Comments (0)

By Stefan, 17/01/2012 15:06

Das ist der schöne Teil, der Beton versteckt sich rechts und links davon …

Comments (0)

By Stefan, 17/01/2012 14:55

When somebody attacks, it means he lost his self control, his love.
Aikido means to help the attacker find back to himself involving him in a spiral of love.

Comments (0)

By Stefan, 09/01/2012 13:24

Wo liegen heute weltweit die grössten Problemzonen? Hier eine lange Liste, das Inhaltsverzeichnis eines Buches von http://killinghope.org/

Killing Hope: US Military and CIA
Interventions Since World War II.

by William Blum

Table of Contents

Introduction
1. China – 1945 to 1960s: Was Mao Tse-tung just paranoid?
 2. Italy – 1947-1948: Free elections, Hollywood style
3. Greece – 1947 to early 1950s: From cradle of democracy to client state
4. The Philippines – 1940s and 1950s: America’s oldest colony
5. Korea – 1945-1953: Was it all that it appeared to be?
6. Albania – 1949-1953: The proper English spy
7. Eastern Europe – 1948-1956: Operation Splinter Factor
8. Germany – 1950s: Everything from juvenile delinquency to terrorism
9. Iran – 1953: Making it safe for the King of Kings
10. Guatemala – 1953-1954: While the world watched
11. Costa Rica – Mid-1950s: Trying to topple an ally – Part 1
12. Syria – 1956-1957: Purchasing a new government
13. Middle East – 1957-1958: The Eisenhower Doctrine claims another backyard for America
14. Indonesia – 1957-1958: War and pornography
15. Western Europe – 1950s and 1960s: Fronts within fronts within fronts
16. British Guiana – 1953-1964: The CIA’s international labor mafia
17. Soviet Union – Late 1940s to 1960s: From spy planes to book publishing
18. Italy – 1950s to 1970s: Supporting the Cardinal’s orphans and techno-fascism
19. Vietnam – 1950-1973: The Hearts and Minds Circus
20. Cambodia – 1955-1973: Prince Sihanouk walks the high-wire of neutralism
21. Laos – 1957-1973: L’Armée Clandestine
22. Haiti – 1959-1963: The Marines land, again
23. Guatemala – 1960: One good coup deserves another
24. France/Algeria – 1960s: L’état, c’est la CIA
25. Ecuador – 1960-1963: A text book of dirty tricks
26. The Congo – 1960-1964: The assassination of Patrice Lumumba
27. Brazil – 1961-1964: Introducing the marvelous new world of death squads
28. Peru – 1960-1965: Fort Bragg moves to the jungle
29. Dominican Republic – 1960-1966: Saving democracy from communism by getting rid of democracy
30. Cuba – 1959 to 1980s: The unforgivable revolution
31. Indonesia – 1965: Liquidating President Sukarno … and 500,000 others
East Timor – 1975: And 200,000 more
32. Ghana – 1966: Kwame Nkrumah steps out of line
33. Uruguay – 1964-1970: Torture — as American as apple pie
34. Chile – 1964-1973: A hammer and sickle stamped on your child’s forehead
35. Greece – 1964-1974: “Fuck your Parliament and your Constitution,” said
the President of the United States
36. Bolivia – 1964-1975: Tracking down Che Guevara in the land of coup d’etat
37. Guatemala – 1962 to 1980s: A less publicized “final solution”
38. Costa Rica – 1970-1971: Trying to topple an ally — Part 2
39. Iraq – 1972-1975: Covert action should not be confused with missionary work
40. Australia – 1973-1975: Another free election bites the dust
41. Angola – 1975 to 1980s: The Great Powers Poker Game
42. Zaire – 1975-1978: Mobutu and the CIA, a marriage made in heaven
43. Jamaica – 1976-1980: Kissinger’s ultimatum
44. Seychelles – 1979-1981: Yet another area of great strategic importance
45. Grenada – 1979-1984: Lying — one of the few growth industries in Washington
46. Morocco – 1983: A video nasty
47. Suriname – 1982-1984: Once again, the Cuban bogeyman
48. Libya – 1981-1989: Ronald Reagan meets his match
49. Nicaragua – 1981-1990: Destabilization in slow motion
50. Panama – 1969-1991: Double-crossing our drug supplier
51. Bulgaria 1990/Albania 1991: Teaching communists what democracy is all about
52. Iraq – 1990-1991: Desert holocaust
53. Afghanistan – 1979-1992: America’s Jihad
54. El Salvador – 1980-1994: Human rights, Washington style
55. Haiti – 1986-1994: Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?
56. The American Empire – 1992 to present

Da geht einem doch ein Licht auf, oder?

Und hier noch ein kleines, aber nicht weniger wichtiges Zitat aus dem Artikel

The Anti-Empire Report

January 3rd, 2012
by William Blum
www.killinghope.org

Zitat: ” There are two major patterns in foreign policy: the rule of force or the rule of law. On February 8, 1819 the US decided, after a very long debate in the House, to reject the rule of law in foreign policy. The vote was 100 to 70 against requiring the Congress to approve illegal invasions of other countries or peoples. This pertained to the “Seminole War”, actually the invasion of Florida. Since then every president has had the right to “defend America”, code words for the use of force against whomever he chooses. — Kelly Gelgering”

Hatte fast die Vermutung das so etwas dahinter steckt.  Leider ist das Ziel nicht die Demokratie, sondern Geld und Macht einiger weniger.

Comments (0)

By Stefan, 17/12/2011 07:55

lizenziert!
auf der genetischen Veränderung sind Patente angemeldet. Rechtlich gehört also eine solche Pflanze nicht demjenigen, der sie anbaut, sondern dem Besitzer des Patentes.
Buon Apetito.

Comments (0)

By Stefan, 03/12/2011 00:38

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cRwz46VyJlY

auch heute scheint die sonne, danke phenomden

Comments (0)

By Stefan, 30/11/2011 21:01

Artikel aus 20min.ch 30. November 2011 19:03

http://www.20min.ch/news/ausland/story/-Unter-jedem-Bart-steht-made-in-England–19371992

Die USA heissen im revolutionären Jargon der Islamischen Republik Iran «Grosser Satan», Israel «Kleiner Satan». Die Führung in Teheran zelebriert die Feindschaft mit diesen beiden seit Jahr und Tag mit viel Leidenschaft. Doch einige, vor allem ältere Iraner vermuten eine andere Macht hinter allem Bösen dieser Welt: Grossbritannien. Dass die iranischen Behörden am Dienstag einige Hitzköpfe auf dessen Botschaftsareal wüten liessen, ist darum nicht weiter erstaunlich. Parlamentspräsident Ali Laridschani verwies in diesem Zusammenhang auf den Zorn der Studenten infolge «von mehreren Jahrzehnten Dominierungsversuchen Grossbritanniens».

Infografik Politisches System des IranTimeline Iran

Anti-britische Ressentiments in Iran reichen weit zurück. Im als «Great Game» bezeichneten Konflikt zwischen Grossbritannien und Russland um die Vorherrschaft in Zentralasien kam das Land zu Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts unter die Räder der Grossmächte. Nach seiner Niederlage im Anglo-Persischen Krieg 1857 geriet es zunehmend unter britischen Einfluss. 1872 unterzeichnete der schwache und bankrotte Schah von Persien die sogenannten Reuters-Konzessionen, die Grossbritannien unter anderem die Kontrolle über Eisenbahn und Bergbau im Iran übertrugen. Der einflussreiche Generalgouverneur von Indien, Lord Curzon, nannte das Abkommen «die vollständigste und aussergewöhnlichste Aufgabe der gesamten industriellen Ressourcen eines Königreichs in fremde Hände, die man sich erträumen kann».

Putsch von MI6 und CIA

Das für das britisch-iranische Verhältnis folgenschwerste Ereignis war jedoch die Entdeckung von Erdöl im Südiran, der zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts faktisch von britischen Truppen besetzt war. Die Einnahmen der Anglo-Persian Oil Company (heute BP) flossen praktisch gänzlich nach London. Die Gesellschaft war so mächtig, dass die Zentralregierung in Teheran nicht einmal Minister ohne deren Zustimmung ernennen konnte. Als der populäre iranische Premierminister Mohammad Mossadegh dem Treiben 1951 ein Ende setzte und die Erdölindustrie verstaatlichte, eskalierten die Animositäten.

Grossbritannien zog seine Arbeiter aus Abadan ab und verhängte ein Erdölembargo gegen den Iran. Nachdem juristische Schritte vor der UNO und dem Internationalen Gerichtshof in Den Haag gescheitert waren, zettelte der amerikanische Auslandgeheimdienst CIA auf Anraten der Briten einen Putsch gegen Mossadegh an. Daraufhin kehrte der zuvor ins Exil geflüchtete Schah Mohammad Reza Pahlawi zurück, der anschliessend seine vom Westen gestützte Diktatur errichtete, die erst durch die Revolution von 1979 beendet wurde. Diesen Verrat haben viele Iraner weder den USA noch Grossbritannien bis heute verziehen.

…

(kri)

Comments (0)

By stefan, 08/11/2011 00:15

Einen funken von menschlichen anstand, einen funken von normalen anstand dann würden sie jetzt das Maul halten
Franz Josef Strauß’ Kommentar zu den kkw-Gegnern Wackersdorf

Demokratische Disziplin? Da hat wohl jemand etwas verwechselt …

Comments (0)

By Stefan, 07/11/2011 20:50

Politik interessiert mich sehr. Ich kann jedoch keinen Sinn darin sehen, egoistische Ziele in der Politik zu unterstützen. Politik heisst für mich Arbeit in der Gemeinschaft. Darum gibt es für mich keine Nationalitäten, keine übergeordneten Interessen, keine Rechten und Linken. Jeder Mensch ist ein bisschen Egoist und auch Altruist. Jetzt kommt es aber auf die Mischung an …

Comments (0)

By LoUblobber, 22/10/2011 23:20

The following article found on nancho.net I consider fundamental for understanding and consequently changing the laws which drive corporates to act in ways that are not only against public interst but purely destructive.

What intrigued me is the ‘holistic’ approach of changing the reason for a problem instead of fighting the problem itself. This would help avoid all the negative emotions evoked by the fight which, by definition, are contraproductive.

Here’s the article, decide for yourself…

How Corporate Law Inhibits Social Responsibility
A Corporate Attorney Proposes a ‘Code for Corporate Citizenship’ in State Law by Robert C Hinkley

After 23 years as a corporate securities attorney-advising large corporations on securities offerings and mergers and acquisitions-I left my position as partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom because I was disturbed by the game. I realized that the many social ills created by corporations stem directly from corporate law. It dawned on me that the law, in its current form, actually inhibits executives and corporations from being socially responsible. So in June 2000 I quit my job and decided to devote the next phase of my life to making people aware of this problem. My goal is to build consensus to change the law so it encourages good corporate citizenship, rather than inhibiting it.

The provision in the law I am talking about is the one that says the purpose of the corporation is simply to make money for shareholders. Every jurisdiction where corporations operate has its own law of corporate governance. But remarkably, the corporate design contained in hundreds of corporate laws throughout the world is nearly identical. That design creates a governing body to manage the corporation-usually a board of directors-and dictates the duties of those directors. In short, the law creates corporate purpose. That purpose is to operate in the interests of shareholders. In Maine, where I live, this duty of directors is in Section 716 of the business corporation act, which reads: …the directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interests of the corporation and of the shareholders….

Although the wording of this provision differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, its legal effect does not. This provision is the motive behind all corporate actions everywhere in the world. Distilled to its essence, it says that the people who run corporations have a legal duty to shareholders, and that duty is to make money. Failing this duty can leave directors and officers open to being sued by shareholders.

Section 716 dedicates the corporation to the pursuit of its own self- interest (and equates corporate self-interest with shareholder self- interest). No mention is made of responsibility to the public interest. Section 716 and its counterparts explain two things. First, they explain why corporations find social issues like human rights irrelevant–because they fall outside the corporation’s legal mandate. Second, these provisions explain why executives behave differently than they might as individual citizens, because the law says their only obligation in business is to make money.

This design has the unfortunate side effect of largely eliminating personal responsibility. Because corporate law generally regulates corporations but not executives, it leads executives to become inattentive to justice. They demand their subordinates “make the numbers,” and pay little attention to how they do so. Directors and officers know their jobs, salaries, bonuses, and stock options depend on delivering profits for shareholders. Companies believe their duty to the public interest consists of complying with the law. Obeying the law is simply a cost. Since it interferes with making money, it must be minimized-using devices like lobbying, legal hairsplitting, and jurisdiction shopping. Directors and officers give little thought to the fact that these activities may damage the public interest. Lower-level employees know their livelihoods depend upon satisfying superiors’ demands to make money. They have no incentive to offer ideas that would advance the public interest unless they increase profits. Projects that would serve the public interest–but at a financial cost to the corporation–are considered naive.

Corporate law thus casts ethical and social concerns as irrelevant, or as stumbling blocks to the corporation’s fundamental mandate. That’s the effect the law has inside the corporation. Outside the corporation the effect is more devastating. It is the law that leads corporations to actively disregard harm to all interests other than those of shareholders. When toxic chemicals are spilled, forests destroyed, employees left in poverty, or communities devastated through plant shutdowns, corporations view these as unimportant side effects outside their area of concern. But when the company’s stock price dips, that’s a disaster. The reason is that, in our legal framework, a low stock price leaves a company vulnerable to takeover or means the CEO’s job could be at risk.

In the end, the natural result is that corporate bottom line goes up, and the state of the public good goes down. This is called privatizing the gain and externalizing the cost.

This system design helps explain why the war against corporate abuse is being lost, despite decades of effort by thousands of organizations. Until now, tactics used to confront corporations have focused on where and how much companies should be allowed to damage the public interest, rather than eliminating the reason they do it. When public interest groups protest a new power plant, mercury poisoning, or a new big box store, the groups don’t examine the corporations’ motives. They only seek to limit where damage is created (not in our back yard) and how much damage is created (a little less, please).

But the where-and-how-much approach is reactive, not proactive. Even when corporations are defeated in particular battles, they go on the next day, in other ways and other places, to pursue their own private interests at the expense of the public.

I believe the battle against corporate abuse should be conducted in a more holistic way. We must inquire why corporations behave as they do, and look for a way to change these underlying motives. Once we have arrived at a viable systemic solution, we should then dictate the terms of engagement to corporations, not let them dictate terms to us.

We must remember that corporations were invented to serve mankind. Mankind was not invented to serve corporations. Corporations in many ways have the rights of citizens, and those rights should be balanced by obligations to the public.

Many activists cast the fundamental issue as one of “corporate greed,” but that’s off the mark. Corporations are incapable of a human emotion like greed. They are artificial beings created by law. The real question is why corporations behave as if they are greedy. The answer is the design of corporate law.

We can change that design. We can make corporations more responsible to the public good by amending the law that says the pursuit of profit takes precedence over the public interest. I believe this can best be achieved by changing corporate law to make directors personally responsible for harms done.

Let me give you a sense of how director responsibility works in the current system. Under federal securities laws, directors are held personally liable for false and misleading statements made in prospectuses used to sell securities. If a corporate prospectus contains a material falsehood and investors suffer damage as a result, investors can sue each director personally to recover the damage. Believe me, this provision grabs the attention of company directors. They spend hours reviewing drafts of a prospectus to ensure it complies with the law. Similarly, everyone who works on the prospectus knows that directors’ personal wealth is at stake, so they too take great care with accuracy.

That’s an example of how corporate behavior changes when directors are held personally responsible. Everyone in the corporation improves their game to meet the challenge. The law has what we call an in terrorem effect. Since the potential penalties are so severe, directors err on the side of caution. While this has not eliminated securities fraud, it has over the years reduced it to an infinitesimal percentage of the total capital raised. I propose that corporate law be changed in a similar manner–to make individuals responsible for seeing that the pursuit of profit does not damage the public interest.

To pave the way for such a change, we must challenge the myth that making profits and protecting the public interest are mutually exclusive goals. The same was once said about profits and product quality, before Japanese manufacturers taught us otherwise. If we force companies to respect the public interest while they make money, business people will figure out how to do both.

The specific change I suggest is simple: add 26 words to corporate law and thus create what I call the “Code for Corporate Citizenship.” In Maine, this would mean amending section 716 to add the following clause. Directors and officers would still have a duty to make money for shareholders, …

“but not at the expense of the environment, human rights, public safety, the communities in which the corporation operates or the dignity of its employees.”

This simple amendment would effect a dramatic change in the underlying mechanism that drives corporate malfeasance. It would make individuals responsible for the damage companies cause to the public interest, and would be enforced much the same way as securities laws are now. Negligent failure to abide by the code would result in the corporation, its directors, and its officers being liable for the full amount of the damage they cause. In addition to civil liability, the attorney general would have the right to criminally prosecute intentional acts. Injunctive relief-which stops specific behaviors while the legal process proceeds-would also be available.

Compliance would be in the self-interest of both individuals and the company. No one wants to see personal assets subject to a lawsuit. Such a prospect would surely temper corporate managers’ willingness to make money at the expense of the public interest. Similarly, investors tend to shy away from companies with contingent liabilities, so companies that severely or repeatedly violate the Code for Corporate Citizenship might see their stock price fall or their access to capital dry up.

Many would say such a code could never be enacted. But they’re mistaken. I take heart from a 2000 Business Week/Harris Poll that asked Americans which of the following two propositions they support more strongly:

Corporations should have only one purpose–to make the most profit for their shareholders–and pursuit of that goal will be best for America in the long run. –or– Corporations should have more than one purpose. They also owe something to their workers and the communities in which they operate, and they should sometimes sacrifice some profit for the sake of making things better for their workers and communities.

An overwhelming 95 percent of Americans chose the second proposition. Clearly, this finding tells us that our fate is not sealed. When 95 percent of the public supports a proposition, enacting that proposition into law should not be impossible.

If business people resist the notion of legal change, we can remind them that corporations exist only because laws allow them to exist. Without these laws, owners would be fully responsible for debts incurred and damages caused by their businesses. Because the public creates the law, corporations owe their existence as much to the public as they do to shareholders. They should have obligations to both. It simply makes no sense that society’s most powerful citizens have no concern for the public good.

It also makes no sense to endlessly chase after individual instances of corporate wrongdoing, when that wrongdoing is a natural result of the system design. Corporations abuse the public interest because the law tells them their only legal duty is to maximize profits for shareholders. Until we change the law of corporate governance, the problem of corporate abuse can never fully be solved.

Robert Hinkley lives in Brooklin, Maine.

Email the author: rchinkley@media2.hypernet.com