Institut For Menneskerettigheder: »Religioner har ikke menneskerettigheder«

Diverse — Drokles on May 8, 2012 at 3:34 am

Institut for menneskerettigheder vil fjerne blasfemiparagraffen fortæller Jyllands-Posten

»Religioner har ikke menneskerettigheder,« mener institutdirektør Jonas Christoffersen, der tidligere har været imod en afskaffelse.

(…)

»Man vil kunne sige, at der er fri leg over for religionerne – stort set – men persongrupper skal beskyttes,« forklarer Jonas Christoffersen.

Tildligere appelerede Amnesty International ellers til at man gjorde religioner til mennesker og som sådan fritaget fra kritik, som Politiken skrev

»Selv om ytringsfriheden inkluderer ret til at kritisere religioner eller trossamfund, så bør den kritik tage hensyn til menneskerettighederne for de mennesker, der knytter sig til den konkrete religion«, skriver organisationen i sin rapport.

»Der påhviler dem, der søger politisk indflydelse ikke at fremme eller styrke stereotypiske opfattelser, der kan afføde intolerance eller diskrimination«, fortsætter Amnesty.

»Hvis de for eksempel portrætterer islam som et værdisystem, der modvirker ligestilling mellem kønnene eller tegner det som en voldelig ideologi, er de med til at skabe et klima af fjendskab og mistænksomhed, rettet mod mennesker, der opfattes som muslimer. Det kan føre til diskrimination«

Denne ide var løftet direkte fra OIC’s ønsker om at helliggøre islam. Og det afspejler sig også i skuffelsen hos islamisk trossamfund

»Eftersom kristendommen ikke længere har den store betydning i dagligdagen, vil en afskaffelse af blasfemiparagraffen være lovgivning direkte vendt mod islam,« siger talsmand Imran Shah, som mener, at muslimer oplever øget diskrimination.

Alle lige vilkår er direkte vendt mod islam.

Klimavidenskabens ‘tipping point’?

Diverse — Drokles on May 7, 2012 at 6:33 am

En rasende spændende artikel om tidspunktet, klimavidenskaben druknede i en politisk dagsorden. Fra Enthusiasm, Scepticism and Science

When Ben Santer arrived in Madrid in the late autumn of 1995, did he know that this conference would change his life forever? Undoubtedly ambitious, a rising star in the climate modelling scene, he was doing well at age 40 to be leading the writing of a key chapter in the IPCC Second Assessment Report.  In fact, the convener of this IPCC Working Group, John Houghton, had asked him to take it on quite late in the day, only after more established scientists had turned down the offer. Perhaps they had a hunch of what was about to unfold, for it would be Santer’s fate that great forces of history would bear down on the editor lead author of his chapter at this conference. When he was through with it, when Houghton had accepted the final draft a few days later, climate science would be changed forever. After a long struggle, the levees of science gave way to the overwhelming forces of politics welling up around it, and soon it would be totally and irrevocably engulfed.

The story of Ben Santer’s late changes to Chapter 8 of the Working Group 1 Report is familiar to most sceptical accounts of the climate change controversy (e.g. here & here and a non-sceptical account). However, it is often overshadowed by other landmark events, and so it is usually not put up there in the same league with Hansen‘s sweaty congressional testimony of 1988, with the establishment of the IPCC nor with the Hockey Stick controversy. Yet, if one looks at the greater controversy in terms of its impact on science, then this conference in Madrid might just surpass them all.

This was the tipping point. This was climate science’s Battle of Hastings, when political exigencies – the enemies of science – broke through the lines and went on to overrun all its institutions. Before Hansen there had always been the rogue scientists hawking some kind of scary scenario to the press or politicians. Indeed, sometimes they listened, and sometime they got all het up about it. Yet the institutions of science held firm. Before the IPCC there had been other politicised scientific institutions – the USA EPA is the prime example (see discussion here). And as for the Hockey Stick, well, by then it was all over, with the Climategate emails confirming that a culture of science-as-advocacy was already endemic in the science informing the IPCC assessments. The travesties of the Third Assessment would be unimaginable without the transformation that had already occurred in the writing of the Second Assessment. Madrid was the tipping point, when everything began to change. Not that everyone noticed it at the time. That the general shift begun at Madrid is much easier to see now with so many years of hindsight.

Det er første del af en serie, som vi ser frem til i spænding.

The Great Liberal Lie: Jonah Goldberg on the Left’s War on Words

Diverse — Drokles on May 6, 2012 at 9:02 pm

Venstrefløjsparadokser af en tredje verden

Diverse — Drokles on May 6, 2012 at 5:50 am

Weekendavisen havde for et par uger siden en interessant artikel om et blandt os racister velkendt fænomen. Faktisk var det noget af det første denne blog overhovedet skrev om; nemlig krigen mod kvinder i den uciviliserede verden. Den føres gennem en blanding af fravælgelse af pigefostre subsidiært drab på fødte pigebørn oveni den almene undertrykkelse og vold. Og det er også en af grundende til at vi er racister. Men efter at Oprah Winfrey har haft et TV hold i Indien og sat følelser på statistikken kan man nu endelig tale frit om det får vi at vide i artiklen. Og hvilken lettelse på så mange planer for vi præsenteres for, hvad en renskuret venstrefløjser må se som uforståelige og ondsindede paradokser.

Artiklen tager til at starte med et livtag med abort, som man ikke er vant til i medierne uden at der bliver råbt kristen fundamentalist eller George Bush samtidig. Den fortæller om en indisk mand, der er kommet for retten for at have “forsøgt at dræbe [konens] ufødte døtre“. Ja, dræbe de ufødte. Normalt ville man jo blot sige at han prøvede at fremtvinge en abort. Og videre hedder det at “Alene i Kina og Indien er 85 millioner piger blevet hindret i at komme til verden“. Også herhjemme hindres børn i at komme til verden, men det er kun slemt, hvis man diskriminerer. Og er det egentlig ikke også for pigernes eget bedste når de nu er lige så lidt populære som danske børn der truer med deres eksistens på et tidspunkt som bare ikke lige passer ind i forældrenes karriere og uddannelsesplaner? Eller som blot folder lidt for meget i nakken? Nærh, sluurp! og de er væk inden de overhovedet kom til og så forstyrrer de jo ingen.

Der er også dårligt nyt for regeringens barslede kønskvoter i relation til økonomisk fremgang. Således hedder det nemlig at “En FN-rapport fra 2012 holder Kina og Indien ansvarlige for 85 millioner afbrudte pigeliv - midt under det økonomiske boom i disse lande“. Alting hænger jo sammen som Lenin bemærkede. Vil vi vinde den kamp eller hvad? som Enhedslisten spurgte, da de advokerede for at impotere limhjerner fra netop sådan aborterende steder.

Og nu Lenin er nævn, så får vi at vide at “Motivet er materialistisk: Folk vil have en lille, moderne familie med kun et enkelt barn. Og det skal være en søn for det kan bedst betale sig.” Motivet er måske materialistisk men kun fordi kulturen sætter rammen. Men hvem giver muligheden? Der nævnes tre ting der har ændret forholdende for de gravide kvinder: “Ultralydsscanning, ønsket om at får en enkelt, højst to børn samt abortpillen“. Måske de skulle have lyttet til Darth Vader da han advarede mod at stole for meget på “…this tecnological terror you’ve constructed!”.

Og for lige at tage det sidste stik hjem så er krigen mod kvinden endda klimavenlig.”De nye modeller kan bruges mobilt med solenergi, så selv den mest isolerede landsby kan være med“. Hvad skal ind, sol og Tvind, hvad skal ud - fosteret!

Økofascismen marcherer uanfægtet videre

Diverse — Drokles on May 6, 2012 at 5:37 am

Raheem Kassam minder os om historiens lære i Commentator

Edmund Burke’s prescience regarding the French Revolution and the inherent nature of ‘radicalism’ – that is to say the inevitability of spending, debt and tyranny inflicted by leftist ideals – is just as relevant in the 21st century as it was at the time of his writing ‘Reflections on the Revolution in France’.

One of Burke’s most crucial points in my mind is the remarkable nature of populist rhetoric and how the ideas of ‘Liberté, égalité, fraternité’ would result in further subjugation of the masses at the hands of Robespierre and subsequently, Napoleon.

Sold to the French in 1789 terms as, “We are the 99%”, the doctrine of maximum pricing (the ‘General Maximum’) led not only to rampant social discord as citizens squealed on their wealth creating neighbours, but further throttled the economy, the will to produce and made unfair scapegoats of those who had previously contributed the most to the French economy. Sound familiar?

Det er et velkendt fænomen at man kan slippe afsted med at skrive ganske skrækkelige ting på de digitale medier, hvis blot man tilføjer en smiley. “Dræb jøderne hvorend i finder dem!” er meget værre end “Dræb jøderne hvorend i finder dem :-)”, men heldigvis har islamisterne ikke fundet ud af det endnu. Sådan en smileyeffekt har økologi, bæredygtighed og klimaet. Den rene fascisme regnes som helt legitime demokratiske argumenter hos de fleste debattører, politikere og journalister når blot man tilføjer noget sympatisk om Moder Jord.

Tidens største trussel mod jorden, som den beskrives af det esoteriske klimapanel, tages så meget for givet at dissens og nådesgaven tvivl anses som obstruerende og skadelig. Den logiske følge - så langt som nogen tænker i logiske følger (hvilket ikke alle heldigvis gør, men mange) - er naturligvis at overveje, hvorledes man får fjernet opposition eller endda oppositionen fra debatten - hvorledes man redder debattens økologi så vi kan diskutere at vi gør som vi får besked på.

Guardian, som ellers har sine helt egne øko-fascister i sin stab, fortæller hvorledes fair debat er unfair

An Australian television documentary that gives equal weight to a climate sceptic and a believer has been strongly criticised by scientists as unfairly skewing the evidence on global warming.

The hour-long programme, I Can Change Your Mind About Climate, broadcast on ABC TV, pits Anna Rose, co-founder of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition against conservative political power broker and climate sceptic, Nick Minchin (until recently Minchin sat in the upper house of parliament as an opposition Liberal party senator). In the film, each chooses an equal number of people anywhere in the world to introduce the other to, in a bid to change their mind on climate change.

Scientists and environmentalists say the film gives the misleading impression that the debate on the science of climate change is not settled.

Kunne man forestille sig en debat mellem Johanne Schmidt Nielsen og Claus Hjort Frederiksen som ikke var vægtet lige fordi Enhedslisten på så mange planer er sekterisk i sin virkelighedsopfattelse? Men med klimaet er det anderledes for det er virkeligt vigtigt og så kan det ikke overlades til debat. Alert Net fortæller at også klimapanelets formand ser tvivl, som en trussel mod planeten

BANGKOK (AlertNet) - Continuing scepticism about climate change in some parts of the world threatens the planet and the people on it, according to Rajendra K. Pachauri, chief of the Nobel-prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

“I think global society has to realise that we are affecting the climate of this planet and this is the only planet that we have,” he said in Bangkok Friday at the Southeast Asia launch of the IPCC special report on managing the risks of extreme events and disasters

 While scepticism about climate change continues in some parts of the world – particularly the United States – “some facts, which are incontrovertible need to be accepted by the public,” he urged.

Eller som klimadebattøren Joe Romn skriver på Think Progress i vrede over at PBS har bragt et indslag om den klimaskeptiske tænketank Heartland Institute

Would you give air time to someone who says the Earth is flat or cigarettes don’t cause cancer and simply follow those falsehoods by ”These are views challenged by scientific evidence.” How about a Holocaust denier?

(…)

By quoting Heartland, PBS  is conferring legitimacy on it as a source. After all, the NewsHours is highly credible news outlet. The message PBS sends to the audience and the world by quoting Heartland at all is that these folks have a legitimate place in the debate. They don’t.

Ja, man skal ikke gå og brænde inde med den slags. Det er bare med at få det sagt, hvis man da må. Peter C Glover fra Commentator gennemgår en række tidligere eksempler

Journalist Alex Lockwood (in the leftwing UK Guardian) proposes “the internet should be nationalised as a public utility in order to contain the superfluous claims of warming skeptics”. Fred Pearce (again in the UK Guardian) demands we “silence the doubters”. At the 2007 Live Earth concert, Robert F. Kennedy Jnr called for skeptics to be “treated as traitors” following this up with the demand that all coal execs “should be in jail for all eternity”.
Fascist intolerance? We’re only getting started.

Alarmist high priest James Hansen has called for skeptics to be put on trial for “high crimes against humanity”. Hansen has also endorsed a book by Keith Farnish that advocates sabotage and environmental terrorism by blowing up dams and demolishing cities to return us to an agrarian age. Hard left Grist magazine columnist David Roberts wants“war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

Canadian environmentalist author, David Suzuki, suggests finding a “legal way of throwing our [climate foot-dragging political] leaders into jail” their climate negligence being “a criminal act”. Wouldn’t the Canadian Civil Liberties Association be appalled? After all, Suzuki is a former board member. Talking Points Memo is fairly representative of the views of hard left websites, asking, “At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers?” Don’t you just love the liberal virtue of tolerance?

Kari Norgaard is professor of climate change at the University of Oregon. At a recent London conference she called forskeptics to be viewed as “racists” and climate scepticism as a “sickness” needing to be “treated”. And the infamous Climategate emails scandal revealed key contributors to the UN IPCC reports threatening science editors, burying data and sounding generally like Richard M. Nixon at his most paranoid.

Surely we can expect better from government-sponsored officials? Apparently not. The above mentioned Professor Norgaard has recently urged President Obama to “ignore democracy”and act on climate via executive fiat. She also backed Obama’s appointment of John P. Holdren – an avowed eugenist who has called for a “planetary regime” to enforce abortions and mandatory sterilization programs – as his senior advisor on science and technology issues. Eugenist? Ah, enforced population control. Isn’t that what the German National Socialists were most famous for practising? Not to mention Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot – leftists all – of course.

In 2007, US EPA chief, Michael T. Eckhart was exposedas authoring an email threatening to “destroy” the career of a climate skeptic. In April this year, a senior Obama-appointee to the EPA boastedthat the agency’s “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of US energy producers – the people without whom all modern society would grind to a halt, by the way.

Let’s sum up for a moment: burning houses, threats to life, limb, business, destroying careers, inflammatory rhetoric, deception, lies and preventing free speech. The message from the eco-fascist Left is resolute: don’t mess with us, or else. These are not guys Joe Public would want to break bread with.

And we should also be clear about this: fascism per se has its roots in the beliefs and ideology of the radical Left, not as is often portrayed, the Right, radical or otherwise. German National socialism (it still exists), communism, even Islamism, all favour Big Government, centralized power and control, the subversion of democratic processes and, especially, the restriction of liberty and free speech.

If fascism in any guise doesn’t get what it wants, it has always sought ways of grabbing power first by bullying others to keep silent, then asserting the need to “put democracy on hold”.

Big Government eh? Ja og jo større en regering er jo mere kompleks og uigennemskuelig er den også for vælgerne, som derfor må slukke lyset så de ikke distraheres af det de kunne tænkes at læse.

Bomb Iran

Diverse — Drokles on May 5, 2012 at 2:39 am

Homeland Unsecurity

Diverse — Drokles on May 3, 2012 at 8:41 pm

Fra Israel National News

A census of American religions released Tuesday showed the Muslim community in the United States has grown in the past decade.

According to a study carried out by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies, the number of Muslims in America rose to 2.6 million in 2010 from 1 million in 2000, fueled by immigration and conversions.

Muslims now outnumber Jews in many parts of the American South and Midwest, but Christians remain the largest group in every state.

Det betyder også en større ‘inspireret’ læserskare fortæller Daily Mail

Al Qaeda has called upon its followers to unleash massive forest fires upon the United States this summer.

Published in the latest edition of the notorious terror magazine, ‘Inspire’, are graphic instructions for the creation and ignition of ‘ember bombs’

Detailed in the memorably titled, ‘It is of your Freedom to Ignite a Firebomb’, the magazine encourages any would-be terrorist to target Montana, because of the rapid population growth in its wooded areas.

‘In America, there are more houses built in the countryside than in the cities,’ explained the writer known as The AQ Chef according to ABC News.

Så bliver det spændende at se Freden Religion slås mod Gaiakulten.

Klimaforandringer på godt og ondt

Diverse — Drokles on May 3, 2012 at 7:54 am

Nu kommer sommeren, men pas på - det gode vejr kan ende i vold som E&E Publishing skriver

But a more important question for a world on the cusp of global warming — a world where heat waves and absent winters have become increasingly common phenomena — is how such a correlation might manifest for society as a whole.

(…)

“It’s a simple but crucial fact that people tend to get out and about more when it’s pleasant out,” he said. “During the winter months, people can’t get out. There aren’t as many opportunities to interact.”

Warm weather lets people mix socially, he said. And it is only a matter of probability that sometimes that mixture may prove volatile.

“More opportunity for violent crime means more violent crime,” he said.

Det forklarer jo den afrikanske livsstil af vold og voldtægt. De er ikke bare ude hele dagen, hvor de mødes med hinanden, de er ude nøgne - muligvis kun iført af bastskørter. Men man kan også få sit liv ødelagt her i Vesten endda midt i bagværket, som Shoshana Zuboff fortæller i Huffington Post

Hell is not a place; it’s a time. It starts with the experience of irreversible loss and ends as you learn to live with loss. My hell time began on a summer night in 2009 while wrapping brownies at the kitchen table in our Maine farmhouse.

Fifteen years earlier my husband and I gave up fame and fortune to raise our son and daughter on a Maine farm. We wanted them to grow up with the respectful down-to-earth values of our small Maine town. We hoped they would shape deeply lived authentic lives surrounded by natural beauty and bound to the rhythms of the seasons. Our life was a celebration of long Huck Finn summers and cozy snowy winters. We created an 18th century household filled with books, music, and memories in which we all worked and played. It was our sanctuary — the safest, happiest place on earth. Later our children taught us to be green. We installed windmills and solar panels, recycled and composted, and became more mindful of our footprint.

Det har da ikke noget med noget at gøre, hører jeg nogen indvende. It goes to character your honor. Sustained! For Huck Finn drømmen brast da den globale opvarmning pludselig slog ned i køkkenet

Then a bolt of lightning crashed through the kitchen window, mowed me down like a freight train hurtling through my chest and triggered a blast so loud I thought the sound barrier had been breached somewhere between the crockery and the curtains. When I opened my eyes, I was lying on the floor. Then came smoke. Fifteen minutes later we were out in the storm, watching in disbelief as our beloved home vanished in a towering wall of flame.

(…)

Was the lightning bolt in our kitchen caused by global warming? The facts are too compelling to ignore. It seems that global warming turned my family into refugees in our own lives, stripped of everything that once carried our memories and meaning.

Opvarmningslynet kan dog også være et lokalt fænomen fremprovokeret af deres klimavenlige vindmøllepark. I så fald skal baseballspillere tjekke stadionets omgivelser for der kan være andre forklaringer end blot bedre træning, bedre udstyr og bedre stereoider på at der i NBL slåes flere home-runs end før fortæller Newsbusters

“It has not been proven, but I think ultimately it will be proven that the air is thinner now, there have been climactic changes over the last 50 years in the world, and I think that’s one of the reasons balls are carrying much better now than I remember,” McCarver said during Saturday’s game between the Milwaukee Brewers and the St. Louis Cardinals.

He then commented about some recent shots that went further than he would have expected leading his co-announcer Joe Buck to marvelously ask, “So that’s your ‘inconvenient truth’ about Major League Baseball?”

“Well,” the former catcher responded, “I think they’re going to find that out one of these days, yes I do.”

Intet er så galt at det ikke er godt for noget.

Reagan Vs. Obama - Social Economics 101

Diverse — Drokles on May 3, 2012 at 7:47 am

Peter “Debatten er ovre” Glieck synker længere ned i ‘Fakegate’

Diverse — Drokles on May 3, 2012 at 3:24 am

For et par måneder siden brød en skandale ud i klimadebatten. Den fremtrædende klimaforsker og videnskabsetiker Peter Glieck, der havde vundet international berømmelse på frasen “debatten er ovre” kunne afsløre den klimaskeptiske tænketank Heratland Institute’s skumle strategi til nedbrydelse af skolebørns tro på videnskab. Sponseret af oliepenge og  Big Koch (som James Delingpole med infantil fornøjelse elsker at kalde dem) var det Heartlands velsmurte kampagnemaskine der var skyld i at tiltroen til FN’s klimapanels fortælling dalede kraftigt i offentligheden.

Glieck havde fra en anonym kilde, som påstod at være tilknyttet Heartland Institute modtaget hemmelige papirer fra Heartland om bl.a. deres finansiering. Med i dokumenterne var det saftigste bevis på at klimaskeptiscisme blev drevet frem af onde hensigter, nemlig det hurtigt berømte strategimemo. Og det var i strategimemo’et at alle sandhederne om, hvorledes Heartland lavede disinformationskampagner, hyrede forskere der tidligere havde benægtet sammenhængen mellem rygning og cancer og udarbejde taktikker til at skræmme amerikanske lærere fra at undervise i videnskab. Klimaredaktionerne på alverdens etablerede medier sprøjtede over med ekstatisk forargelse.

Men festen blev kort. Hurtigt gik det op for journalister der besad den gamle vane at tjekke kilder at Heartland Institute havde en god pointe i deres påstand om at strategimemo’et var et falskneri. Strategimemo’et var skrevet i et andet format end resten af dokumenterne og med en anden sproglig stil med en særegen brug af parenteser og binde-streger(!) der til forveksling lignede Glieck’s eget sprog. Og ifølge Atlantics Megan Mcardle lignede dets indhold noget der var forfattet i en tegneserie skurkegrotte - af en praktikant. Strategimemo’et svarede ifølge Mcardle på ingen måde til skeptikernes selvforståelse som en David mod Goliat i kamp for sandhed.

Mens Strategimemo’et var et falskneri var resten af dokumenterne, om bestyrelsesmedlemmer og samarbejdspartnere og deres adresser osv, samt Heartland budgetter ægte. Men de ægte dokumenter afslørede intet fordækt. Faktisk kunne man se at Heartland var en meget lille tænketank med et beskedent budget, hvoraf klimaet kun var en af fire områder, som Heartland havde interesse i. Deres store betydning for klimadebatten kunne alene tilskrives deres flid og dygtighed samt måske det faktum at det er billigere at tale sandt fremfor at betle skræmmescenarier og som en anden alkoholiker at bruge stadigt flere ressourcer på at holde styr på alle sine mange små løgne igennem daglidagen.

Peter Glieck måtte hurtigt indrømme at han var manden der selv havde fremskaffet de ægte dokumenter ved at foregive at være et medlem af Heartlands bestyrelse. Dette havde han endda gjort kun få dage efter at han havde takket nej til en invitation, som debattør på en af Heartlands klimakonferencer, hvor han ville have mulighed for at præsentere sin sag og gå i kødet på sine skeptiske modstandere. Men Glieck fastholdt at strategimemo’et var blevet ham tilsendt af en anonym person i dagene mellem han skaffede sig Heartlands fortrolige dokumenter og til han offentliggjorde det hele. Denne forklaring virker ikke troværdig. Heartland Institute offentligjorde forleden en rapport, der slog fast at strategimemo’et var et falskneri

The Heartland Institute today released more evidence that Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick was the likely author of a fake “climate strategy memo” that Gleick originally claimed came from a “Heartland insider,” and later said he received “in the mail” from an anonymous source.

Heartland released a computer forensics report, conducted by Protek International, which states: “We conclude that the Memo did not originate on the Heartland System. It was not created on the Heartland System and was never present there prior to its February 14 posting online.”

Og Anthony Watt’s fra Watt’s Up With That bestilte en analyse hos Patrick Juola, Ph.D der leder Evaluating Variations in Language Laboratory ved Duquesne University i Pittsburgh til at analysere om det var Glieck eller Heartlands direktør Joe Bast i et anfald af agent provocateur der mest sandsynligt havde forfattet strategimemo’et. Med nogle vigtige forbehold konkluderes der

In response to the question of who wrote the disputed Heartland strategy memo, it is difficult to deliver an answer with complete certainty. The writing styles are similar and the sample is extremely small, both of which act to reduce the accuracy of our analysis. Our procedure by assumption excluded every possible author but Bast and Gleick. Nevertheless, the analytic method that correctly and reliably identified twelve of twelve authors in calibration testing also selected Gleick as the author of the disputed document. Having examined these documents and their results, I therefore consider it more likely than not that Gleick is in fact the author/compiler of the document entitled ”Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” and further that the document does not represent a genuine strategy memo from the Heartland Institute.

Imens i Danmark har Information endnu ikke berigtiget deres kolportering af historien, som den så ud da klimaredaktioner rundt om i verden troede at de havde fundet skeptikernes rygende pistol. “Klimaskeptikere smager egen medicin” skrev Informations Jørgen Steen Nielsen som overskrift til en artikel, der i bedste fald kan betragtes som et afskrift af Desmogblogs første blogpost om sagen.

Kanariefuglen i det Indiske Ocean

Diverse — Drokles on May 2, 2012 at 11:03 pm

Maldiverne er ofte blevet fremhævet som Verdens kanariefugl når det gælder en menneskeskabt katastrofe, der truer ikke blot en økologisk undergang, men også vores velstand og sociale sammenhæng. I 2009 gjorde Maldivernes daværende præsident opmærksom på sin vision for den nært forestående trussel mod hans lille samfund, der snart vil blive en forsmag for resten af den civiliserede verden

4018123437_f80eabebce_b

Men ak, det var en anden bølge der skyllede den gode præsidents ønsker om at bevare sin civilisation bort. Som Nils Finn Munch-Petersen beskrev det 27. april i Weekendavisen

I Januar i år mobilliserede oppositionen. Der blev holdt flere demonstrationer mod Nasheed, der beskyldtes for at være u-islamisk; for at godtage, at kvinder gik traditionelt maldivisk klædt eller i vestlig u-islamisk påklædning; for modstand mod piskning af piger og for ikke at ville indføre drastiske religiøse strafferegler såsom håndsafskæring og dødsstraf. På gaderne i hovedstaden Male blev der råbt luder efter kvinder, der ikke havde iført sig tørklæde eller niqab, og ungdomsbander blev købt til at foregive at være anti-islamiske demonstranter.

Et velplanlagt kup fandt sted den 7- februar, hvor elitepoliti skød portlåsen op til den statslige tv-station og truede Nasheed til at afstå præsident-posten. Samtidig angreb en gruppe unge det maldiviske nationalmuseum og knuste systematisk så godt som alle levn fra Maldivernes før-islamiske periode.

Efterfølgende demonstrationer til fordel for den styrtede præsident er blevet mødt med kampklædt politi, vandkanoner, peberspray og gummikugler. Politiangreb er især rettet mod kvinder, der bliver pebersprayet i ansigtet og klædt nøgne på politistationen.

228614-maldives-protesters-rally-for-ousted-presidentWeekendavisens Nils Finn Munch-Petersen brugere resten af artiklen på at prøve at svare på spørgsmålet, og hold nu godt fast: “Hvordan er det kommet så vidt med et ø-samfund, der i sit udgangspunkt var præget af tolerance og ligeværdighed mellem kønnene?

“Conspiracy” BBC films and HBO films

Diverse — Drokles on May 1, 2012 at 7:15 pm

Det burde høre til på historiens mødding, men som venstrefløjen importerer sine bødler til Europa er det nok snarere et forvarsel. Men god underholdning ikke desto mindre.

Når hensigten helliger midlet

Diverse — Drokles on May 1, 2012 at 8:10 am

Der er mange i Vesten der gerne vil redde menneskeheden fra sig selv og endnu hellere vil redde Jorden fra menneskene. Da Obama blev amerikansk præsiden udpegede han William Holden til sin videnskabstzar og Front Page Magazine skrev foruroligende om Holdrens visioner

Some critics have noted Holdren’s penchant for making apocalyptic predictions that never come to pass, and categorizing all criticism of his alarmist views as not only wrong but dangerous. What none has yet noted is that Holdren is a globalist who has endorsed “surrender of sovereignty” to “a comprehensive Planetary Regime” that would control all the world’s resources, direct global redistribution of wealth, oversee the “de-development” of the West, control a World Army and taxation regime, and enforce world population limits. He has castigated the United States as “the meanest of wealthy countries,” written a justification of compulsory abortion for American women, advocated drastically lowering the U.S. standard of living, and left the door open to trying global warming “deniers” for crimes against humanity. Such is Barack Obama’s idea of a clear-headed adviser on matters of scientific policy.

(…)

The trio prescribed a rigidly enforced, government-imposed limit of two children per family. Holdren and the Ehrlichs maintained “there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated.” Hiding behind the passive voice, they note, “it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” (Emphasis added.) To underscore they mean business, they conclude, “If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” (pp. 837-838). Moreover, if the United States government refuses to take proper measures, they authorize the United Nations to take compelling force.

Nu er amerikanere jo ikke umælende bæster så den slags bliver ved snakken på universiteterne og i magtens korridorer. Men så kan man da altid kaste sig over u-landene. Fra Guardian

Tens of millions of pounds of UK aid money have been spent on a programme that has forcibly sterilised Indian women and men, the Observer has learned. Many have died as a result of botched operations, while others have been left bleeding and in agony. A number of pregnant women selected for sterilisation suffered miscarriages and lost their babies.

The UK agreed to give India £166m to fund the programme, despite allegations that the money would be used to sterilise the poor in an attempt to curb the country’s burgeoning population of 1.2 billion people.

Sterilisation has been mired in controversy for years. With officials and doctors paid a bonus for every operation, poor and little-educated men and women in rural areas are routinely rounded up and sterilised without having a chance to object. Activists say some are told they are going to health camps for operations that will improve their general wellbeing and only discover the truth after going under the knife.

Og hvad så? Hvis overbefolkning, altså andre mennesker end dig og dine meningsfællers eksistens, er et problem kræver det da handling. Debatten er ovre og klimaet kan heller ikke lide dem.

Da Danmark næsten fik en ‘Zlatan’?

Diverse — Drokles on May 1, 2012 at 7:50 am

Med VKO’s asylpolitik, går vi glip af rigtig mange stjerner. Skulle vi ikke ændre lidt på den danske holdopstilling?

Fra Politiken

Som 15-årig brillerede han med et hav af mål og fidusbamser for sin folkeskole i Hvidovre i landets skolefodboldturnering, og kort efter tog karrieren fart med prøvetræningsophold i feterede klubber i Italien og England.

Og i 2009 afviste den unge dansk-egypter et tilbud om at spille for Danmarks U18-landshold for i stedet at slutte sig til Egyptens ditto.

Ind i Dommervagten
Men i lørdags var virkeligheden en noget anden for den nu 21-årige RHR.

Iført mørkeblå kedeldragt, tæt sort skæg og gummisko trådte dansk-egypteren ind i Dommervagten på Politigården i København til grundlovsforhøret i en opsigtsvækkende sag, hvor han og to andre er sigtede for ulovlig besiddelse af AK47-maskingeværer og mistænkt for at forberede et terrorangreb.

Vil vi vinde den kamp eller hva’?

« Previous Page

Monokultur kører på WordPress