individuals see in the global change issue an area in which to continue applying their skills. Many scientists also feel that national security concerns formed the foundation for the U.S. government's generous support of science. As the urgency of national security, traditionally defined, diminishes, there is a common feeling that a substitute foundation must be established. "Saving the planet'' has the right sort of sound to it. Fundraising has become central to environmental advocates' activities, and the message underlying some of their fundraising seems to be "pay us or you'll fry.''

Clearly, "global warming'' is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit. Equally clearly, though far less frequently discussed, are the profound dangers in exploiting that issue. As we shall also see, there are good reasons why there has been so little discussion of the downside of responding to "global warming.''

A parochial issue is the danger to the science of climatology. As far as I can tell, there has actually been reduced funding for existing climate research. That may seem paradoxical, but, at least in the United States, the vastly increased number of scientists and others involving themselves in climate as well as the gigantic programs attaching themselves to climate have substantially outstripped the increases in funding. Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the "right'' results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of "global warming'' in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). Finally, given the momentum that has been building up among so many interest groups to fight "global warming,'' it becomes downright embarrassing to support basic climate research. After all, one would hate to admit that one had mobilized so many resources without the basic science's being in place. Nevertheless, given the large increase in the number of people associating themselves with climatology and the dependence of much of that community on the perceived threat of warming, it seems unlikely that the scientific community will offer much resistance. I should add that as ever greater numbers of individuals attach themselves to the warming problem, the pressures against solving the problem grow proportionally; an inordinate number of individuals and groups depend on the problem's remaining.

In addition to climatologists, are there other groups that are at risk? Here, one might expect that industry could be vulnerable, and, indeed, it may be. At least in the United States, however, industries seem to be primarily concerned with improving their public image, often by supporting environmental activists. Moreover, some industries have become successful at profiting from environmental regulation. The most obvious example is the waste management industry. Even electric utility companies have been able to use environmental measures to increase the base on which their regulated profits are calculated. It is worth noting that about 1.7 trillion dollars have been spent on the environment over the past decade. The environment, itself, qualifies as one of our major industries.

If Wildavsky's scenario is correct, the major losers would be ordinary people. Wealth that could have been used to raise living standards in much of the world would be squandered. Living standards in the developed world would decrease. Regulatory apparatuses would restrict individual freedom on an unprecedented scale. Here too, however, one cannot expect much resistance to proposed actions--at least not initially. Public perceptions, under the influence of extensive, deceptive, and one-sided publicity, can become disconnected from reality. For example, Alabama has had a pronounced cooling trend since 1935. Nevertheless, a poll among professionals in Alabama found that about 95 percent of the participants believed that the climate had been warming over the past fifty years and that the warming was due to the greenhouse effect. Public misperceptions coupled with a sincere desire to "save the planet'' can force political action even when politicians are aware of the reality.

What the above amounts to is a societal instability. At a particular point in history, a relatively minor suggestion or event serves to mobilize massive interests. While the proposed measures may be detrimental, resistance is largely absent or coopted. In the case of climate change, the probability that the proposed regulatory actions would for the most part have little impact on climate, regardless of the scenario chosen, appears to be of no consequence.

Modelling and Societal Instability

So far I have emphasized the political elements in the current climate hysteria. There can be no question, however, that scientists are abetting this situation. Concerns about funding have already been mentioned. There is, however, another perhaps more important element to the scientific support. The existence of modern computing power has led to innumerable modelling efforts in many fields. Supercomputers have allowed us to consider the behavior of systems seemingly too complex for other approaches. One of those systems is climate. Not surprisingly, there are many problems involved in modelling climate. For example, even supercomputers are inadequate to allow long-term integrations of the relevant equations at adequate spatial resolutions. At presently available resolutions, it is unlikely that the computer solutions are close to the solutions of the underlying equations. In addition, the physics of unresolved phenomena such as clouds and other turbulent elements is not understood to the extent needed for incorporation into models. In view of those problems, it is generally recognized that models are at present experimental tools whose relation to the real world is questionable.

While there is nothing wrong in using those models in an experimental mode, there is a real dilemma when they predict potentially dangerous situations. Should scientists publicize such predictions since the models are almost certainly wrong? Is it proper to not publicize the predictions if the predicted danger is serious? How is the public to respond to such predictions? The difficulty would be diminished if the public understood how poor the models actually are. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to hold in awe anything that emerges from a sufficiently large computer. There is also a reluctance on the part of many modellers to admit to the experimental nature of their models lest public support for their efforts diminish. Nevertheless, with poor and uncertain models in wide use, predictions of ominous situations are virtually inevitable--regardless of reality.

Such weak predictions feed and contribute to what I have already described as a societal instability that can cascade the most questionable suggestions of danger into major political responses with massive economic and social consequences. I have already discussed some of the reasons for this instability: the existence of large cadres of professional planners looking for work, the existence of advocacy groups looking for profitable causes, the existence of agendas in search of saleable rationales, and the ability of many industries to profit from regulation, coupled with an effective neutralization of opposition. It goes almost without saying that the dangers and costs of those economic and social consequences may be far greater than the original environmental danger. That becomes especially true when the benefits of additional knowledge are rejected and when it is forgotten that improved technology and increased societal wealth are what allow society to deal with environmental threats most effectively. The control of societal instability may very well be the real challenge facing us.