Court, Klaus approve Lisbon

>>It is obvious that your idea of "control" is not cast in stone.

Obviously not.

>>For example if government legislate the tax to control an excessive greed of busines people you object.

Because this doesn't harm anyone.

>>You believe that people at large should have right to vote in referenda for important decisions.

>>Again,you believe that special interest groups(such as extremist environmentalists)should have right to dictate to the rest of the mankind.

I am not sure that any environmental groups are "extremist". Insofar as they want to dictate to other people they need to do so: this is the "problem of the commons". Everybody abuses the environment, and everybody suffers because of this abuse. So somebody has to stop it: it's not in anybody's selfish interest to stop, so environmentalists, who have wider concerns than their own selfish needs, need to make them. For example, because of poor legislation and inadequate controls most of the world's fish stocks have been depleted, in many cases catastrophically. With proper controls this wouldn't have happened. But no individual fisherman would have wanted to control his own fishing voluntarily.

Karel: it's hardly undermining the foundations of capitalism to say that shops shouldn't be allowed to give away plastic bags.

The problem, like with many environmental issues, is that the benefits are internalized but the costs are externalized. The shop is happy to pay a few cents for a bag which makes the customer happy; however, it isn't prepared to pay for the environmental costs which the bag generates. Personally I would allow shops to give bags away for free, but make sure that they pay the true cost - for example, with a 1000% tax.

The same is true of car driving. The person driving pays just for the petrol and maintenance of the car. He doesn't pay for the environmental costs. Consequently he uses the car for trivial reasons, such as driving to work when he could just as easily use public transport, or driving 500m to the corner shop. In a *true* market economy people would pay the *true* cost of the products or services that they use - which in the case of plastic bags and nuclear power consists primarily in disposing of the waste afterwards.

" For example, today we need better protection for rain-forests: not from peasants who will end up being "controlled" to do something against their will, but from large corporations who plunder the Earth."

It is obvious that your idea of "control" is not cast in stone.
For example if government legislate the tax to control an excessive greed of busines people you object.
On the other hand if government controls the citizens in all areas of life(totalitarian)it is alright with you as long as it is not in western Europe-I presume.
You believe that people at large should have right to vote in referenda for important decisions.
Again,you believe that special interest groups(such as extremist environmentalists)should have right to dictate to the rest of the mankind.

I see the special interest groups(for exampl NIMBY)everywhere in the western world and they do have far too much of power for the good of the rest of population.

Having said that,there is obvious need to regulate(not to control) some areas of various activities of people.
Drinking and usage of mind bending drugs while driving is one I support.

Peter, I think far, far too much has been made of plastic bags' littering the landscape and killing (the few)animals that ingest them. But, I speak of my local experience only. It's true they take yonks to break down, but so does all the other plastic which is used to cover goods which used to be carried in these plastic shopping bags. Look, I don't care what the supermarkets give me to carry my goods in. Until some time in the '70's it used to be large paper bags. Fine. But I expect something; I am not defending plastic bags per se. This whole business started with the state's insinuating itself into the interface between buyer and seller at the supermarket checkout. That being so, the supermarket owners have been unable, or unwilling, to remedy the situation by ensuring that the customer leaves the store with his or her goods in good order as has traditionally been the case in the West. They argue it's a matter of cost, that there are alternatives but they would cost too much. Well, while the majority of my fellow Australians behave as they usually do, ie, as docile bovines, and accept the situation nothing is going to change; the state will have successfully turned a traditional part of the buyer/seller transaction on its head. At the end of the day, it is not the state for whom I have the most contempt, in this and other matters, but the capitalists, in this instance the supermarket owners, who do not understand what they are about and cannot see the forest for the trees, cannot see that there is more to it than just making a profit.

Karel: I would have thought that it was fairly obvious why plastic bags are so harmful. They are totally unnecessary, litter the landscape, can kill animals who ingest them and...take over a thousand years to decay. This means that something which offers you the negligible benefit of your not having to carry a normal bag around with you will still be harming the environment in the year 3009.

To Peter Andrews,

" ... the ban on plastic bags is a worthwhile achievement ... "

I wonder why you would think so Peter. Quite apart from any inconvenience I might suffer from time to time, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that regard, I think above everything else it's a very unwelcome intrusion by the state, a very bold intrusion, into the transaction between buyer and seller, in this instance in respect of goods which are quite often necessary to stay alive, ie, goods such as food, food, including the staff of life itself, bread, which itself is just about always wrapped in plastic, but which plastic does not come within the ambit of the offending legislation banning those plastic bags. Lets' face it, so many products bought at the supermarket, food notwithstanding, come wrapped in plastic. At the very least the state ought to be consistent in regard to all this plastic. There must surely be a better way.

>>Like the gospel of erstwhile Marxism, it aims at the suppression of the spontaneous evolution of mankind and wants to replace it by some sort of worldwide central planning of society.

This is pure twaddle. From the very first time that humans settled they needed some basic controls - for example, not to defaecate in the food, not to rape women, not to eat children. For example, today we need better protection for rain-forests: not from peasants who will end up being "controlled" to do something against their will, but from large corporations who plunder the Earth.

Forget about the light-bulb story: that is another scam. However, the ban on plastic bags is a worthwhile achievement. I suggest you remember to bring bags with you next time.

Correction, Klaus' book is called Blue Planet Green Shackles.

The following are not my words, but the words of an appraiser of Klaus' book Blue Planet Green Chains. The full text can be found at
http://www.henrythornton.com/article.asp?article_id=5136

"Fourthly, his angle of dealing with environmentalism, including climate change, is quite unique. Václav Klaus approaches today's environmentalism from a totally different perspective from that of most authors. As someone, who has spent a great deal of his life under communism, he is hypersensitive to any measure which encroaches upon human freedom. In his view, at the beginning of the 21st century, communism or one of its more benign variants, does not constitute the greatest threat to freedom, democracy and the free market system any more.

This threat has been substituted by another 'ism', that of dogmatic environmentalism. It is an ideology which preaches the primacy of nature and the earth. Like the gospel of erstwhile Marxism, it aims at the suppression of the spontaneous evolution of mankind and wants to replace it by some sort of worldwide central planning of society. Klaus is convinced that, paradoxically, this will be damaging to nature and the earth, just like the introduction of Marxism has resulted in the exploitation, not only of workers, but of the population at large as well. "

I think we three can agree with these words, even if the editors of this newspaper and some of its staff cannot.

By the way, it has not been possible to buy incandescent light globes in this country since last month. The alternative is to use candles or pay three to four times the amount for the new climate saving globes. In addition, our supermarkets are no longer permitted by law to provide you with (notionally) free plastic bags for the goods you buy; you have to bring your own, or buy a bag for around 20c. As I refuse to buy their bags - they can stick them up their collective arses - I often forget to bring a bag or two with me when shopping and so have to drive back home to bring my own, thereby creating more pollution and adding to my ernomous carbon footprint. But this is just the beginning, Act ! of The Theatre of the Absurd. Much more to follow in this paly of five acts in order to save the planet; more characters, costumes and zeal, especially zeal.

"Why don't you read my postings before you comment on them? If you do, you will notice that you have simply repeated what I said."

Yes,I know that even I and you can at times agree on some issues.
I was -generally speaking-commenting on the context and overall tone of your opinions.

>>That is my point.
What is yours?

Why don't you read my postings before you comment on them? If you do, you will notice that you have simply repeated what I said.

"There is no connection between this concern and communism."

In the sense "of forcing of their views" there surely is paralel between the environmentalists and communists.

I, personally,also have a concern about environment.I have seen the devastation done by uncaring industrial (and political) concerns.
I have seen dead forests of Krusne Hory and Jizerske Hory.I lived and worked in chemical factory in Usti nad Labem and saw first hand-so to speak- the incredible polution that was done by communist run factories.

What I do not accept is the hypothesis of "carbon hell" advanced by the same environmentalists that I do agree with about true polution.There is absolutelly no need to promote and even dictate this theory om mankind, especially if it is ignoring true devastating polution situations both in China and India.
There is a need to separate the concern about the polution and global warming theory of carbon polution.

That is my point.
What is yours?
All you are doing on this blog is trying to tear down everybody's else opinions but all you can offer is snippets of factoids divorced from reality.As far as I am concerned you are "yellow bellied" bloody minded failed "capitalist" that is hinting on various utopias but never commits itself to say what they actually are.Your philosophy(based on your various past opinions) is non existent save for hints of conspiracy theories and possibly right and or left wing extremism.
As I said previously there is a little difference between right wing and left wing extremism.

>>In that sense,the environmentalists are indeed "new communists" forcing their view of environmental "utopia" on the rest of the world.

In no sense are they "communists", "new" or otherwise. Outside Planet Jiri people have been concerned about the environment for many decades. There is no connection between this concern and communism.

"It is fairly clear, and has been for many decades, that mankind is destroying the environment of this planet. This is not some "communist plot", it's the inevitable result of a population which has doubled within the past forty years.


There is a difference between the polution per se and between global warming.
There is no doubt that sulphur and nitrogen compounds in emissions as well as synthetic chemicals such PCBs and other polychlorinated,polybrominated and polyfluorinated compounds are causing damage to environment.
So called polution done by carbon dioxide is however completely different story.This esential element is actually needed for plants,humans and animals to survive.
Without carbon there would be no life at all.Our body contains mainly water and carbon based compounds(i.e.amino acids and other organic chemicals).The "scientists" that proposed that global warming is "probably" caused by increasing levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are hedging their bets by stating that there is only 95% confidence level about this hypothesis.Thirty years ago similar hypothesis by different "scientists"argued that we are heading into new Ice Age.
These two hypotheses are not mutually exclusive.They both will happen-100% confidence level to that.They will happen no matter whether humankind will still exist or not.So it always was in geological history of this planet and always will be.

In that sense,the environmentalists are indeed "new communists" forcing their view of environmental "utopia" on the rest of the world.

"It is fairly clear, and has been for many decades, that mankind is destroying the environment of this planet. This is not some "communist plot", it's the inevitable result of a population which has doubled within the past forty years."

Yes, I basically agree. I would add that, in the West as well as most of East Asia and South East Asia the degradation and sometimes destruction of the environment is the result of greatly increased affluence over the last 40-50 years. Our homes are full to the brim with stuff, things which they were not 50 years ago. And all of this stuff requires energy and a good deal of water for its manufacture.

>>"Don't confuse true environmentalism with the recent scam about "man-made global warming".

Ok, please amplify, un-confuse me.

It is fairly clear, and has been for many decades, that mankind is destroying the environment of this planet. This is not some "communist plot", it's the inevitable result of a population which has doubled within the past forty years.

There is little doubt that temperatures are gradually rising on this planet. However, the argument that this is primarily because of increased emission of CO2 by human activity is very far from proven. It is not at all unreasonable to be suspicious of a claim which has so obviously been forced down our throats by the controlled media, and which could very easily be driven by an ulterior motive. Klaus is right to be suspicious.

"Don't confuse true environmentalism with the recent scam about "man-made global warming".

Ok, please amplify, un-confuse me.

>>The Greens are the more than utopians I believe. They are the new communists and Klaus is absolutely right about them and their anti-human creed.

This is twaddle. Protecting the planet from the toxic waste produced by humanity is a priority for all of us. Don't confuse true environmentalism with the recent scam about "man-made global warming".

Jiri, one fifth of the article I have cited is given over to demonising Klaus by linking him to those right-wing miliitias in the USA. Klaus is obviously Public Enemy Number One in the eyes of the Greens. That one person can bring out all this bile. Imagine that! The president of a small nation of ten millions in the middle of Europe whose first language isn't English can cause such a reaction. Wow! This being so, I esteem him even more. He is a great man in a world of head nodding political dwarfs(trpasliky).

The Greens are the more than utopians I believe. They are the new communists and Klaus is absolutely right about them and their anti-human creed.

It's very hot outdoors and indoors(39C) so time for another swim!

The court approved the the signing of the Lisbon Treaty. Although signed; leading objectors have indicated that a pull out of the Lisbon Treaty is still thier goal. Some feel that they have a case that has more authority than the constitutional court; by definition more than what the people want.

"Here's a new slant on why President Klaus held out for so long in appending his signature to the Lisbon Treaty. These words appear in today's The Australian in a column written by a Greens candidate for an up-coming by-election. You will note that Klaus' decision had absolutely nothing to do with Sudeten Germans and absolutley everything to do with his allegedly morbid fear of UN world government:"

Hi Karel,

The slant it is."Greens" by their philosophy would try to belittle anybody that would stay in their way to their nonsensic "Utopia."
They do not understand that while the Global warming is just a continuation of the end of the Ice Age,(remember that in geological terms human beings are just nano second-so to speak- in Earth's past history)its overwhelming causes are planet and even cosmic activities which played their role countless time in the past as well as will play its past countless times in the future.

Here's a new slant on why President Klaus held out for so long in appending his signature to the Lisbon Treaty. These words appear in today's The Australian in a column written by a Greens candidate for an up-coming by-election. You will note that Klaus' decision had absolutely nothing to do with Sudeten Germans and absolutley everything to do with his allegedly morbid fear of UN world government:

"Last week Czech President Vaclav Klaus finally gave in to irresistible pressure and signed the Lisbon Treaty aimed at streamlining the operation of the European Union. Klaus resisted to the end because he believed adopting the treaty meant the Czech Republic would cease to be a sovereign state, despite the fact none of the 26 other EU members or the two houses of the Czech parliament entertained such fears.

This is relevant because Klaus is an anti-warming fanatic, declaring it to be a plot by the UN to achieve world government.

Klaus shares this preposterous fear of the UN with right-wing militias in the US and the membership of our Lavoisier Group of climate sceptics set up by Hugh Morgan, which wrote in all seriousness that the Kyoto protocol represented a threat to our sovereignty comparable to Japan's planned invasion in World War II."

Typical Czech behavior... if yo are part of the EU then act like it! It is bad enough that after joining NATO Czechs dismantled their army to save money because they were safe.... it is like joining a sports club as an average athlete then gaining 50kg. Useless fat dead weight.

It did happen; many saw it before the Ireland revote. Now that it's here; and in the domain of the political theatre; some show will transpire. Most people will gaze on; I guess newspaper sales in the E.U. may increase. Christmas will overtake the initial opening performances and heating bills will keep reality of life for many.
This time next year; assuming ice caps don't melt to zero; I will make an estimate of at least one new polevka company will create jobs.
Optomism seems a reasonable window to gaze on at lifes rich tapestry.

The loss of soveriegn status in certain areas may well resonate in other countries with time. The transition period will present issues that have common factors. Whether it is possible to keep the treaty and debate in Brussles on reasonable change to individual partner concerns; remains to be seen. This treaty if marked as a presentation; would get a just passed mark; time will reveal its merits and debits.

It's amazing that Klaus can pass as something a saver of the Czech Nation while he has incredibly damaged the reputation of the Czech Republic and has made a point based on a non-issue.

The Benes decrees cannot be affected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, since this has no retroactive value.

Klaus made a lot of fuss about nothing. The only way he should be remembered is as a cynical populist trying to increase his own power.

does the opt out of the charter of fundamental rights only apply to sections which may effect the benes decrees or is it like i would expect here and a total opt out of all provisions leaving the czechs without the rights of other europeans