Photo EBU

The peculiar, but by now a sort of fancy kitsch, the Eurovisioncontest, is on again. This time in Baku, the not so democratic Republic of Azerbaijan. (Use the link to check out some of the songs. Montenegro has some, well interesting, lyrics.)

This has raised some concern over the possible PR, the, no doubt nasty regime, might get. As the same discussion is going on concerning soccer, let me say that I’m generally reluctant to boycotts, and specifically those carried out by government. Boycotting private companies, as was the case with the hysteria over French wines and nukes some years ago, is both stupid and insulting. And even not boycotting governmental monopolies might be a good idea. If I got clearance, naturally out of the question, to operate freely as a journalist in North Chorea, it would be more than stupid to refuse to use whatever electricity, phone services or lodging there is, on the ground that it’s run by a communist regime. Hey, everything is. If it’s running at all, that is.

Sometimes, you tend to think twice though. Not about if boycotts are effective, but if they might be justified. To clear way for the Eurovision, the government quite frankly confiscated peoples’ houses, to clear the way for the stage. In this case, with a short notice, the owners were compensated with 50 percent of the “market value“. How you calculate such in expropriation I’ve never understood. The same goes for the worst environmental crimes, regardless of energy source, committed not by energy companies on a free market, but by energy companies working in collusion with the government.

The damage is done. Sadly enough. So not going would probably just make things worse. Try to spread some fresh ideas while there instead! On the other hand, at least one of the finalists had some difficulties in grasping the possible dilemma. Because Baku is in the Caribbeans, is it not?

Please Come Back to Europe

Intended another story, but some issues just make me tired. Like the tiny news piece yesterday in the local paper, informing us that the local community – in a basically monopolized health care market – would no longer provide so called Laughing Gas, to women giving birth.

The reason given was that it hurts the environment.

I’m rather aware of the potential hazards, also to nurses and doctors, of all sorts of anesthesia. And of precautions taken. But why this word “environment“?

Earlier, the talk in the environmental debate was that the worst villain was women eating contraceptives.

I will never give birth, for the simple reason that I’m a man, but I know enough ladies to imagine the suffering (sure, sometimes, it’s just a walk in the park) and anxiety with a pregnancy and birth.

Neither can I eat contraceptive pills, because they are still women only, but again, I know enough women to know that there are health hazards involved. Diminishing, but still risky.

Now, why use “environment” to attack the vast 50 percent of the general population who are female? Never understood those male politicians who pledged to be “feminists”. I still don’t, but if you don’t stop harassing my lady friends, I will certainly reconsider.

Sidewalks are slippery, with the newly arrived and thus unusual European winter. Traffic is as bad as every year and people are frantic to make last minute purchases.

Then comes another old tradition, with a new name. It used to be some mumbo jumbo about not exploiting something, now the young hooligans blocking traffic and shopping malls call it a Climate Action.

Could, in the midst of winter, these kids at least try to show some decency towards their fellow men and women, who are just out to – with or without wheelchair or crutches – risking their health in order to spend a nice holiday.

Grumpy? You bet. But, Yes, this is not a season for grumpiness. Please take my advice, go sit on Santa’s lap instead of harassing people. Who knows, we might even get peace, prosperity and a clear sky to contemplate on that star up above.

The fact that you didn’t make it in Durban does not give you the right to deny others to enjoy the pleasures of the season. Merry Decency to you all.

Hey Lady! Got a Light?

Don’t you agree? On the anti smoking issue, that is. On the one hand, people in general are just giving up, resigning in the face of oppression and harassment. On the other, some – maybe an increasing amount of people – are beginning to feel that enough is enough. Some even dare to say so in public.

Let me be one of them, enouraged by a – today non smoking – brother in arms.

Dr Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance has made a bold effort to reintroduce science into the debate, otherwise carried out either by uninformed legislators or the, often just as uninformed, public.

The passive smoking, or as it is sometimes referred to, Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS), roughly took off about 30 years ago with a widely quoted EPA report in the US, quickly dismissed as nonsense by a subsequent analysis from the Congressional Research Center, not gaining much attention. Legislators followed. Air traffic came first, then public buildings, airports, trains, restaurants, now even pubs, and the hyenas are out sniffing for balconies, peoples homes, and now even their cars. Oh, yes, forgot the outdoor cafes, already banning smoking in some places, and probably the top thing next European summer. Sure, there has been a load of more or less scientific attempts since then.

Writes Gabb:

“The argument from “passive smoking” is based on falsehoods. There is no way of gathering meaningful data, nor even sound epidemiological evidence that passive smoking exists. The alleged figure of 300,000 children harmed every year in the UK by passive smoking is what is called a “junk statistic.” It is in the same league as the claims made in the 1980s about the number of people who would die of aids by 1990, or the claims made in the 1990s about the numbers who would soon be dead from mad cow disease. It is almost as gross a falsehood as the fraudulent global warming claims made by British scientists.”

Letting voodoo into the rules for governmental buildings is one thing. As for the airlines, well, the result apparently was less cost for ventilation/fresh oxygen, and a jump in so called air rage, which in turn was used as an excuse to cut down on the free drinks.

But moving further, to the situation today, when it’s regarded as perfectly normal to harass smokers standing on the sidewalk (where-else should we be), it’s strange to notice the – frankly rather stunning- disrespect for private property. Some European countries still allow smoking in bars, if not in restaurants, but even that is to be taken away. Germany, seems to be one of the few decent countries left. Austria introduced a rule a few years ago that you had to have separate sections and advertise on the entrance door if you were a smokers place or not. Quite acceptable from a patron’s point of view. This is now tightening. Belgium has fallen, as has France. One of the last times I had a decent smoke indoors was in the secluded smokers area (air proof) at one one Copenhagen’s oldest hang-outs, in connection to the Climate Fiasco in 2009.

Remains the fact that smoking can be impolite, just as hitting on total strangers, or invading private property. Remains the golden rule of survival in a civilized society: Common Decency.

Just found out that (according to BBC):

“When you were born, you were the:3,453,632,094th person alive on Earth and 77,442,249,607thperson to have lived since history began”

Go on, take the test. Don’t know what it’s really good for, but it’s a bit of fun, at least if you are easily amused. And please help me figure out how the exact numbers were calculated.

It’s apparently the magic in the numbers that now has awaken the Neo Malthusians, as we are supposed to reach seven billion any day now (Monday, according to the UN). Why not 6, 123 or 7,456? No, it’s the magic number. Over population is the scare of the day.

Well, walk outside and check if it’s really that crowded. Every time this scare appears, the doomsayers ignore some basic observations.

Some parts of the world, e.g, parts of Africa, rather suffer from too few people, with a poor infrastructure. The most crowded country in Europe (not counting those really tiny ones) is Holland. Last time I was in Holland, I did not hear anyone complain.

Many major European cities suffer from a housing shortage and excessive rental costs. To make a comparison, Stockholm has been struggling with the problem for decades, in Brussels, you can get a nice flat for a decent price just looking around during an afternoon. In the city with most expats per capita in the Union. The former city is highly regulated since WWII, the latter virtually lacks any regulations of the housing, or rental market. And when trying to navigate, you at least get the feeling that there has been no city planning since Leopold II. Good so.

Nativity varies and it is a well known fact that people tend to produce more offspring during war and poverty. Some, more well off, European countries are suffering from declining populations, bringing a threats to e.g. pension schemes.

But most importantly, never leave your moral compass in the desk drawer. Anytime you hear someone elaborate on the virtues of the – unbelievably inhuman – one child policy in China, or as a few Greens actually can do, consider forms of genocide, academically of course, it is claimed, check your premises and remind yourself of the one thing that really matters. Creating and caring for children are the most private parts of our existence. And should so remain.

The Mobility Week is on again. The sort of expansion of the Green Week/In Town Without my Car Week, sponsored by the EU and participating cities, in other words tax money to make life harder for people.

This has been a yearly event for ten years now, making lives more difficult.

I don’t mind any of the suggested alternatives to cars. I walk. I bike. I use public transportation.

What I don’t like is people walking into me, crazy bikers or waiting for public transportation for an hour.

And I tend to care for those who can’t do any of this. This morning, I once again met my neighbour. I simply can’t resist being impressed by the way she gets out of her wheelchair, gets it into the vehicle and drives off. Once, she asked me for help. Normally, never.

I’d like to meet the cop who will tell her – or the ambulance driver for that matter – that she should take the bus.

It’s old news, but hey, that’s history for you.

A new booktakes a look at both the history of the cold war and the environmental movement. And especially environmental impact from both. You may not agree with everything, but sometimes it’s important to remember how absurd the world really was in those days.

The major part of Europe put in ruins, by all sides, during WWII. The rebuilding of Germany, well, West Germany, and the continous lunacy in Stalinist Russia.

The Soviet rapid industrialization put aside any environmental concern. Not to mention safety.

The worst lunacy, probably, potentially dangerous for all of the world, the reverse of the floods, was halted. If that project really had been carried out, you could possibly talk of real man made climate change.

Wars and famine are the worst environmental problems. Though the so called West were not always the nicest chaps. that’s nothing compared to the – partly deliberate (Ukraine), partly unavoidable – starvation in – Yes – The Evil Empire.

At the same time, the Green movement went around cursing, guess who?

CFACT mourns the loss of Franz Joseph Otto Robert Maria Anton Karl Max Heinrich Sixtus Xavier Felix Renatus Ludwig Gaetan Pius Ignatius von Habsburg, a great European and advocate for individual freedom and dignity.  CFACT will be well represented at the funeral in Vienna with both Holger Thuss and Einar Du Rietz attending.   He will be buried together with his wife Regina, who died in February 2010, in Vienna’s Imperial Burial Vault on 16 July 2011.  Funeral arrangements.

Bureaucracies and weed have the thing in common that when not controlled, they grow beyond control. The same goes for governmental organisations, supra national or others, with the addition that it’s most often difficult even to find out who’s in charge, what the mandate is, not to mention the plan. Delegates and functionaries, as well as paid scientists seem to be on a constant world tour, with one only goal in common, to grow and find enough solid ground and symbolic conflicts to justify next year’s tour. The only thing certain is that someone else will have to foot the bill.

So, what to do, when all the old topics have been carefully transferred to – also growing – sub organizations? Where’s the new new mission to pay for next year’s lunches?

One suggestion from French President Sarkozy is already on the table for the 2012 environmental conference Rio+20. Here’s a good update with links to various documents.

“The Rio Earth Summit in May 2012 will try to set a global vision on greening the economy, with France leading European calls to establish a brand new World Environmental Organisation (WEO).”

The amount of documentation – and what will follow during the year – is more than enough to keep everyone busy, but some of the wordings are already rather intriguing.

Goals first: “A major goal of the initiative is to address market failures in tackling the environmental fall-out of economic activity (applying the ‘polluter pays’ principle or the so-called ‘internalisation of externalities’). It also addresses social goals, such as jobs, the overall macroeconomic framework and development policy.”

A sub goal in this is said to be the, from an economic perspective more than intriguing, ambition to “Getting prices right”. 

And the wording: “The current talks are mainly focused on the establishment of a specialised UN agency for the environment or upgrading the existing UNEP, which lacks the authority to push ambitious policies.”

The authority. Think about the implications for a bit. Where are we really heading?

Is the fear for the secret establishment of a world government really justified?

“To ensure consistency at global level, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has championed the idea of a World Environment Organisation (WEO) that would be responsible for ensuring coherent and effective action across multiple levels of decision-making.”

I rest my case. ET, come pick me up. We are out of here.