Senator McCain is right again:
"I think he is responsible," McCain told CNN's Jake Tapper and National Journal's Ron Fournier at a "Politics on Tap" event in Washington. "I mean it wasn't Vladimir Putin that pushed the button to launch the missile, but the whole scenario, including the buildup of Russian troops across the border ... I think that he gave them material and the wherewithal to do it - or facilitated that - and facilitated a situation that was very possible for them to do it."--
"This tragedy would not have happened, if there had been peace on that land, or in any case, if military operations in southeastern Ukraine had not been renewed," Putin said in televised remarks. "And without a doubt the government of the territory on which it happened bears responsibility for this frightening tragedy."
But McCain asserted that the actions of pro-Russian separatist forces in Ukraine have been coordinated by the Russians, and Putin should be punished for their actions if they are found to be involved.
Yes, Vladimir Putin should of course be punished. He should be brought before the International Criminal Court in the Hague, which is the right place to deal with this kind of crimes.
Saturday, 19 July 2014
Friday, 18 July 2014
Great news from Australia: The world´s most expensive carbon tax is gone!
Reason to celebrate:
As of today, Australia no longer has the most expensive “carbon” price in the world. The voters didn’t ask for a tax in 2010, but it was forced on them in 2011. They rejected it wholeheartedly in 2013 but it still has taken months to start unwinding this completely pointless piece of symbolism which aimed to change the weather. The machinery of democracy may be slow, but this is a win for voters.
11:15am EST today: The Australian Senate passes the carbon tax repeal bill.
As of today, Australia no longer has the most expensive “carbon” price in the world. The voters didn’t ask for a tax in 2010, but it was forced on them in 2011. They rejected it wholeheartedly in 2013 but it still has taken months to start unwinding this completely pointless piece of symbolism which aimed to change the weather. The machinery of democracy may be slow, but this is a win for voters.
11:15am EST today: The Australian Senate passes the carbon tax repeal bill.
“Australia has become the first country in the world to abolish a price on carbon, with the Senate passing the Abbott government’s repeal bills 39 votes to 32.“ SMH
Now we need to turn off the tap to all the other green gravy rent-seekers who ignore the evidence.
Ukraine: Russian-backed Cossack militants shot down Malaysian plane
It now appears clear who shot down the Malaysian plane over Ukraine:
Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200 flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur was allegedly shot down by a group of Russian-backed Cossack militants near the village of Chornukhine, Luhansk Oblast, some 80 kilometers north-west of Donetsk, according to recordings of intercepted phone calls between Russian military intelligence officers and members of terrorist groups, released by the country’s security agency (SBU).
Garry Kasparov is right:
Garry Kasparov @Kasparov63 ·
Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200 flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur was allegedly shot down by a group of Russian-backed Cossack militants near the village of Chornukhine, Luhansk Oblast, some 80 kilometers north-west of Donetsk, according to recordings of intercepted phone calls between Russian military intelligence officers and members of terrorist groups, released by the country’s security agency (SBU).
Garry Kasparov is right:
Garry Kasparov @Kasparov63 ·
As always, the price of weakness goes up. Had the invasion & annexation of Crimea been resisted, some would have died, but not this.
Saturday, 12 July 2014
The Daily Telegraph's defence editor: "When it comes to the crunch, the Germans are far from being reliable allies"
Why does the US consider it necessary to spy against Germany, supposedly one of its closest allies?The Telegraph's defence editor Con Coughlin gives a compelling answer:
We know, thanks to the treacherous activities of Edward Snowden, that America's NSA spy network regularly listened into the mobile phone conversations of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. But that is small fry compared to the allegations now being made against the CIA, which is now accused of running two high-ranking agents at the heart of the Germany's security establishment.
And finding out what tactics the German football team might use in Sunday night's World Cup final is not what is on the spooks' agenda.
The reason I believe the CIA has agents working for the German defence ministry and intelligence service is that Washington – and indeed London – feel that, despite the fact Germany is supposed to be a leading member of the Western alliance, the Germans are not entirely trustworthy.
You only have to look at how the Germans responded to the recent crisis over Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea to see that Berlin is not always playing on the same side as the rest of us.
While other leading Western powers such as America and Britain were urging tough action against the Kremlin to persuade Russian President Vladimir Putin to back down – a policy that appears to have worked, by the way – Mrs Merkel seemed more interested in protecting Germany's business interests with Russia.
Nor is this the first time that Berlin has pulled in a different direction from the rest of the Western alliance. During the Libyan conflict three years ago the Germans sided with Moscow in opposing military action against Libya's Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, and actively sought to undermine the Nato mission be refusing to provide vital air tankers to refuel Nato warplanes.
When it comes to the crunch, the Germans are far from being reliable allies, and understanding what the Germans are really up to is vital when it comes to making our own decisions about how to respond to global threats to our security, whether it is Mr Putin's military adventurism or Iran's obsession with building atom bombs.
We know, thanks to the treacherous activities of Edward Snowden, that America's NSA spy network regularly listened into the mobile phone conversations of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. But that is small fry compared to the allegations now being made against the CIA, which is now accused of running two high-ranking agents at the heart of the Germany's security establishment.
And finding out what tactics the German football team might use in Sunday night's World Cup final is not what is on the spooks' agenda.
The reason I believe the CIA has agents working for the German defence ministry and intelligence service is that Washington – and indeed London – feel that, despite the fact Germany is supposed to be a leading member of the Western alliance, the Germans are not entirely trustworthy.
You only have to look at how the Germans responded to the recent crisis over Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea to see that Berlin is not always playing on the same side as the rest of us.
While other leading Western powers such as America and Britain were urging tough action against the Kremlin to persuade Russian President Vladimir Putin to back down – a policy that appears to have worked, by the way – Mrs Merkel seemed more interested in protecting Germany's business interests with Russia.
Nor is this the first time that Berlin has pulled in a different direction from the rest of the Western alliance. During the Libyan conflict three years ago the Germans sided with Moscow in opposing military action against Libya's Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, and actively sought to undermine the Nato mission be refusing to provide vital air tankers to refuel Nato warplanes.
When it comes to the crunch, the Germans are far from being reliable allies, and understanding what the Germans are really up to is vital when it comes to making our own decisions about how to respond to global threats to our security, whether it is Mr Putin's military adventurism or Iran's obsession with building atom bombs.
Tuesday, 8 July 2014
The BBC is brainwashing its news staff to deny "climate deniers" access to airtime
A formerly venerable broadcasting organisation is wasting license payers' money on brainwashing its news staff to deny critics of global warming access to airtime:
Reporters for BBC News are being directed to significantly curb the amount of air time they give to people with anti-science viewpoints — including people who deny climate change exists — in order to improve the accuracy and fairness of the network’s news coverage, according to a report released by the BBC’s governing body on Thursday.
The BBC Trust’s report was designed to assess the network’s impartiality in science coverage, in other words, whether it is staying neutral on critical issues. In order to be neutral when covering science, however, the BBC noted it needs to avoid “false balance,” a fallacy that occurs when two sides of an argument are assumed to have equal value.
“Science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views but depends on the varying degree of prominence such views should be given,” the report said.
The type of “false balance” news segment that the BBC is now actively trying to avoid is one that is fairly common in American network news’ climate change coverage. It involves putting one person who is well-versed on climate science next to a person who denies climate science, and having them debate.
Editorially, this type of debate makes the network look like it’s being balanced, giving equal opportunity to opposite viewpoints. However, because 95 to 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are causing the planet to warm, that balance is false, giving disproportionate time to a viewpoint that is widely rejected in the scientific community.
In order to have a truly balanced and statistically representative debate about climate change, television news networks would have to pit 97 climate scientists against three climate deniers. Because that likely wouldn’t work very well, the BBC is favoring an approach that instead severely limits the amount of air time climate deniers are given.
So far, the report said, approximately 200 staff members have attended seminars and workshops aimed at improving the balance of their science coverage.
Fortunately, more and more people have decided to "favour an approach" that severely limits the amount of time spent listening to or watching BBC programmes.
Reporters for BBC News are being directed to significantly curb the amount of air time they give to people with anti-science viewpoints — including people who deny climate change exists — in order to improve the accuracy and fairness of the network’s news coverage, according to a report released by the BBC’s governing body on Thursday.
The BBC Trust’s report was designed to assess the network’s impartiality in science coverage, in other words, whether it is staying neutral on critical issues. In order to be neutral when covering science, however, the BBC noted it needs to avoid “false balance,” a fallacy that occurs when two sides of an argument are assumed to have equal value.
“Science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views but depends on the varying degree of prominence such views should be given,” the report said.
The type of “false balance” news segment that the BBC is now actively trying to avoid is one that is fairly common in American network news’ climate change coverage. It involves putting one person who is well-versed on climate science next to a person who denies climate science, and having them debate.
Editorially, this type of debate makes the network look like it’s being balanced, giving equal opportunity to opposite viewpoints. However, because 95 to 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are causing the planet to warm, that balance is false, giving disproportionate time to a viewpoint that is widely rejected in the scientific community.
In order to have a truly balanced and statistically representative debate about climate change, television news networks would have to pit 97 climate scientists against three climate deniers. Because that likely wouldn’t work very well, the BBC is favoring an approach that instead severely limits the amount of air time climate deniers are given.
So far, the report said, approximately 200 staff members have attended seminars and workshops aimed at improving the balance of their science coverage.
Fortunately, more and more people have decided to "favour an approach" that severely limits the amount of time spent listening to or watching BBC programmes.
Sunday, 6 July 2014
Merkel's socialist government bans fracking - a foot in the grave for Germany's free market economy
Angela Merkel's (de facto) socialist government is taking another step towards an even more complete dependence on dictator Putin's Gazprom:
BERLIN—Germany plans to halt shale-gas drilling for the next seven years over concerns that exploration techniques could pollute groundwater.
"There won't be [shale-gas] fracking in Germany for the foreseeable future," Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks said Friday.
The planned regulations come amid a political standoff with Russia, Germany's main natural gas supplier, and following intensive lobbying from environmentalists and brewers concerned about possible drinking-water contamination.
The production of shale gas requires the application of the hydraulic fracturing technology known as fracking, which involves using a high-pressure mixture of water, sand and chemicals to break apart rocks to release the gas. The government plans to ban the use of hydraulic fracturing technology for drilling operations shallower than 3,000 meters (1.9 miles) and hopes to get a bill ready early next year.
The government will reassess the ban in 2021.
"Protecting drinking water and health has the highest value for us," Ms. Hendricks said.
Congratulations to Germany's greenies and Gazprom! And a foot in the grave for the free market economy ...
The German economy is OK for now, but it is quite clear that the longer term forecast is anything but good.
Thursday, 3 July 2014
Die Welt: Germany says goodbye to the market economy
 |
| Make no mistake: This lady is a de facto social democrat! |
Already in September last year I wrote about the "social democratization" of Angela Merkel's Germany. This process is happening even faster than anticipated. There is less and less room for the market economy. Germans should be worried:
The GroKo (Merkel's "great coalition") redefines the social market economy: The adjective becomes the main word, while leaving less and less room for the market economy.
The massive government intervention in wage setting means a turning point for the local economy. Further regulation of the labor market will follow. And the rents are also in the focus of the coalition. Here a "rental brake" is to dampen the supposedly anti-social effects of the real estate boom. In the energy sector, market forces are already overridden, and the government has no convincing plan for how they want to deal with the consequences of these interventionist policies. --
If the social politicians of the SPD and Union continues so rigorously to shrink the market economy, Germany's best times will soon be behind us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)