Bank Inside European Parliament Building Robbed at Gunpoint

You just have to love how bold the person who did this was, especially considering that he got away with it. I would think that this would be like robbing someone inside the US Capital Building:

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - A lone robber attacked a bank located inside the European Parliament building in Brussels on Thursday (12 February) afternoon, causing major disruption.

The attack occurred at around 4pm local time at a branch of the ING bank inside the parliament's Paul Henri Spaak (PHS) building in the heart of the European quarter.

"The man showed a gun, or something that like looked like a gun, the staff were afraid so they gave him the cash in the drawer and he escaped," European Parliament head spokesman Jaume Duch told this website. - EUobserver

He managed to rob the bank with something that looks like a gun? I guess when you disarm the population, anything that remotely looks like a gun is all you're going to need to pull off your robbery.

"It is not known whether the gun involved was real or fake," said the parliament spokesman. "Of course if it was a fake, it would be very difficult to prevent this sort of thing." - EUobserver

What, security doesn't look for fake guns? In the end it would not have mattered if it was real or fake, because in this incident all he needed was a fake gun. As a bonus, if he got caught, a fake gun probably would earn him gun crime charges as well. This is a good example of why the acts need to be punished not the gun. Guess they will have to outlaw fake guns as well. Maybe they should make robbing banks illegal as well...

How long before we see fake gun copycat crimes across the EU?

UPDATE (13 Feb): "European Parliament robber got €50,000"

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The bank heist at the European Parliament in Brussels on Thursday scooped €50,000, with police still looking for the robber on Friday. - Link

Not bad for a couple minutes work.

-------------------- --------------------

Before you Pack your Bags and Move to the EU...

Drudge Report recently linked to the story 'With U.S. in slump, dual citizenship in EU countries attracts Americans' about Americans hunting out citizenship in an EU Country in order to work in Europe:

The creation of the European Union and its thriving economy is very appealing for Americans in a global economy.

"With an EU passport, I can live and work in 27 countries," said Suzanne Mulvehill of Lake Worth. "With a U.S. passport, I can live and work in one."

Americans can claim citizenship in any of the 27 European countries that are in the EU based on the nationality of their parents, or in some cases, grandparents and great-grandparents. Citizenship in one of those countries allows you to live and work in any EU nation. - Palm Beach Post

Yes, it is true that as a US Citizen, you only have the right to work in the US, but what is left out is that the US is an immensely large country, while many of the EU states are toy-sized countries. Eighteen of those 27 states have a population of less than eleven million. Eleven of those have a population of under six million. This is in line with many US States. So it would be fair to say that the EU is like a United States of Europe. It is just formed with 27 states instead of 50. And there is a popular map out that equates the GDP of countries to US States with a similar GDP. (Image found at the post here)

So on the surface, the European Union and the United States are two labor markets. A US Citizen can legally work in any of the fifety states and Washington, DC and most EU Citizens can work in any of the twenty seven EU States.

"did you know that: the EU allows you to travel, live and work in any EU-country, in most cases without border controls or paperwork?"

This would seem like a great opportunity for those who can gain the right to work in both labor markets, but it is only that simple in the US.

Take the employment summary from an EU website. I would not call this completely deceptive. However, the statement does depend on where you are now as to how 'Great' this aspect of the EU is compared to your country.

Living in the US, I am living in a union of states where I have the same right. I can move to any of the 50 states (and DC) and live there for work and be equal to those that have lived there their whole lives. This mobility of the workforce is a very important part of reducing unemployment. If the population is mobile and has the freedom to move from region to region, they can move to where the work is.

In the EU, most citizens can move to wherever they want in the EU for work, or for any reason without much restriction. There was talk of restricting citizens from new member states to prevent them all from moving to the higher paying countries. But the funny thing is, the EU did not need to enact barriers to keep people from moving from one country to another, as there are already natural barriers in place.

Take language. almost each country in the EU has it's own language and I can tell you from experience, that your going to have an impossible time finding work if you don't know the language. So if your are getting Greek citizenship, you are not going to find work unless you know Greek. And forget finding work in any of the other EU countries, other than the UK, unless you plan on teaching English for work. Language matters for even trivial work. But that's just for starters. You are not in their 'system.' Not in the banking system. Not in their Social Security system. Unlike the US, you need to get yourself registered each time you move to a new EU Country.

Then there is the fact that you are in another country. You have to learn how things are done there. In the UK, they drive on the other side of the road and you'll have to buy a new car because yours has the steering wheel on the wrong side. They do not use the euro in the UK either. Nor is the Euro used in Sweden and in the new EU member-states. While now a member of one EU country, you are still not a citizen of 26 other EU countries, so you can be excluded from public sector jobs, such as policeman, etc which is a shame since the public sector is normally the biggest employer of EU States.

As for border controls, the UK still has them for internal EU citizens too, but it is a formality. However, in a number of the countries, you will have to obtain a residence permit if your going to stay. And if you just want to move there and you don't have a job, you need to prove that you have enough funds to live without assistance as well as adequate health insurance. This is setup to prevent movement of the poor (most likely from states with poor welfare to those with good welfare programs.) But if can also prevent you from moving to an EU country other than the one you obtained citizenship in.

That's one of the great things about working in the US. Sure, NY is very different from Arizona, and from Alaska, and Hawaii, but I can be confident that all the basics will be the same; The language, the currency, the social security, the tax system and Government.

Eric Hammerle, a Vero Beach resident whose father was born in Germany, said it was easy for him and his 16-year-old son Nick to become German citizens.

They acquired the necessary documents - birth, marriage and death certificates - and took them to the German consulate in Miami.

"The whole process took about 20 minutes," Hammerle said. "They read over the documents, came back and said, 'Congratulations, Germany has two new citizens.' It was a fee of $85." - Palm Beach Post

Great for him. Now he just needs to learn German and move to some part of Germany to be able to look for a job. He is probably limited to the former West Germany since unemployment is very high in the former East Germany half of the country.

I lived in Finland for three years before giving up on the country and moving back to the US. I have recently met with two Americans and an Australian who were here when I left and 'stuck it out'. The Australian had both Finnish Citizenship and could speak Finnish and it still took a couple years to get established here, and it seems she did that by starting her own company. The two Americans did not have the benefit of knowing Finnish where they could work using it. They both were on what I consider shaky ground at the time and one described the situation for a couple years as 'just treading water' as far as work was concerned. But now they are established here. I know of another American living in Germany and he is getting along by tutoring 'Business English.' They will readily admit that they can earn more in the US and pay less taxes. But they do like living here and that is why they stay. Part of me wishes that I stayed, but somehow I reached the end of my rope here and was getting phone calls from the US about working there, so when faced with no opportunities in the EU and opportunity knocking in the US (and lots of student loans coming due and a depressed Euro) I made the decision to move back. Anyone moving to the EU needs to have patience to make the move work. That was something that I was lacking. My friends did manage to make working in the EU work, but they had the benefit of being smart guys who also happened to do their MBA in the country they eventually found work in.

One way to do this is to move back for school. But that probably fits more for your children, then yourself. At any rate this news story should be viewed with great caution. It is not that easy to pick up and move to the EU like moving to another state. Notice that they didn’t interview any Americans who had already moved to Europe.

Note: I have worked in a number of EU countries both as cargo ship crew and shoreside including over three years living in Finland.

Link:
With U.S. in slump, dual citizenship in EU countries attracts Americans - PalmBeachPost


Previous:
Mobility of the Workforce - "Working in the EU" - 29 Oct 05

--------------------

Two Faces OF Europe's Military - Chad Edition

My previous post (here) covered European comments about how eager the EU was to deploy their 'Rapid' Response Forces while completely ignoring a need for additional troops in Afghanistan, which while being a NATO Operation, includes countries that have contributed troops to the EU's Rapid Response Forces.

As it turns out that Afghanistan is not the only mission that the EU has been trying to ignore. They have had a peacekeeping force on the ground in Chad but it too is in desperate need of reinforcements, which the EU has been having trouble to fill.

AN “EMBARRASSMENT”, says a diplomat of the delays over a European Union peacekeeping mission to Chad. It is eight months since France's foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, said there was an urgent need to stabilise Chad's border with Sudan, and to protect refugees from Darfur. Since then EU members have squabbled over who should provide troops, kit and helicopters—and who should pay the bills. Military chiefs proved “very cautious about casualties”, comments the diplomat.

This week deployment of the 3,700-strong EUFOR was postponed yet again, because of rebel attacks on Chad's capital - Economist

At the very least, the EU is sitting on troops ready to deploy, despite calls for troops from two separate missions, one of which they are in charge of. Oddly enough, it seems that the Europeans took on this mission more so to show up the US, which they believe should not be active in the area. Now that they did take the mission, they don't know what to do next and they don't have the benefit of being able to blame the US for their failure.

So Europe is slowly learning (just give them a couple hundred more years) that it is not so easy to solve other country's problems. They have been blaming problems in Afghanistan on the US, claiming that what is really needed there is more 'Nation Building' and not fighting. This then forms the excuse why they are not sending troops there. But funny how there is no mention of Nation Building for Chad.

No matter, the EU sucks at Nation Building. Take the training of police forces for Afghanistan. That is a very important part of Nation Building. Germany has failed spectacularly in that task which has directly impacted progress in Afghanistan.

There is another problem with Nation Building as a solution in Afghanistan. That is that the taliban want to turn the clock back on society and Nation Building would result in a society that is the complete opposite of their world view. In one respect the taliban terrorists are now fighting against Nation Building in Afghanistan. So one could claim that the EU's demands for Nation Building is itself one of the causes of instability in the country.

I had also pointed out that by failing to fully fight the taliban in Afghanistan might result in Europe being forced to fight greater threats later on. Just today comes word that al qaeda in Afghanistan has decided to step up operations targeting Germany. Had Germany been more willing to fight in Afghanistan, then there might be less decision-makers on the loose to decide to target Germany.

Note: I found the Economist article quoted above from coverage at EU Referendum here. They also have commentary on this issue in their post titled "Another failure unrecorded"

Previous:
The Two Faces OF Europe's Military Might - 6 Feb

**

The Two Faces OF Europe's Military Might

Take this recent bizarre news article in Finland's Helsingin Sanomat:

EU rapid response forces yearn for real missions

No missions yet for expensive force assembled over a year ago

Finnish soldiers who have signed up for the crisis management forces of the European Union are not the only ones to be frustrated by idleness. The governments of EU member states are also anxious to find missions for the costly forces, which have been operational for over a year. The even more expensive NATO Response Force is also still waiting for the call to manage a crisis somewhere. - Helsingin Sanomat

They sound eager don't they? They have two forces ready and eager to be useful. So why are they so reluctant to be more useful in Afghanistan where NATO has been calling out for more support for over a year:

OTTAWA — NATO pledged yesterday to help Canada find the additional troops and equipment for Kandahar that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has set as a key condition for extending the mission of the Canadian Forces.

At the same time, Mr. Harper launched his personal diplomatic effort to find allies to deploy 1,000 additional troops and resolve a lack of helicopters and air drones with a phone call to U.S. President George W. Bush. - The Globe and Mail, Canada

Then again, there is the issue of whether the European forces (Old Europe) would be of any use if they showed up:

NATO has about 40,000 troops in Afghanistan, but many countries seem to be losing enthusiasm for the effort. Mr. Gates added to months of rising U.S.-European tensions over the size of deployments when he told The Los Angeles Times that some NATO forces “don’t know how to do counterinsurgency operations.” He amended his remarks, but they struck a particular nerve with Britain, Canada, Australia and the Netherlands, whose troops are taking casualties in southern Afghanistan, where insurgents are most active.

Much is right about American complaints that NATO countries are not fully prepared to fight. Defense budgets and troop levels are insufficient; the Europeans lack necessary weapons. Countries like France, Germany, Italy and Spain place so many restrictions on their forces in Afghanistan that they are hobbling the effort. - NY Times

I have no doubt that European NATO Countries have troops that can handle themselves. The Netherlands and UK have already proven that. They just need to be given the green-light by their Governments as well as support for the additional equipment that they will need to carry out missions other than what they are doing at the moment, which sounds like not much at all other than place holding.

The problem is less so with the troops and more so with their Governments who are unwilling to accept most any level of risk. Oddly enough, this might result in their being forced to go into action later one when the risks are much greater.

Previous:
Finnish Editorial: Replace Finnish Peacekeepers with Free Condoms - 7 Aug 07
Whose Side is Germany On? - 11 Jan 06

Anchor Countries

One dream, especially in Europe, is of the future society, a Modern Society. Part of getting there, for them, was the formation of the European Union. The EU would fulfill many goals for getting to this Modern Society, including fostering a healthy growing economy, standardization of all sorts of things, facilitate free trade and eliminate the threat of wars with the eventual benefit of not needing military forces.

The United Nations was also setup for many similar reasons. While maybe not including the Modern Society, surely for the advance of mankind in the lesser-developed parts of the world, which in itself helps the rest of us advance even farther.

The world can easily be on the path to a modern society with the United States around. Most likely, the US will be a major contributor of what is required to get us to the level of a modern society. For all the criticism, the US does way more good that bad. The good being the norm and the bad being the exception. Even with the bad, the US goes to great lengths to correct any wrongs its responsible for.

Then you have these countries here listed below. They are examples of what is wrong with this planet. Some of them are bad actors. Others are taking advantage of the situation by protecting them from sanctions. Nonetheless, the result is Governments that really have no place in a modern society. Good lucking reaching a Utopia with them guys around. So here is a short list on the countries I believe are preventing the World from evolving into a much better place.

The Bad States:

Zimbabwe - Total self-destruction
Venezuela - Actions that will take it down the similar path that Zimbabwe took
Cuba - Communist oppression
Sudan - Genocide
North Korea - Communist oppression, State-sponsor of terrorism
Iran - State-sponsor of terrorism
Syria - State-sponsor of terrorism
Mexico - Exporting its population

Then you have the countries that Should Know Better:

Spain - Backing Cuba's human rights abuses. Support of Venezuela, ......

China - Backing of Sudan, Burma's Myanmar Government and North Korea. Lack of human rights.

Russia - The Russian mafia is infamous for its ruthlessness. Now we have Putin's Russia acting like mafia thugs. Executing unfriendly media. Sending assassins abroad. Using energy supplies as a weapon. Ignoring their responsibilities to clean up the nuclear waste in their own backyard, instead leaving the West to pay for it. This attitude goes back to the foundation of the post-communist Russia, when they demanded that Poland pay the expense of withdrawing the Russian Army from Poland. Providing Iran with nuclear technology and weapons.

South Africa - Demands that African countries alone should deal with African problems yet does nothing to stop Zimbabwe's downward spiral other then demand that other nations not act.

Two of the countries listed above are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. When the UN fails to adopt a resolution against a 'rogue' state, it is normally one of these two that stopped the UN from acting.

Putin and Ahmadinejad - Each the other's most Useful Idiot

Speaking of the United Nations:

This is the one entity that was supposed to help lift the world towards the modern society. Instead, it is helping countries drift down to the lowest common denominator. This is the Organization that protects the 'rights' of the countries listed above to abuse their own populations (In violation of UN Conventions) as well as abandon them while the leadership sucks the country dry of assets. This is great for the UN, which can then better reinforce its own need by assuming the responsibility to provide for these people, through the World Food Program and UN Development Program. This may even give those causing the tragedy another income source if the aid agencies pay bribes or facilitation fees to get aid to those they wish to help. Worse, a good portion of the aid may never reach those they intend to help, instead being diverted, again to Government authorities.

United Nations Human Rights Council

This council knows of no human rights violation on this planet other than those claimed to be committed by Israel.

The council is so problematic that even the new UN Secretary General has criticized its work.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon joined Western nations on Wednesday in criticizing the world body's own Human Rights Council for "picking on Israel" as part of an agreement on its working rules.

The European Union, Canada and the United States have already attacked the deal reached in Geneva on Monday under which Israel's actions would become a permanent item on the Human Rights Council's agenda.

A UN statement said: "The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world." (June, 2007) - Haaretz

Now these anchor countries claim that positions like mine above are typical of the Western Nations meddling in their internal affairs while at the same time blaming the Western nations for any problems they might admit to having. Yet as bad and imperialistic as it sounds, the world would be a much better place, if these third-world countries would be a little bit more like the United States. (Or Canada, or Australia, or New Zealand, or the UK, Ireland, Estonia...)

And finally, lets not forget the International Press, which in many cases completely fails to investigate the countries above, or fails to report information damaging to these rogue state. Take this one recent example during an interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad:

When an Israeli journalist asked him something, he just smiled and said: "Next question."

Then the wife of an Israeli soldier abducted by Hizbullah got up and asked Iran to cooperate with the Red Cross to discover his fate. But her question was ignored, and she was drowned out by more questions. - Guardian (As spotted at LGF)

There would far fewer problems in the world if the press reported the news fairly and accurately, instead of distorting stories and sitting on others. Of course, they would not get such a free pass if it were not for all the moonbats parroting their false messages. The Israeli soldiers held hostage by Hamas and Hizbullah is a perfect example.

We have a far way to go before we reach that Modern society as long as these parties listed above have anything to do with it.

US Cargo Moves by Rail - EU Cargo, by Truck

This is not something you would expect to see in Europe, cargo moving by truck. There are two reasons this is a surprise. First, moving cargo by rail is much more efficient than by truck, which releases more global warming gases as a byproduct. Secondly, by my experience, the road network in Europe is not as good as the Interstate road network in the US.

Europe’s dependence on trucks stems from the failure of its vaunted passenger-rail network to provide a cheap, efficient alternative for cargo.

Between 1995 and 2005, the percentage of European goods shipped by truck rose to 73% from 68%, while rail’s share fell to 17% from 20%. The rest goes by canal or, in the case of oil and gas, pipelines.

In the U.S. in 2005, 42% of freight was moved by train and 33% by truck. - Wall Street Journal

Apparently, Europe's rail network was not built to withstand cargo traffic or does not have the capacity to add cargo traffic. There is also the issue that you can't move a train from one country in Europe as easily as you can a car. This is not a problem in the US when traveling from one state to another. Score one for Federal power trumping that of states.

So, at least in terms of land transport, it is Europe that needs to catch up to the US.

Swedish Government Concealing the Crimes of Communism

I have stated a couple of times the ongoing need to investigate and publicize the crimes of the Soviet Union and Communism in general. A recent survey out of Sweden confirms this need:

Of the 1004 young Swedes involved in the nationwide poll, 43 percent believed that communist regimes had claimed less than one million lives. A fifth of those surveyed put the death toll at under ten thousand. The actual figure is estimated at around 100 million.

The poll also found that 40 percent of young Swedes believed that communism contributed to increased prosperity in the world; 22 percent considered communism a democratic form of government; 82 percent did not regard Belarus as a dictatorship. - The Local, Sweden

Of course they believe this as nobody has told them otherwise. The initial title I had for this post was 'Young Swedes Ignorant when it comes to Communism' but I quickly realized that the title was unfair as this is not the children's/young Swede's fault. It is the fault of their parents, the socialists/Social Democrats and the Government itself.

This information gap has roots that date back many years, according to Anders Hjemdahl.

"There were strategic reasons. For example, I think the Social Democrats only won one absolute majority in the post-war years. Therefore they had to rely on the support of smaller parties, one of which was the communist party.

"Another reason is that a large majority of Swedish journalists are left-wingers, many of them quite far left," he said. - The Local, Sweden

This is what happens when you introduce communists into your government. Any sane person will tell you that it is a really stupid thing to do. After all, it's not like they are going to need your help if they gain power. With an honest schooling, covering communism, the facts about the crimes of communism would have been known to the general population. Then there would not be a need to depend on communists in your government, because there would not be any in the government to ally with. Makes you wonder which political groups the Swedish Social Democrats passed over when they chose to collaborate with Communists. This in itself says volumes about 'Social Democrats'.

As for the quite far left Swedish journalists, at least one is taking the side of Russia in the current Russian aggression against Estonia. Journalist (and I use the term loosely) Yrsa Stenius of Sweden's Aftonbladet has written recently in support of the Russians "and calls the communist statue in Tallinn a glorious monument over the victory over Nazism. She also tells all the people in Europe to be proud of the Russians and Soviet Union and this statue". (Ms. Stenius may be a Finn, not a Swede, but has lived in Sweden since 1979 according to her Wikipedia entry. No matter, Finland is infected with the same disease, despite being attacked by the Soviets. As it so happens, she also writes for the Finnish Social Democrat magazine Uutispäivä Demari)

Of course, many Socialists are communist sympathizers, so it was not like they needed the support of the Communists, but wanted their support. After all Communism is a form of Socialism, not that the Socialists are going to admit that to anyone:

Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production. It can be classified as a branch of the broader socialist movement - Wikipedia - Communism

As I said before (here) 'The main difference in the two ideologies is to the level that one should go in order to attain the goals. So if you attack the ideals of one, then you are in fact attacking the ideals of the other. And if there is a serious investigation of the crimes of the Soviet Union, a number of current members of Socialist parties in Europe may be implicated in those crimes as well as some of the Communist and Socialist parties currently active in European Politics.'

That statement above certainly holds true for Sweden, which, as it so happens, also has unanswered questions about its activities during WWII in support of Nazi Germany.

You can also place a good portion of the blame on the European Union, which still has yet to address this issue, other than to bring it up and have the Socialist Members vote against any such investigation. Swedish Parliament Member, Mr. Goran Lindblad plainly states the problem thus:

... many politicians still active today have supported, in one way or another, former communist regimes. For obvious reasons they would prefer not to deal with the question of responsibility. In many European countries there are communist parties which have not formally condemned the crimes of communism. Last but not least, different elements of communist ideology such as equality or social justice still seduce many politicians. - Goran Lindblad, Swedish Parliament

So even though the Soviet Union took over half of Europe and threatened the other half, the EU is just going to ignore the crimes of the Soviet Union. This is exactly the type of behavior that Russia needs from the greater EU as it resorts back to its old Soviet tactics of bullying its neighbors. You can even say that the EU Parliament is aiding Russia as it chastises the US over a couple hundred detainees in Guantanamo (many of which were caught violating the laws of war) while Russia abuses the human rights of thousands while members of the press, not in line with the official line from Moscow, continue to die of mysterious curcumstances. (And the press accuse the US of targeting them in Iraq!) Even the assassination of a Kremlin critic by radioactive polonium poisoning has barely stirred any European response outside the UK where the attack took place. This lack of any condemnation will do nothing to stop Russia from taking care of more critics. They will just be more careful next time.

The article also mentions that the Swedish Government recognized the Communist takeover of Estonia and the other Baltic States unlike most of the rest of the Western World. The Swedes should be ashamed for that act alone. Maybe this act could be used as the path for educating the Swedish public. Perhaps through an apology to the Baltic States for recognizing the illegitimate Governments imposed on them by the Soviets, noting the crimes that were committed by the Soviets during their occupation.

Sweden has traditionally been a neutral country. However, neutrality benefits evil as neutral states do not speak out against their actions. This makes the job of other states who are trying to fight the renegade states that much harder. The real joke in all of this is that while Sweden was publicly neutral, they were secretly allied with the US.

During the cold war Sweden maintained a dual approach, publicly the strict neutrality policy was forcefully maintained, but unofficially strong ties were kept with the U.S. and it was hoped that the U.S. would use conventional and nuclear weapons to strike at Soviet staging areas in the occupied Baltic states in case of a Soviet attack on Sweden. Over time and due to the official neutrality dogma, fewer and fewer Swedish military officials were aware of the military cooperation with the west, making such cooperation in the event of war increasingly difficult. At the same time Swedish defensive planning was completely based on help from abroad in the event of war. - Wikipedia

Not exactly neutral isn't it? Too bad it was secret as Sweden would have been less likely to suffer an attack if it was known that the US was prepared to defend them.

While the Soviet Union has fallen apart years ago, Communism still has a strong grip on many parts of Europe. Ironically, it is in the parts of Europe that did not suffer a Soviet Occupation who are their biggest supporters. When will Europe learn to stop protecting those who threaten all of us the most?

See Also:

Europe's Lingering Scar of Communism - FFI - 23 January 2007

Russian Actions against Estonia a Reminder that the Crimes of Communism Still Need to be Investigated

Russia is busy attacking tiny Estonia once again all because Estonia has removed a memorial erected in the middle of their Capital by the Soviets in celebration of their success in defeating the Nazis and in re-conquering Estonia.

This last week saw the Estonian Embassy in Moscow surrounded by a violent mob and all of a sudden both oil and coal shipments to the country have been halted, with the Russians giving lame excuses of scheduled maintenance and equipment shortages for the halt of shipments.

Now instead of backing down, Estonia has decided to fight back. The main act was to remove the occupation statue despite Russian threats not to do so. This resulted in an uproar in Russian youth (who know little about the criminal past of the Soviet Union) living both in Estonia and those who traveled from Russia. The press has been calling the protesters "ethnic Russians" inferring that the protesters/rioters are Estonian, but most are not.

The Russians claim that the statue was to memorize the fallen soldiers who fought to free Estonia from the Nazis. This of course neglects the Soviet Union's massive amount of assistance to Nazi Germany which allowed the Nazis to steamroll across half of Europe in the first place:

While Britain blockaded Germany at sea to prevent the import of war materials from overseas, all the supplies which the Reich needed for the war were sent directly from the Soviet Union by rail. Stalin promised that what the Soviets could not supply from her own resources, they would buy up on the world's markets and pass on to Germany. Three-eighths of the oil used by Germany in 1940 came from the Soviet Union including high-octane spirit for the Luftwaffe to fight the Battle of Britain. - Wikipedia

And

From the start of the war until Germany invaded the Soviet Union less than two years later, Stalin supplied Hitler with 1.5 million tons of oil, the same quantity of grain, and many thousands of tons of rubber, timber, phosphates (for making explosives), iron and many valuable metal ores, particularly chromium, manganese and platinum. At the time of the invasion, Germany was heavily in debt to the Soviet Union.

According to Mr. Rapoport , "one of Stalin's first gifts to the Nazis was to turn over some 600 German Communists, most of them Jews, to the Gestapo at Brest-Litovsk in German-occupied Poland.”. Soviets also offered support to Nazis in the official statements, Stalin himself emphasised that it was the Anglo-French alliance that had attacked Germany, not the other way round and Molotov affirmed that Germany had made peace efforts, which had been turned down by 'Anglo-French imperialists'. - Wikipedia

Now imagine how much shorter World War II could have been had the Soviet Union not supplied Nazi Germany as part of its attempt to grab half or Europe for itself.

(Germans and Soviets were not always enemies during WWII)

As part of Stalin's division of Europe with Hitler, it was the Soviets who invaded Estonia first:

Estonia was occupied by Soviet troops on October 18th 1939, as a consequence of the secret amendment to the August 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between the Soviet Union and National Socialist Germany. The Red Army made its final occupation in June 1940. Estonia was formally annexed by the Soviet Union in August 1940 as the Estonian SSR. Many of the country's political and intellectual leaders were killed or deported to remote areas of the USSR by the Soviet authorities during 1940 to 1941. The repressions also included actions taken against thousands of ordinary people.

When the German Operation Barbarossa started against the Soviet Union, thousands of young Estonian men were forcibly drafted into the Red Army. Hundreds of political prisoners, whom the retreating Soviets had no time to move, were killed. The country was occupied by Germany from 1941 to 1944. Of the many Estonians who joined the German armed forces (including Waffen-SS), the majority did so only in 1944 when the threat of a new invasion of Estonia by Red Army had become imminent and it was clear that Germany would not win the war.

Soviet forces reconquered Estonia in the autumn of 1944 after fierce battles in the northeast of the country on the Narva river and on the Tannenberg Line (Sinimäed). In the face of the country being re-occupied by the Red Army, tens of thousands of people chose to either retreat together with the Germans or flee to Finland or Sweden.

In 1949, in response to slow progress in forming collective farms, as prescribed by the Soviet ideology, tens of thousands of people were forcibly deported in a few days either to labor camps or Siberia where half of them perished; the other half were not allowed to return until the early 1960s (several years after Stalin's death). - Wikipedia

One could say that the Nazis invaded Estonia to save it from the Russians. Even the Russian claims that they kicked the Germans out of Estonian appears to be a lie:

“The monument to the Soviet ‘liberation’ in September 1944 ... was one of the most hated monuments in Estonia until the Soviet occupation ended 50 years later,” wrote Laar, who was Estonia’s prime minister from 1992-1994 and 1999-2002. He is now leader of Estonia’s opposition center-right IRL union.

He said Estonian soldiers ejected Nazi German troops in 1944 and “restored their national government. The Red Army returned as the Nazis retreated and the flag which was ripped down from the tower of Toompea Castle was not the (Nazi) swastika, but the blue-black-white Estonian tricolor.”

Starting in the 1930s, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were successively overwhelmed by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. They regained their independence in the early 1990s and joined the European Union in 2004. - citizen.co.za

This gentleman is now calling for a commission to investigate exactly what happened while Eastern Europe was under Communist rule:

A former Estonian prime minister has suggested Russia and its Baltic neighbors jointly investigate their shared history since the 1930s to show how Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were overwhelmed first by Nazi Germany, then the Soviet Union.

In an article published Friday in the Brussels-based European Voice weekly, Mart Laar said a panel of historians should lay to rest the controversy over the removal of a Soviet-era war memorial from downtown Tallinn.

Laar suggested the panel of historians be modeled after South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which led to pardons for those confessing to crimes committed during the country’s era of apartheid. - citizen.co.za

Now this incident has reminded Poland that they too have Soviet Statues that they don't want:

The Ministry of Culture and National Heritage of Poland is developing a program that will allow local authorities destroy or relocate monuments erected in the Socialist era. Polish Minister of Culture Kazimierz Ujazdowski stated that “symbols of the communist dictatorship will disappear from the cities and streets of Poland as alien to Polish culture.” - Kommersant

As I wrote before in "Europe's Lingering Scar of Communism" until the crimes of communism are investigated, we will not be able to properly document the criminal actions of the Soviet Union. As long as this is not done, the problem with Russia and young Russians is only going to grow, especially since it is the parents and grand parents telling the younger generation how 'great' things were under the Soviet Union compared to how much they suck now.

I have no doubt that life for Russians in Estonia was better for them during Soviet times, but that was at the expense of the Estonians who were forced to accept the Russian migrants and their taking control of most whatever they wanted. This combined with Russian propaganda denying that they ever occupied Estonia is sure to increase the instability in the Baltic States for years to come if not addressed:

Estonia was occupied by the Nazis in World War II and then ruled by Moscow for five decades.

Russia denies the Soviet years amounted to an "occupation" of Estonia. - BBC

Last year the Council of Europe voted against investigating the crimes of Communism, mainly thanks to the Socialist members of the Council who are not interested in seeing Soviet Crimes linked to Socialist movements in the rest of Europe. Perhaps another organization should be created to do the investigation before the witnesses all die of old age. The crimes also need to be properly documented and the Russian population properly educated on the criminal history of their country as part of the process of ensuring that Communism is never glorified again. Just as Nazism has been properly convicted and sentenced so should communism, if for no other reason than to not saddle Russia's youth with the crimes of two generations past.

Despite the backlash Estonia has received from Russia for merely moving a Soviet statue, Poland will most likely pass a law permitting the destruction of Soviet monuments. This understandably has the Russians truly pissed off and sputtering all sorts of lies to turn the victims into the criminals.

If the draft laws are passed, local authorities will have the right to scrap or transfer monuments to Soviet soldiers and memorials related with the liberation of Poland from Nazis. This law is called an act of “decommunisation”, and ideologues of Law and Justice increasingly often call Poland’s liberation by the Soviet Army is 1944-1945 a “new occupation”.

If the two laws are adopted, streets and squares of Polish cities named after the Soviet military or Polish statesmen and party figures of the Socialist period can be renamed. A list of such streets has been already prepared in the Institute of National Memory and circulated to local authorities.

Also known are monuments slated for scrapping. These are a monument to the Soviet-Polish combat brotherhood in Warsaw, a monument to fallen heroes in the town of Szamotuly, two monuments to Soviet soldiers in Dombrow-Gurnice. In Katowice, a monument to the Red Army soldier is to be replaced by a statue of the late US president Ronald Reagan. War memorials in Krakow, Rzeszow and other cities are also in jeopardy. - ITAR TASS (Russia, which explains the pro-Soviet slant)

One thing in Poland's favor is that they do not have to deal with Ethnic Russians as there are not many at all, if any, remaining there. Russia will have to resort to retaliating from abroad. Poland, of course, was the country that the Soviets and Germans split between themselves. So the Russian claim that the Soviets liberated Poland from the Nazis is insulting.

I have been told that the Russians are constantly knocking down their own monuments with no regard to anything than the thinking of the moment. They sure did not waste any time getting rid of their Lenin and Stalin statues. They even went and un-named Leningrad and Stalingrad (which was renamed well before the Soviet Union fell apart). So as far as I can tell, Estonia acted in a much more honorable fashion than Russia does in its own country.

Even if the Estonian Statue and Polish actions were not in the news to remind the world of the criminal activity of the Soviet Union, another statue would have done so. This is the Memorial to the victims of Communism which will be dedicated in Washington, DC on June12th.

(Proposed Memorial to the Victims of Communism, Washington, DC)

Russia should wake up and be honest with its people and the world about the crimes of the Soviet Union. Otherwise Russia will be just as guilty as the communist state that it replaced. Unfortunately, their recent actions don't indicate any willingness to come clean.

More on Estonia's WWII story by CDR Salamander.

Itching for Eestimaa has a great explanation of "why exactly the Estonian state was not content to allow a memorial to the army that supported these actions in Estonia stand beside its national library and the church where it buries its leaders."

Stockholm Slender at Botanist on Alp explains what would have happened if the Soviets managed to occupy Finland as they did Estonia, noting that it was the Red Army that brutally raped Estonia. It is amazing that the Estonian State survived at all.

The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation
Soviet-German cooperation - Wikipedia
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact - Wikipedia

Remembering the Soviet Union v.1

Happy Loyalty Day - May 1 2007

While Europe takes the day off to permit their leftists to protest the capitalist system of work-for-pay, don't think that the US has nothing to celebrate on May 1 for it is Loyalty Day:

Loyalty Day, 2007
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

America was founded by patriots who risked their lives to bring freedom to our Nation. Today, our citizens are grateful for our Founding Fathers and confident in the principles that lead us forward. On Loyalty Day, we celebrate the blessings of freedom and remember our responsibility to continue our legacy of liberty.

Our Nation has never been united simply by blood, birth, or soil, but instead has always been united by the ideals that move us beyond our background and teach us what it means to be Americans. We believe deeply in freedom and self-government, values embodied in our cherished documents and defended by our troops over the course of generations. Our citizens hold the truths of our founding close to their hearts and demonstrate their loyalty in countless ways. We are inspired by the patriotic service of the men and women who wear our Nation's uniform with honor and decency. The military spouses and families who stand by their loved ones represent the best of the American spirit, and we are profoundly grateful for their sacrifice. Our country is strengthened by the millions of volunteers who show deep compassion toward their neighbors in need. All citizens can express their loyalty to the United States by flying the flag, participating in our democracy, and learning more about our country's grand story of courage and simple dream of dignity.

The Congress, by Public Law 85-529, as amended, has designated May 1 of each year as "Loyalty Day." This Loyalty Day, and throughout the year, I ask all Americans to join me in reaffirming our allegiance to our Nation.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2007, as Loyalty Day. I call upon the people of the United States to participate in this national observance and to display the flag of the United States on Loyalty Day as a symbol of pride in our Nation.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.

GEORGE W. BUSH

White House Proclamation

Now if that is not enough for you, you can celebrate the collapse of the Soviet Union. At least we no longer have to see the news coverage of the Soviet Army parading through Red Square. Of course this does not stop idiotic Socialists/communists from marching elsewhere, like Sweden:

Communist May Day demonstration at Medborgarplatsen, Stockholm, Sweden. 2006. - Wikipedia

I am not sure why there are still communists around, other than perhaps they have some sort of mental condition, or are just plain stupid. Every Single Communist State Has Been A Complete Disaster. Take this about the standard of living in the socialist Soviet Union:

In the Soviet Union in 1989 there was rationing of meat and sugar. The average intake of red meat for a Soviet citizen was half of what it had been for a subject of the Czar in 1913. Blacks in apartheid South Africa owned more cars per capita. The only area of consumption in which the Soviets excelled was the ingestion of hard liquor.

Two-thirds of the households had no hot water, and a third had no running water at all. According to the government paper, Izvestia, a typical working class family of four was forced to live for 8 years in a single 8x8 foot room, before marginally better accommodation became available. The housing shortage was so acute that at all times 17% of Soviet families had to be physically separated for want of adequate space.

A third of the hospitals had no running water and the bribery of doctors and nurses to get decent medical attention and even amenities like blankets in Soviet hospitals was not only common, but routine. Only 15 percent of Soviet youth were able to attend institutions of higher learning compared to 34 percent in the U.S. The average welfare mother in the United States received more income in a month, than the average Soviet worker could earn in a year. - Wikipedia

Sounds Great. To bad they had to ruin it will 60 odd million deaths.


Did I mention that today is also law day?

Law Day, U.S.A., 2007
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

Our Nation is built upon the rule of law and guided by our founding promise of freedom, equality, and justice for all. Law Day is an opportunity to celebrate the Constitution and the laws that protect our rights and liberties and to recognize our responsibility as citizens to uphold the values of a free and just society.

Generations of Americans have served the cause of justice and shaped our legal institutions to ensure that the blessings of liberty extend to every citizen. The men and women of America's legal community have worked to defend the Constitution, protect the innocent, and secure the rights of their fellow citizens. Their efforts have helped make our Nation a shining example of justice.

America's faith in the rule of law has endured through the centuries. Today, we strive to prepare our next generation of leaders to carry on America's tradition of freedom and democracy. The theme of this year's Law Day, "Liberty Under Law: Empowering Youth, Assuring Democracy," highlights the importance of teaching our young people about the vital role they can play in our democratic society. We all have a duty to help our youth become responsible citizens by promoting the virtues that sustain our democracy and fostering a deeper understanding and respect for our Constitution and laws. These young men and women will shape the future of our country, and their spirit and character will help promote justice, equality, and opportunity throughout our country.

The strength of our legal system requires the ongoing commitment of every citizen. As we observe Law Day, we celebrate our Nation's legal heritage and honor those who work to advance the cause of justice.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, in accordance with Public Law 87 20, as amended, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2007, as Law Day, U.S.A. I call upon all the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities. I also call upon Government officials to display the flag of the United States in support of this national observance.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-seventh day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.

# # #

Maybe someone should tell the illegal Aliens what day it is. Oh wait, since when is obeying the law of importance to them.

The Shameless Framing of Wolfowitz

I have to admit, when I first saw the headlines on Mr. Paul Wolfowitz, I too came to the conclusion that he should resign immediately. I thought that the issue was so clear-cut from the title, that I never bothered to actually read any of the stories, until I read "The Wolfowitz Files" posted on the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal editorial page:

Based on this paper trail, Mr. Wolfowitz's only real mistake was in assuming that everyone else was acting in good faith. Yet when some of these details leaked to the media, nearly everyone else at the bank dodged responsibility and let Mr. Wolfowitz twist in the wind. Mr. Melkert, a Dutch politician now at the U.N., seems to have played an especially cowardly role.

In an October 24, 2005 letter to Mr. Wolfowitz, he averred that "because the outcome is consistent with the Committee's findings and advice above, the Committee concurs with your view that this matter can be treated as closed." A month later, on November 25, Mr. Melkert even sent Mr. Wolfowitz a personal, hand-written note saying, "I would like to thank you for the very open and constructive spirit of our discussions, knowing in particular the sensitivity to Shaha, who I hope will be happy in her new assignment."

And when anonymous World Bank staffers began to circulate emails making nasty allegations about Ms. Shaha's job transfer and pay in early 2006, Mr. Melkert dismissed them in a letter to Mr. Wolfowitz on February 28, 2006, because they "did not contain new information warranting any further review by the Committee." Yet amid the recent media smears, Mr. Melkert has minimized his own crucial role. - Opinion Journal

If you are not familiar with the details of this sham incident, in that he tried to recuse himself of the conflict of interest that his girlfriend already worked at the bank, then you should read the entire article linked above.

If you are a rational person this one article clearly documents that this scandal is nothing more that something created by politicians and the press.

A couple of years ago the politicians and the press would have gotten away with it. But now we have the internet and a means for 'alternative' (unbiased) versions of the story to see the light of day. But the system is not perfect. Take this story. The hit piece comes out first and gets the most attention. Then someone has to go and investigate the situation and publish their version. This of course gets nowhere near the circulation as the fraudulent version, partly because so many people want to believe in the lie. This belief in the lie explains the recent vote by the European Parliament to damand Wolfowitz's Resignation, in complete disregard that he has done nothing wrong:

THE European Parliament on Wednesday called for the resignation of World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, adding to the pressure on the head of the poverty-fighting institution to step down.

Wolfowitz, a former member of the Bush administration, has already faced calls to give up his post after revelations that he approved a promotion and pay raise for his bank-employee girlfriend before she was assigned to work at the US State Department. [Yes, that is a true statement, completely omitting how this happened and his initial attempts to be removed from any dealings concerning his girlfriend.]

Lawmakers asked EU leaders to press the White House over the subject at a EU-US summit in Washington on Monday.

They voted 333-251 with 31 abstentions to include a paragraph in a resolution on transatlantic relations calling on Germany, holder of the 27-nation bloc's rotating presidency, and the United States to ask Wolfowitz to stand down.

They should "signal to the president of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz, that his withdrawal from the post would be a welcome step towards preventing the bank's anti-corruption policy from being undermined," the paragraph said. - The Scotsman

There are two amazing items in this story. One, that so many members of Parliament would vote for his removal, either not knowing the facts, or completely disregarding them. The World Bank has not even come out with any determination that he did something wrong, and is not likely to do so, since his actions at the time, were approved by the World Bank's ethics committee. The other amazing thing is that 250+ MEPs voted against calling for him to resign. That is pretty sizable support coming from that group.

It seems that we are still a week away from finding out if Mr. Wolfowitz will manage to keep his job. If not, maybe President Bush can send in John Bolton as a replacement. Better yet, maybe we should keep the position of Presient to Europe and let them take over filling the position as well as filling the Bank's coffers to the amount that we do now.

Personally, I hope Mr. Wolfowitz manages to keep his position. And once this issue is behind him, that he works double hard doing whatever it is that the employees of the bank are against. Clearly, this is an organization that needs cleaning from top to bottom. Too bad if he does stay, the press and the politicians will report in such a way as to marginalize his effectiveness.

The last thing the world needs, other than the lying/biased media, is lying bankers. From the framing of Wolfowitz, it seems that the World Banks has a number of liers.

The Real World Bank Scandal - Opinion Journal
A Tale of Two Scandals - Opinion Journal

Update: 26 April 2007

I have never seen anything like this. Is anyone working over there at the World Bank?

Are they all looking to see if their boss has been booted yet? While your he, be sure to click on the UN label.

Empty EU Parliament in Strasbourg, France

Take a look at this cover photo from the September 18, 2006 edition of the Finnish business newspaper Kauppalehti.

What an odd photo. Parliament appears to be in session, but where are the members of Parliament? (Apologies for the quality. Click to enlarge.)

For those who are not aware, the European Parliament is located most of the time in Brussels, Belgium. However, an EU Agreement (the Treaty of Amsterdam) puts the 'seat' at Strasbourg and requires it to meet there twelve times a year. That is fine, as long as you're not a Member of Parliament who gets bounced around from one location to the other each month, like a cat toy.

So you can image that many of the Members of Parliament are not happy, and the empty seats in the photo show it.

MEPs from all over Europe have today called for an end to the needless cost and waste of having two official seats for the European Parliament.

Few Euro-MPs deny the historic significance of Strasbourg - a city that embodies the spirit of European reconciliation - but many now believe that the waste and expense involved in monthly trips from Brussels to the French city can no longer be justified. They argue that the parliament should give up wandering and make Brussels its permanent home.

The 500 mile round-trip journey represents a huge cost to the European taxpayer. Twelve times a year, 732 MEPs with 2000 assistants and many hundreds more parliament staff take to the road from Brussels to Strasbourg. They are followed by huge lorries that carry 3500 trunks packed full of folders and papers necessary for a week's work. [Note: Can't they put all those documents on an Intranet?] The costs total more than 200 million Euros per year (£140 million). - 22 Feb 2005 - Baroness Sarah Ludford, MEP

Just imagine the contribution to Global warming this monthly trip needlessly contributes too.

There is an organized effort to change the situation, but since it requires all EU Members to approve, it is very likely that the Strasbourg Parliament will have a long future.

Here are some facts and figures from the One Seat Initiative:

• The European Parliament is the only assembly in the world not having a sole seat. The European Parliament now spreads over nine main buildings in three cities in three founder member states of the former European Community: Luxembourg, France and Belgium.
• All 732 MEPs have offices in Strasbourg and Brussels. Secretariat staff has offices in Luxembourg or Brussels and shares a smaller number of offices in Strasbourg.
• A study by Prof S. Hix (London School of Economics shows that: one quarter of MEPs regularly fail to turn up for votes throughout the entire week-long plenary session.
• The new building has cost 457 million Euro.
• The lack of a single seat costs over €200 million a year. If the EP did its work in only one place- it would save the €200 million.

The US Government is far from perfect, but this situation with the European Parliament is truly idiotic. Of course it would be another story if the European Parliament actually produced something useful.

Update: 25 April 2007

European Green Members of Parliament are calling for the end of the traveling to Strasbourg, in the name of being green:

Greens condemn EU's carbon cost
By Alix Kroeger
BBC News, Strasbourg

The European Parliament's monthly move from Brussels to Strasbourg generates more than 20,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, British Green MEPs say.

The Green Party, which commissioned the study, says the carbon cost is equal to 4,000 households in London.

The monthly trek is often referred to as the "travelling circus".- BBC

A circus indeed.

Conservation Basics for Global Warming Carbon Rookies

Sure there are people out there looking to avoid any and all air travel, in what I think is a somewhat misguided (but good intentioned) attempt to limit their greenhouse gas emissions. Right to the point of looking at crossing the Atlantic by cargo ship. But, lets face it, that is not practical, and take it from me, the ship's crew regards every passenger a pest. (Keep in mind that air travel only contributes about 2% of all GHG.)

What is really missing here are some common sense ways that you can reduce your 'carbon footprint' without having to make sacrifices. After all, that is the basic problem, while you might be willing to limit your lifestyle for the good of the planet; most other people (Like former Vice President Al Gore) are really not going to do much if it impacts their current lifestyle. So here is a short list of basic things that are or are nearly sacrifice-free. Sure, your not saving much, but added up among millions of people conserving, and you will make an impact. And who knows, once you get in the habit of doing the simple things, the harder ones might be easier to accomplish, if needed:

Use a bank card/credit card whenever possible. - Using cash or checks requires the physical movement of cash and checks. Also by using electronic means of payment, the Government will not need to mint more money. With that in mind, carry some change with you, especially pennies so that you can limit or eliminate receiving any coinage as change for small cash purchases.

Pay Bills Online whenever Possible - Why send anything through the mail when you can pay bills electronically.

Subscribe for Electronic Statements only - If any of your accounts permits you, stop receiving paper copies of invoices and statements from bank accounts, credit cards, insurance, etc. - Added 26 March

Fly Direct Whenever Possible - There are two different theories to routing air travel, direct and hub-and-spoke. Hub and spoke using bases to consolidate travelers and then move them on a larger plane to another hub, where passengers are flown to their final destinations. Of course direct is either a single or least number of flights to get you point to point. The new Airbus A380 is betting on the Hub and Spoke transport method and Boeing's 787 is betting on point to point transportation. Either way, both new planes are going to be much better for the environment that what is currently in the air. That is technology working for you.

Do not buy Tax Free Items - Never, ever buy tax-free items on the plane. It is idiotic to have goods adding non-essential weight to an airplane, that could be better used carrying cargo or additional passengers. Most of those goods are already available in stores at home.

Use the most economical shipping options when ordering online - Do not use next day shipping. It will be shipped by air, which is the worse option for the environment. You only need to plan in advance if you want something.

Do not subscribe to catalogs, magazines and newspapers - They are wasteful uses of paper and even recycling them uses energy and emits greenhouse gasses.

Do not print unless absolutely needed - Printing of course uses paper and often the printed item is read once and then tossed away.

Look where the Product was Made - You don't need to buy American (Or wherever you happen to be located) for Patriotic reasons. You can do it for the Environment. Buying locally made products has a number of benefits; encourages local employment, and reduces the transportation demands to get the product from the manufacturer to the market. In addition, you can support products that are manufactured with due regard to the Environment. Not only does it take more energy to transport products from China, but also the factory in China may pollute more than a factory in the US, not to mention the plant that generated the electricity. Despite neither country being held to the Kyoto Agreement, the US has much stricter standards concerning plant emissions than China does, as well as better enforcement to ensure compliance. (Although, if you live in a port city, that product shipped in might have a greener logistics chain.)

Turn off items not in use - Common sense really, but how many of you have lights that are on all the time. Many items, like TVs consume energy even if the item is off, using standby power, which consumes about 5% of all energy consumed in the US. So if you do not plan on using something for a while, unplug it from the wall, especially if it has a transformer and especially if you are going away on vacation.

Don't Start the Car until you are ready to drive it - This should be an environmental no-brainer, but for some reason remote starters for cars are getting increasingly popular. This is in addition to the dedicated group who runs out to their car and starts it up to either warm it up or cool it down.

Here are some more that will require a small sacrifice, or cost you some money, but I suspect that these will not be a problem for the majority of us, just for those who are telling us to conserve:

Buy Energy-Efficient Products - The most obvious item for change are energy-efficient light bulbs, but this goes for most everything. Surely a traditional TV consumes more energy than a flat screen, although I doubt the wife will ok it's purchase on ecological grounds. However, a flat screen for the computer is very affordable, so get rid of that old monitor. (TVs and monitors consume power to keep the monitor warm so that you get an instant picture when you turn it on.)

Do not fly First or Business Class - These classes waste so much space on the plane. Either a smaller plane could be used to carry that amount of passengers, or the plane can be refitted to carry more passengers if the whole plane was economy class.

Stop Smoking - Face it, lighting up releases greenhouse gases. There are some people who say that the growing of the tobacco makes the process carbon-neutral, but that fails to take into account any indirect carbon emissions, which are probably substantial since any good the plant does is negated in the process of burning it. That leaves nothing left over for harvesting, processing and transporting the products.

Don't do Illegal Drugs - Sorry to have to tell you this, but the illegal drug industry is not green. They transport the drugs in fuel-burning speedboats or route the drugs in such a way that wastes vast amounts of energy. Then there is the need to transport and hide vast quantities of cash.

Do not burn things - How about not burning candles except during a blackout. Stop using the fireplace. Same with retiring the barbeque, or at least exchange the charcoal grill for one using natural gas. Need to get rid of those leaves during the fall? Don't burn them, turn them into compost. - Added 26 March

So there you go. Nothing there is a real burdon and together those small energy savings will add up.

One thing Governments can do, especially in Europe, is to reduce the tariffs on items to reduce the importation of tax-free items by travelers and tax tourists. This has a double effect in that often the items, especially alcohol, are first sent out to tax-free shops and then re-imported by the person returning home. Often this re-importation is done via air travel.

Don't kill yourself over reducing the release of greenhouse gasses. Your not the problem. Anyway, technology is producing an increasing number of ways to make the world greener. Take the generation of electricity. Currently about half the fossil fuels used to generate electricity is wasted due to the current inefficient way of generating electricity. What is need is more efficient electrical plants. That is where the real carbon savings lie.

Don't kid yourself either if your living in Europe under the 'protection' of the Kyoto treaty. Your Governments have been fighting global warming with accounting tricks.

Feel free to add your own sacrifice-free ways of making the planet less warm in the comments.

EU's Strategy to Combat Global Warming: Billions for BS

For all the talk about saving the environment, the EU, while pointing its finger at the US for not ratifying Kyoto, has done little itself to curb their greenhouse gas emissions. It is no secret that most of the EU Member states are in violation of their agreed Kyoto Carbon Emission limits. They however have done a good deal of tinkering with greenhouse gas accounting.

The position of the EU is not without controversy in Protocol negotiations, however. One criticism is that, rather than reducing 8%, all the EU member countries should cut 15% as the EU insisted a uniform target of 15% for other developed countries during the negotiation while allowing itself to share a big reduction in the former East Germany to meet the 15% goal for the entire EU.

Also, emission levels of former Warsaw Pact countries who now are members of the EU have already been reduced as a result of their economic restructuring. This may mean that the region's 1990 baseline level is inflated compared to that of other developed countries, thus giving European economies a potential competitive advantage over the U.S. - Wiki

Unfortunately, tinkering with the numbers is not going to make the planet any cooler.

Funny thing is, Germany is surely now wishing that they had kept East Germany's carbon reductions for themselves, because they now have a problem with too much emissions:

BERLIN, June 28 — Germany, one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases in Europe, announced changes Wednesday that would allow increases in its emissions — a move that is expected to be challenged by the European Commission.

The German cabinet decided to exclude the coal industry from the European Union's carbon trading program, under which companies must buy permits before they can release higher-than-mandated levels of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The move could persuade other countries to loosen their controls, critics said.

Chancellor Angela Merkel, a Conservative, and her Social Democratic coalition partners agreed to cut Germany's emissions limit by nearly 3.4 percent from 2008 to 2012. But critics said the reductions would be ineffectual if coal — a source of some of the worst industrial pollutants — is excluded. - NY Times

I'm sorry but I do not understand how you can exclude some greenhouse gas emissions when you are talking about GLOBAL WARMING. If they want to play that game, then you could say that the US decided to exclude all its industry from carbon trading programs.

The whole point of trading carbon emissions is so that dirty industries like Germany's coal industry can purchase carbon credits because that is much less expensive than cleaning the industry itself. Instead, they can spend money to clean up other areas. (One way to account for coal's emissions would be to tax coal, which theoretically would decrease its use or fund the changes needed to make coal more 'green' or tax the coal companies. But try telling that to the thousands working in the industry.)

Germany is not the only country that is cheating. It seems that many of the EU Countries are simply underestimating their current emissions:

MANY governments, including some that claim to be leading the fight against global warming, are harbouring a dirty little secret. These countries are emitting far more greenhouse gas than they say they are, a fact that threatens to undermine not only the shaky Kyoto protocol but also the new multibillion-dollar market in carbon trading.

Under Kyoto, each government calculates how much carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide its country emits by adding together estimated emissions from individual sources. These so-called "bottom-up" estimates have long been accepted by atmospheric scientists, even though they have never been independently audited.

Now two teams that have monitored concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere say they have convincing evidence that the figures reported by many countries are wrong, especially for methane. Among the worst offenders are the UK, which may be emitting 92 per cent more methane than it declares under the Kyoto protocol, and France, which may be emitting 47 per cent more. - Kyoto promises are nothing but hot air - New Scientist

Methane? Why do we not hear anything about methane emissions? (More on that in another post, but keep the following in mind: "Methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases put together. Methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2.")

The EU's numbers games does not end here. Now that they have taken advantage of 'East Germany's' unused carbon credits, they are now going to purchase more mythical Carbon credits from Russia, which has a ton of them due to the breakup of the Soviet Union and the following collapse of the Soviet Union's Greenhouse Gas manufacturing machine.

Now you would think that someone in the EU would think that sending billions of Euros to Russia is a truly stupid idea and come up with an alternative way to use that money. (Such as fining industry at the going rate of carbon credits instead of the much higher penalties that will be imposed, which is driving the need to purchase carbon credits from Russia. Or how about allowing polluting industries to replace all the light bulbs in the EU with compact florescent lights)

Funny thing is, with all the EU attention on trading Carbon credits, they must have forgotten that they were against it before they were for it.

By the summer of 2000, almost all the European countries had ratified the protocol, but the United States, Russia, Japan, Australia, and a number of Eastern European nations had not. Since the Protocol could not go into effect until 55 percent of all industrial nations contributing at least 55 percent of emissions had ratified it, there was great pressure on the United States to do so. All this came to a head in The Hague in November 2000. The U.S. delegation, handpicked by the Clinton-Gore White House, wanted very much to achieve a compromise with the Europeans that might make ratification by the Senate possible. The compromise would involve “emission trading” among nations that faced different costs of compliance, as a means of lowering the overall cost. The EU opposed it, although Europe had granted to itself the option of emission trading among European nations.

This so-called European “bubble” allowed the EU to set specific reduction quotas for each country. Some European countries were even permitted to raise their emissions over the 1990 levels, since they were still in a developing stage. Others, like Germany and Britain, took it upon themselves to take larger cuts, up to 25 percent. While this sounds like a very large reduction in emissions, it must be recognized that the choice of 1990 as the base year made it relatively easy for Germany and Britain to meet these targets. Germany had just completed its reunification and was shutting down the former East Germany’s highly inefficient industries. Britain had started to substitute North Sea natural gas for coal in its power plants, which drastically reduced the country’s carbon dioxide emissions. - New Atlantis

Now here is the part that just screams hypocrisy:

The sessions in The Hague were highly dramatic, and the conference had to be adjourned without an agreement. Had Europe compromised and permitted emission trading, as requested by the U.S., an agreement might have been possible. But western European nations, especially France, wanted to see the U.S. make painful cuts in its use of energy rather than permit the purchase of unused emission permits from Russia. The French had a point: the emission trading scheme, while it would have allowed the U.S. to sign on, was really a cop-out, since buying unused permits from Russia would mean that overall emissions to the atmosphere would not actually be reduced at all. - New Atlantis

Thanks to Europe, the US will save billions for not having to purchase the right to pollute under Kyoto. Turns out that the EU eventually agreed to carbon trading, once they realized that they would need to trade as well, with 'trade' really meaning 'to buy', and will be forking billions over to Russia. Funny how these things work out. (And they think that we are the stupid ones!)

European nations agreed to the "Kyoto" process, and have set carbon emissions limits for themselves. In order to exceed those limits, they are going to buy "credits" from Russia. These "credits" are a fictional device. The Europeans are buying permission to pollute -- from Russia, the most polluted country in Europe. Russia delivers nothing. Reuters:

"Gazprombank and Dresdner Kleinwort plan to invest in projects generating carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol, in a Russian and east European market worth up to 5 billion Euros ($6.5 billion) through to 2012.

But Gazprombank, owned by the world's largest gas company Gazprom (GAZP.MM: Quote, Profile , Research), admitted that no projects could actually be implemented until Russia passed laws to govern emissions trading -- something it has repeatedly promised but failed to deliver."Furthermore:

"Outside JI schemes, which allow investors to book foreign emission savings as their own, experts say Russia may have as many as 3 billion tonnes of spare quotas to sell under Kyoto's terms if it passes the required laws."

Thus Western Europe itself funds the tyrannical regime that is still seeking to subvert it. As Lenin said, "When the last of the bourgeoisie is hanged, it will be a capitalist who sells us the rope." - Astute Bloggers

Now, it just might be that Russia's carbon credits might be the only ones left in Europe cheap enough for European companies to afford because, in the EU's infinite wisdom, Member states have decided that VAT (Value added Taxes) will have to be paid on purchased carbon credits. That could be as high as 25% depending on which country you are in. Here is the summary for Finland:

(Link to PWC's Carbon Trading guide - PDF link)

Is there nothing that the EU will not tax? So while the EU sells the plan as an incentive for companies to make changes and then profit by selling their remaining right to pollute, they then turn around and tax the hell out of it and thereby limiting the benefit for a company to make changes towards conservation. Businesses will still have to conserve, but the promised rewards are not as great as promised. There was an added issue in the first round in that many countries gave their companies more credits than they could have possibly used. (Cross-border trades – seller charges no VAT and buyer self-assesses for local VAT, both charging and recovering the VAT on the same return. - PDF link)

With all of this accounting games going on, you would think that truer carbon reduction methods would also be credited, such as planting a tree. Well, no.

One reason why the EU has been getting away with the juggling of carbon emission credits is simply due to the year that was chosen as a baseline. Europe has been making out like a bandit as they were particularly dirty in the year chosen, 1990.

The urge to be selfish when talking about climate change is strong. Greenhouse gases have the same effect wherever they are emitted, yet the cost of stopping such pollution is not similarly dispersed. Each country pays the full cost of controlling its own emissions but gains only a small fraction of the global benefit.

Selfishness alone, however, did not lead the United States to reject the Kyoto protocol. Sound economic policy did. The agreement is highly inefficient and inequitable.

The treaty sets targets for greenhouse gas emissions for each participating country based on its 1990 emission levels. Unlike much of the world, the United States has grown considerably since 1990, and this places it at a great disadvantage compared to countries whose economies have fallen. Those countries may even benefit under the treaty because they will have "lost" emissions.

Prosperous Western Europe has cleverly aligned itself with slumping Eastern Europe (and possibly Russia) to take advantage of the declines in emissions in those countries. Taking Europe as a whole, the region must reduce emissions only a few percent to reach its Kyoto targets.

In contrast, the United States would have to reduce emissions by almost 30 percent to reach its Kyoto targets. This means that while the European abatement program will cost roughly $5 per ton, the United States program could cost as much $100/ton. - NPR

So while these nations are emitting much less greenhouse gases, they really did not do anything to achieve these reductions. If anything, it was American actions in helping to kill off the Soviet Union that brought about this 'greening' of Europe. Shouldn't we get some credit for that?

By the time this is all done in 2012, the Kyoto Protocol might turn out to be little more than a stick to beat the US with. Unfortunately, it is going to cost businesses in Europe billions for their Governments to have the privilege. That's pretty damn sad for countries that believe that the planet is in danger of global warming.

UPDATE: 20 February 2007
I ran across this at Davids Medienkritik:

Europe 'complacent' on climate change - February 18, 2007 - European nations are not doing enough to fight climate change and should show more leadership before they criticise the US and Asia, the head of the UN Environment Program (UNEP) said on Saturday.

Achim Steiner said in an interview with Bild am Sonntag newspaper climate change has been caused primarily by carbon dioxide emissions from Western industrialised nations and it was thus their responsibility to lead the fight against it.

He said the US and Asia were now moving faster in the fight against climate change than Europe, which he said has grown complacent.

"The Americans and Asians are catching up quickly and are becoming strong business competitors (with green technologies)," Steiner said, in excerpts of the interview released ahead of Sunday's publication.

"But in Europe we've cherished the illusion in recent years that 'we've done enough'," he added.

He praised Germany, which holds the European Union presidency, for "showing initiative" but said it was not enough. "It's important that Germany move forward," he said, referring to Europe's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases.

The EU's environment commissioner earlier this month said Germany's lack of progress in cutting greenhouse gas emissions was holding back international efforts to combat global warming. - Davids Medienkritik

After all, it is the reult that matters most.

Gazprom, Dresdner to launch carbon deal - The Age, Australia
EUROPE SENDS BILLIONS TO PUTIN FOR "KYOTO CREDITS" - Astute Bloggers