Any witches and warlocks out there?
Obviously many of you don't like the European Union very much but these pages so far have been free of those who think the EU is a sign of the coming of the end of the world.
However, there are plenty of sites out there who see Brussels as the seat of the Antichrist.
So, I am of course ever on the alert for any signs of witches and warlocks haunting the corridors of power. So what do you make of the fact that Commissioner Margot Walstrom's spokesperson is a leading exponent of Pagan Rock?
OK - I'll admit it's a weak excuse to post a link to a video that cracks me up. The music grows on you as well. He's the one with short hair.
Welcome to my 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~26~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
Mark,
Thank goodness, a topic that takes us away from all the propaganda being spouted about Georgia and Russia.
Is it coincidental that you mention the fact that some people believe "the EU is a sign of the coming of the end of the world."? The topic of the "end of the world" came up on one of the BBC News web pages yesterday regarding the launch of the large Hadron Collider today at Cern, Switzerland today. Even some scientists believe that the Earth is going to turn to goo when this scientific exercise actually collides particles of matter in a few weeks time.
The BBC listed a number of groups that, for a variety of reasons, have or still believe that the end of the world is nigh. One such group believes the end of the world in due in 2010 simply being caused by the existence of the EU. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that they are wrong!
However, I think it is the fact that scientists could actually disgree about the scientific experiments and theory that baffles me.
There are some scientists saying the Hadron Collider is such an important research event that it must proceed and nothing is going to happen and other scientists say they fear that the experiment will create mini black holes that will destroy the world or turn the world to goo.
This reminds me of something. Oh yes, I remember now - the topic of "Climate Change" or "Global Warming"! Some scientists say it is the end of the world unless we do something now and other scientists suggest that the empirical evidence has been misconstrued and other scientists even deny that the evidence is pointing to man-made global warming actually existing as a phenomena.
What is an ordinary person to believe?
Should we be scared, should we stop having children, should we just simply go back to wearing furs and using flint tools and live in mud huts?
Should I even be worried about Global Warming if this Hadron Collider experiment goes ahead as planned and we are all going to die or should I just worry about both events?
What is normal person supposed to do? It is such a worry.
Alternatively, should I just simply ignore scientists when they talk about Hadron Colliders or Global Warming or Climate Change or the need for supersteels to be developed so that fusion reactors are more safe or that the Earth is round or that Darwin Theory is definitely the only theory to believe?
There just seems to me to be too many scientists hypothesising publicly - telling us different things and expressing their different opinons and causing social unrest and confusion but nevertheless influencing government and EU decisions whilst the Juries are still out deliberating.
Complain about this comment
Pagan devil worshippers?
How's that work?
:)
Complain about this comment
Hejda Mark,
I think its great hes all into Paganism. After all, thats the "real" European, unlike that Middle Eastern sect, that prays to a bloodied guy who hangs on a cross. Most of this stuff is connected to Nordic Mythology, which is, itself, an adaptation of the Greek myths.
Anyways, they usually listen to Metal, especially Nordic, Viking, or Power Metal.. They also, as you could imagine, love movies with these themes, such as lord of the rings.
Here is a video with this kind of music and some scenes from Lord of the Ring
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfrYkpa3770
Another good example is the Finnish band "Finntroll" (lol),
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1bE2ozy6a0 (jaktens tid - Hunting time :))
enjoy
Complain about this comment
What do you insinuate, Mark? That we need another Sarah Palin for Europe to fight against the Malign? ;-)
Complain about this comment
Menedemus, the best thing the 'ordinary person' can do is understand that just because someone with a crackpot or religious or commercial agenda claims to be a scientist, it doesn't mean they are one.
Once you get that on board, it's usually not too hard to work it out. In the cases cited:
No, the LHC won't get you out of work today.
Yes, we are making the world warmer and we need to do something about it, the sooner the better.
Yes, evolution is a fact, and natural selection is far and away the best theory to explain it. There is no evidence for intelligent design.
Oh, and, no, the EU is not the Antichrist.
Complain about this comment
CERN - Proves what a waste of space the EU is.
Setup with out the EU, financed by its member countries as they see fit.
Massive projects brought in close to schedule and budget - open, audited accounts always signed off.
I bet they run a mile everytime the EU sniffs around them.
The EU is not needed for european cooperation - it is just a massive liability that concentrates money in a way that guarentees it will attract all the worst people - from small time fraudsters, through lazy burocrats, to big oranised crime - like flies round dog ****.
Kill the EU and most organisied crime in europe would fold.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Hello again there Mark,
"Obviously many of you don't like the European Union very much..." What an eloquent understatement.
Is there anyone who likes the EU at all? aside from their own, gravy-train-riding, Eurocrat fatcats!?
Given public opinion/recent referendums, you could vote the whole scam out of existence with referendums on member-state secession.
If you have to have a Euro-block superstate, rebuild it from scratch at a fraction of the size, put Hans-Peter Martin in charge and the MEPs who set up the scandal in prison where they belong.
Now there's a 'pagan' concept for you.
Complain about this comment
#1 Menedemus
Sorry to drag you back down but one of the major dissident scientists in the world on climate change is Abdussamatov, a russian.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
I bet those Georgians accept the humans-caused-it view. Not that I know.
Complain about this comment
My comment at #7 is probably blocked because I'd put in a link to the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and the link is possibly a problem. I'll continue to hope it is allowed through by the moderators as it is light-hearted and I am sure has no objectionable content.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
chill0 @ #9
That is an interesting link to Abdussamatov's ideas about Mars Warming replicating the Earth Warming. Fascinating idea and it turns the idea that global warming being man-made into a much more logical cause and something I could understand as being more likely.
One thing I did notice about the National Geographic article was the author's comment, "Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists." I bet it isn't!
Complain about this comment
i like the eu. i just wish it was a bit more democratic and explained itself better, and that the politicians that run the whole show looked at the world from a european perspective instead of worrying about promoting their own national career prospects all the time.
imo, two thirds of the contributors to this blog are raving europhobes that talk a load of sloblock. they don't represent any "silent majority", quite the reverse. someone mentioned something about dead dogs attracting flies - unfortunately in this respect mark's blog is one hell of a posthumous canine.
the problem that most members of the european public have is that they don't understand the eu at all, and therefore tend to distrust it. in the uk only, you have the added problem of a disgustingly biased press. very few people in most european countries would ever vote to abolish or withdraw from the eu if there was a referendum (again with the exception of the uk).
i sometimes hope the uk does secede - the resulting catastrophe would be the best way to demonstrate what a bunch of clueless ideologues most europhobes are, and would make a great case study for the rest of europe.
Complain about this comment
chill0, the thing about science is you have to keep up to date and pay attention to PRECISELY what the research says. The mars warming has been already shown to be caused by seperate factors, not connected to Earth's warming. CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION! Is an axiom most people would do well to remember.
This is as I remember reading more recently. Don't recall the links off the top of my head, but it should be possible to google them.
Complain about this comment
benagyerek @11
I tend to agree with you for the most part and your assessment of "the problem that most members of the european public have is that they don't understand the eu at all, and therefore tend to distrust it" is probably hitting the nail on the head.
For me the idea of Europeans being unified in some kind of "United Nations of Europe" is a desirable and objective we should aspire to but the problem is that they (whoever they are?) built the EU without the direct involvement of the people. The EU has thus grown a momentum that is probably irreversible until and unless some of the member states who are the major financial contributors withdraw and they start the EU Project again this time involving all people in it's development.
I am not entirely convinced that the UK is rabidly europhobe it is, however, very anti-EU.
For the most part, I think that, despite the British newspaper prattle and rhetoric of right-wing anti-EU parties, for the most part the British are actually quite keen to be part of Europe just not dictated to from Brussels by EUrocrats who do not understand that the UK mentality is that of individual freedom and liberty being more important than collective rule. From the EU perspective, collective rule is more important than individual freedom . . . . this juxtaposition is not acceptable to most indigenous citizens of the British Isles.
I personally would rather be "European" than be "British" as the meaning of being "British" now is so diluted that whenever anyone asks me my nationality I now say "English" as I was born in England.
One day I would like to say I am "English" and/or "European" and be proud to say either label but I suspect that will be for my grandaughter or her offspring to be able to enjoy rather than this old codger!
Complain about this comment
Anything that happened on mars is interesting, but no more than interesting. Its a much smaller planet than earth so has much less gravity so any comparision is fairly questionable.
"CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!" is spot on.
100% of breast cancer patients wear skirts. Does this mean skirts cause breast cancer. Exactly.....
Complain about this comment
Rob_Hob @12
Good point and that is precisely what Chill0)'s linked to article says on the second page where the Climatologists of opposing view give their reasons for denigrating Abdussamatov's ideas.
On the other hand, I rarely see any articles on how the removal of the lungs of the Earth by destruction of the equatorial Rain Forests for lumber and ground clearance for agriculture has effected Global Warming? Man has, at best, partially destroyed the one natural mechanism for consuming Carbon Dioxide and emitting Oxygen has been severely crippled (if not irreversibly) through the Brazilian and Asian Government-owned Logging companies clearing the Amazonian and Far Eastern Rain Forests of countries like indonesia.
All the efforts and funded projects for tackling Climate Change seem to be aimed at cars, oil consumption, airplane travel, house heating, and peoples' household refuse behaviours in the Western world.
It strikes me that it is Europe and the USA that is expected to make all the sacrifices to reduce the impact of global warming but that no effort is made to really make this a truly global human effort.
The Kyoto Protocols for example are a joke - it allows China to basically build 5 new coal-fired power stations for every one the West decommissions. If someone can explain the CORRELATION of that and how it is going to benefit Climate Change I'll be amazed!
Complain about this comment
Menedemus @ 13
the solution is twofold:
(1) a proper system of direct democratic accountability for the eu. that means basically making the president of the european commission directly elected (or perhaps appointed by the european parliament using "constructive vote of confidence" rules similar to those in germany. the result of this would be to create a clear political dialogue between european policy makers and the public, meaning the commission would be more responsive to issues of public concern, would explain itself in layman's terms, european elections would actually be meaningful, and voters would have someone clearly identifiable as the person they elect or kick out of office. in many ways i think it would be a similar effect to the creation of the london mayor. the commission president should also be given a free hand to pick his own commission - no more nationality quotas.
i don't see how anyone could possibly object to this proposal, as it does not involve any transfer of additional powers to brussels - it simply makes brussels directly accountable for the powers it already has. the only losers would be the european governments that currently control pretty much every aspect of the eu (despite what most paranoid europhobes like to believe about some kind of unelected european government conspiracy).
(2) the education system needs to encourage much greater common european identity. the most important part of this - a common language - is already being solved by the fact that virtually every schoolchild in europe is learning english these days. all the same, i think it should be a requirement for every child in the eu to be taught to fluency in at least one foreign language (doesn't have to be a european one though). and i think there should be some effort made to explain what the eu is, what it does and how it works - i am talking about a basic factual explanation, not propaganda or indoctrination. it would only require the equivalent of say one hour's teaching a month from ages 14 to 16.
again, not really a controversial policy in itself. but i am sure plenty of people on this blog will object.
Complain about this comment
Peter_Sym #14, this is the kind of "scientific debate" you usually find on the net. Most of the time it is pointless to even bother explaining.
Mndemus #15, the whole Global Warming debate is distorted by self-interest from ALL sides. I have said it before, but again... carbon sinks (i.e. forests, etc) do not seem to be properly accounted for or given credit in the whole debate, partly because it is to the advantage of some countries to count emissions per head of population (discounting a country's carbon absorption), and partly because there has not been enough work done in this area to work out the details of how much carbon is stored, and where, how much carbon is absorbed, etc.
Complain about this comment
I think that the E.U is a necessity for all European countries to face challenges of the future.
Ever growing cooperation is the only way foward in the globalised world,one surenders to this idea or suffers the consequences.
The E.U needs to improve many things,and it should start by creating an constitution (or treaty,as some politicians would rather call it) to make administrative duties and responsibilities clear for everyone,so that it becomes a proper political functionin structure.
It does not have to be a treaty that undermines national sovereignity,it just should be a treaty that give clarity as to the duties and responsibilities within the E.U.
Behind the E.U is a very simple idea,that together we have a prosperous future, or a future at all, devided we dont.
No single European country can deal with Immigration,Organised Crime,Economic change,the rise of Chinna,India and Russia, and a range of issues individualy.
The necessity for European Union is clear.
As i have always said,The motto of Europe should be.
The sooner the better.
As for the religion of politicians thats a private matter for them.I dont see why its ok for a politician to be a Christian Hipocrit,but not a sinceere Pagan,or whatever he belives in.
------------------------------------------------------
As for the E.U founded experiment,i think is one of the most iresponsible acts in Human History.
Fact,the CERN (is in French)
Fact,even the scientist working in CERN admited that they might create little black hole,but that, they though might be not so powerfull as to swallow the Earth.There is a very little posibility of that hapening they said.
Fact,about the Black Holes the Scientific community agrees only that, the scientists know that they, know close to nothing about the black holes,exept the other fact that the black holes, swallow planets and galaxies.And thats all they know about black holes.
Fact,the scientist know close to nothing about dark matter and energy,exept the other fact,that it makes up more then 90% of the universe.
Is that enough to convince anybody that this was an completely iresponsible act.Stupid,Arrogand act.
If you know close to nothing about black holes,if you know close to nothing about dark matter and energy,if you know nothing about the amount of energy concentrated within the particles that seem unbreakable,why would you undertake such an iresponsible act,on behalf of humanity?
Is not enough to say that some crazy scientist are happy to sacrifice a small % chance that the world might be destroyed by their actions.
I dont want the world to end because some scientist take a 5 % acording to others a much higher chance of catastrofic failure of their experimet that is fouded by the E.U and comes from French pole of thought.
What an arrogant human being is the one that rules out the danger of something he knows close to nothing about?
What kind of people are this man?
Complain about this comment
mark, i think this blog is just a bit of meat you decided to throw so you could watch the wolves fight over it. there doesn;t seem to be any clear theme to the discussions.
i finally got round to reading your link to the antichrist website. here are a few observations:
- it is clearly written by a right-wing american. the basic thesis is that the eu is a work of satan and a threat to the world (or at least american hegemony). it says that europeans are fallen christians, they support islam against israel, they are overtaking american economic power, etc etc. some of the factual errors are hilarious, such as the claim that there are 10 core members of the eu and the other 15 are just observers (???), which neatly ties in about some doomsday biblical prophesy of 10 kings uniting.
- obviously this kind of website does not reflect mainstream us opinion, but in my opinion it does constitute the rabid extremist tip of a very american iceberg, and it is this iceberg of opinion that really marks out the enormous cultural divide between america and europe (incl uk). americans (outside the big cities, which is the bush-voting majority of them) are very religious in a way that europeans (outside poland) are not. they are not at all cosmopolitan, despite their heterogenous immigrant routes, and are very parochial and narrow minded. they have old-fashioned british island-mentality writ large. they live on an enormous island surrounded by oceans. as such, until 9/11, interaction with the rest of the world is something they have the luxury of doing at arms length, and the vast majority of their population has no interest whatsoever in what goes on there. hence the us media has no international news coverage at all. hence us policy in latin america and the middle east can be so clumsy and ignorant at times without the public taking interest until the rare occasion when lots of us bodybags start coming home.
- one prediction i think the website gets right: it is much more likely that a solution to the israel-palestine conflict will come from europe than from the us. i think the solution will come in 30-60 years from now when the eu is willing to accept both israel and palestine as members.
Complain about this comment
Israel is not in Europe how can it ever be admitted to the European Union imagine the Outcry from every arab country that wants it wiped off the map.
Complain about this comment
@ 18 Named Erion
"Is that enough to convince anybody that this was an completely irresponsible act.Stupid,Arrogand act."
eh... no. it's not even close to approaching convincing but thanks for the effort, albeit rather francophobe. your first fact - "the CERN is in french / france" actually made me laugh out loud.
i am much more convinced by the last comments made by #19 benagyerek which would seem to be spot on.
Complain about this comment
benagyerek @ #19
Actually, I think Mark has been very smart.
The previous thread had all but been taken over by propagandists and they were spamming the comments.
I must confess I was getting bored with it and my comments had become somewhat caustic and antagonistic - for which I am sorry. It is probably because I was bored and if someone antagonises me I tend to become poisonous and very acid with the pen or keyboard!
With a swiftly delivered very dfferent topic and Blog entry, Mark has given us something better to to discuss today.
I have actually enjoyed today's comments and the thread of discussion. We have commented about the EU (and we have some concensus that a united Europe is not such a bad thing!) and global warming and had some good comments about that very,very complex subject without any rancour which the topic usually generates.
I think a good day so far. It is not over yet but it started well and has been good so far.
I am just sorry my post at #7 got stolen by the Moderators - it made me laugh when I was writing it. I'm not going to repost it as the moment has passed and it was just abit of banter with "vagueofgodalming".
Complain about this comment
Whether you like it or not, Paganism is a world religion of various national and regional incarnations. Much the same is true of Christianity...
But remember all religions are based t some extent in astrology and natural law. Maybe labelled differently, as in signs and Gods law.
Either way it shows that we are not always in control of surroundings and that we have to look without to look within.
Some think the EU and other Supranational institutions contradict this natural law by trying to control too much.
The music was pretty good. :)
Some of the Gothic costumes are a bit much; but then you can't judge people by how they look, only by their actions...
Much the same as our friends the Politicians.
Choose love.
Complain about this comment
For those of you who are worried about what LHC will do, here is a nice 3D animation of the Earth being swallowed by an expanding microscopic black hole - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EUBsGXPvO4
A very amusing video, but I don't believe that will happen. I am all for these scientific projects as learning more about the world around us is, and has always been good. And yes, I do accept the Theory of Evolution as a fact and, no, I don't think the so-called Global Warming is caused by man.
As for EU - don't you think it would be much better if we all lived in one single country called the Earth instead of cultivating all these petty strifes about this plot of land or that island etc. Let's unite and be happy. We could achieve so much! EU has the right idea, even though the means it uses to realise it may be somewhat questionable.
Complain about this comment
Lets face it, if it was really dangerous they would conduct the experiment in the north of England; next to the waste incinerators early warning and silo stations...
So I reckon we will be OK.
...but still showered with toxins and the first nuclear target.
Complain about this comment
Iseeall#24
I agree with the sentiment of one Earth for everyone, however unfortunately there are too many men/women in the world who seek power for themself for selfish reasons.
The only way we will ever have this sort of world peace is in uniting against a common threat say Aliens for example only, then will we realise in the grand scheme of things, how truely Petty we and our squabbles over religon and oil really are.
Complain about this comment
WhiteEnglishProud @ 20 and ISeeAll @24
i don't see any particular value in the eu's stopping at its geographic borders, wherever they may be.
the eu is about institutionalising international cooperation and about promoting shared common values (liberalism, democracy, free markets), as reflected in the so-called copenhagen criteria. these can equally apply to israel and to muslim countries if they prove themselves willing to adapt to these values, as indeed lately turkey has.
re israel specifically, i would envisage a wave of expansion happening that would take israel AND palestine in at the same time (and why not syria, jordan, etc if they are all ready). the prospect of entry to the eu is exactly the credible incentive structure required to solve their conflict.
in the (very very) long run i think the eu will be the seed that will achieve some kind of global union of nations as ISeeAll would appear to call for. that is assuming that the eu's leaders do not choose to plead institutional overstretch as an excuse for stopping expansion on the "european" side of the aegean.
the reasons why it is better to have a european union now instead of a world union seem pretty obvious to me - firstly because it is impossible to get agreement globally on any such project (just look at how badly the un works), secondly because i think the majority of nations on this planet should not yet qualify to be part of such union (starting the us, china and russia).
the beauty of the eu, and its expansion (which as i mentioned elsewhere, is the most successful foreign policy ever conceived), is that it takes advantage of a kind of neighbourhood effect. the countries from slovenia through to estonia were the first post-communist countries to join because they (governments and publics) aspired to achieve what they could see happening just over their border. as they drew closer to the eu, so the next wave of countries in the balkans and ukraine were inspired to follow.
consider how long the list of countries is in which membership of the eu has helped the process of democratic consolidation, starting with germany and currently ending with turkey and ukraine. nobody can imagine a return to war or dictatorship in those countries that have acceded to the eu, and yet nearly all of its members had transitioned from just this a few years prior to their joining.
i don't see why this process should not continue until there are no countries left on the union's borders.
Complain about this comment
The is EU is more like the devil in disguise waiting to take over and kill off all the democratic nation of europe without the will of the people , people vote no and they dont listen.the devil called the EU followed by the people who run it the demons
Complain about this comment
The is EU is more like the devil in disguise waiting to take over and kill off all the democratic nations of europe without the will of the people , people vote no and they dont listen.the devil called the EU followed by the people who run it the demons.EU will cause the next major war at some stage
Complain about this comment
Billy @21.
You have taken my sentence out of the contex.
Anyway.
Let me put it simply to you.
The scientists dont know what more then 90 %of universe is made of,they just decided to name it as dark matter and dark energy,and all they know about it is the name they put to it.More then that they know absolutely nothing.
They dont know the energy concentrated on the particles that they are trying to collide,and what might come out of the colision.(this particles are unbrakable for a reason,and remember when atom was broken,atomic power came out of it)
They say that even if a black hole is created it would be to small to endanger the world.Perhaps!
But they dont know that for sure,and actually they dont know anything about that,since they dont know anything about black holes.
Which scientific theory or law states that small black holes can't endanger planets or galaxies?
Were do they base the idea that a small black hole is irelevant because is small?
All of that if we talking about a small one,wich they dont know for sure it will be created,and how can they know for sure that not a big one will be created?
For all this reasons and many more I think that this is the most iresponsible act in human history.
How do this scientist and their sponsors give themselves the right to carry out such experiments on behalf of humanity?
I dont know what to call it if is not total idiocy.
In that tunel have been artificially created the most extreme conditions on universe.
WHY?
To find out what the basic matter of universe is?
Why should that be carried out at the risk of wiping out humanity,even if the risk is small?
Cant we carry out experiments which risks can be managed by basing our knowledge of the laws?
There are no theories regarding the Particle and the dark matter and dark energy,there are not even ideas man,but total ignorance, how can the CONSEQUENCES BE KNOWN and assurances given?
Think harder man!
Science is fallible as well,many experiments have failed many time before they sucseded,even though the knowledge about the matter and energy involved was common knowledge based upon the laws of science.
Can we afford to fail on such scale?
Can we afford to undertake such actions when the knowledge about the matter and energy released will be totally unknown to us???
Are not this legitimate questions?
Legitimate concerns?
----------------------------------------------
When i said that CERN is in French word it was half Joke.You should have only half laughed,and not LOL-d.
PS.
I am not someone against science,I belive in the theory of evolution being the rule of nature,not exluding the posibility that the rules of nature are set out by supernatural forces (call it God,whatever),and i am ireligious.Thats in case you thought you dealing with a religious nutter that you would expect attacks the scientific community.
Complain about this comment
Mark, with all honesty, did you really think my post was offensive? I was trying to give you a humorous little insight into the metal part of "pagan music". I hardly think letting you know a bit about the nordic metal scene needs to be referred to the moderators. Or could it be that my grammar was so bad, it was insulting to the English language? ;)
Complain about this comment
@Peterdough
I like the EU and would vote for its continuing existence. Maybe in the UK people would vote against but that would rather result into the UK leaving and not the dissolution of the Union. The new EU representative to Austria mentioned the fact that there are three kinds of EUropeans. 1. European at heart, European by reason and the critical European (to which most Austrians belong). However, he also said that there is a certain group of people that can't even be convinced with rational arguments. Let me guess which group you belong to..
Complain about this comment
EU Officials it has been reported expect Ireland to cave-in and hold a second Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in the Autumn of 2009:
EU Officials expect Ireland to hold second Lisbon Treaty Referendum
I wonder what the Irish voters will make of this?
Complain about this comment
Mark,
You (and some regular readers/contributors to your blog) probably know that I am sceptic (to say the least) about the EU and all its works.
BUT
Margot Wallstrom's spokesperson, Joe Hennon, is a brilliant bloke - and I'll not hear a word spoken against him!
(Omnia's music is pretty good too).
Maybe if more EU Commissioners and senior officials hired people with character and a 'hinterland', rather than the usual 'ENA-archs' and stenciled grey bureaucrats, there would be a true dialogue between the EU and the people that it presumes to represent.
As I'm sure you know from meeting him (or attending press conferences), Joe is the real article. He may be a 'spokesperson', but he also ensures that the unvarnished truth is thrust before the commissioners - something that few of their usual brown-nosing minions ever do.
Slainte Joe!
Complain about this comment
i am grateful for people like jaws1912. they make the job of pro-europeans like myself so much easier.
Complain about this comment
Gheryando @ #31
Your original post disappeared immediately like mine at #7 . . . . never to reappear.
When I rechecked my text I had accidently put a "(" just before the URL link and this might have broken the website link.
Unfortunately, if the Moderators are busy then posts with broken links or have something that prevents them immediatley posting seem to get lost in the ether . . .
They might even disappear into a black hole or become dark matter. One just never knows!
Complain about this comment
Named-Erion @ 30
"WHY?"
There will always be people who would cry against new things, new experiments, new ideas, and I don't blame them, as that is the human nature to fear the unknown. Thus I am so happy that there are other kinds of people too, who would venture into the unknown, conduct new experiments and push out the limits of our knowledge. The risks are there, true, but, there is no such thing as a risk free activity. There are always risk in everything that we do, including the most day to day activities. Who is to say that you plugging in a TV set one morning won't create something that will destroy the world? The chances of that happening are miniscule, but they still exist. But you don't go crying "Ban TVs", do you? Perhaps, a more clearer hypothetical example would be the control and command stations for nuclear arsenals. The chances of some short circuit launching a few missiles thus starting the WW3 are much much higher than the chance that something will go wrong at LHC.
Also, you should remember that the Earth is being bombarded by many many particles with energies much larger than the ones in LHC every millisecond of the whole period the Earth existed. And, well, quite frankly, it is still here.
Don't revert to your primal nature (summarised as "if it is something you don't know, destroy it!") and try to remain a rational 21st century human being.
Complain about this comment
Named-Erion #30, the reason that tiny black holes are a no risk is because they ONLY exist for VERY SHORT periods of time. It was Hawking who worked out that the smaller a black hole is, the faster it "evaporates"... or decays, turns back to energy. It has been a while, so have to check to what extent this one is proved by experiment, and to what extent by theoretical claculations/modelling.
The point is that the black holes created in this experiment would be so tiny, that they would evaporate too fast to be able to absorb more mass and grow. Hence the Earth CAN NOT be destroyed by them, because they DISAPPEAR too fast.
The additional argument for safety is that the Universe and the Earth itself is constantly bombarded by particles far more energetic than the experiment will produce. If tiny black holes are produced in these situations, they would have been already produced... and there was no catastrophy in the VERY long time the Earth has already existed. Thus the black holes evaporate quickly and safely AS EXPECTED... OR they are not produced in the first place. Either way, there is no danger.
Fundamental science is NECESSARY to advance society. It is a too-set, set of facts and techniques, that allows us to use it in other areas of science, discover other things about the Universe, until applied things come out from it that directly benefit society.
What people do not seem to understand is that without fundamental science, like LHC, that does not have direct applications, applied science that directly benefits people would slow down to nothing, as we run out of NEW ideas based on how the Universe works.
Fundamental science is expensive because we are delving into ever more difficult questions. However, in combination with applied science, the discoveries make our lifes better and make us materially richer so we have more money/resources as a society to invest some of back into research. We get what we paid for with science as with everything.
The funding CAN NOT be totally directed "into solving world's real problems first", while abandoning fundamental research for the reason explained above. There needs to be some kind of balance between investing into fundamental research like the LHC and more applied science.... otherwise, long-term, the whole system will collapse.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
maxsceptic @ 34
i think the job of transforming the social mix at the commission has already begun with the accession of the 10 new east european members. i suspect the enarques and the french language are in terminal decline there. another generation and hopefully they'll be gone completely.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Iseeall @ 37
You are puting foward two arguments.
1-That science needs to take the risk
(Well i totally agree with it,and I am not someone who likes to see Science stop developing,or human quest for truth,since I myself happen to be extremely courious human being myself,and i cant wait to see the results of the experiment,but my point is that experimets should be taken with a level of responsibility,such as calculating the failure of the experiment on the established laws of science,for example,if we experiment with a new type of bomb-proof bunker with ten people inside,then acording to the laws of science we are probably able to calculate the near exact damage of the failure,but in this experiment we are having scientist claiming it will be risk free,even though they admit that black holes of which we know so little about it,might develop,or matter and energy which science knows close to nothing about,so the risk here is totally unknown,they are undertaking an experimet that involves artificially creating the most extreeme conditions on the Universe,and playing with things such as speed of light,and sub-atomic particles colision.Based on the established laws of science how can we calculate the damage of the failure of that?we can because this time we dealing with something completely unknown and extremely dangerous,that's why I said is iresponsible.)
and you conect argument 1 with
2- That risk exist everywhere in every second of our existence.
(I agree with this to,but is different when we deliberately walk to the most dangerous waters of the universe,knowing close to nothing about it)
Complain about this comment
Rob-Hob
Thank you for the info on the black holes.
The truth is that so little is known about black holes that no two scientist give you the same definition of the very word let alone having laws, thories, or experiments.
If we are to create the condtitions of the billionth of a second after the big bang in an isolated enviroment simmilar to the begin of the universe and after the big bang the energy released by the particles colision grows then the black holes,dark matter and energy would grow with it,what's to stop it becoming a new universe?
As for the benefits of science I totaly agree,I must make clear you are not debating with a anti-science person.
Science is the way foward to the truth and to making life less painfull for us humans,but with knowledge comes responsibility.
Science is at the forefront of the war of the humanity for survival.
first and foremost science should be the guardian of the survival,using and basing any new experiment and progress at the established laws of science.
NO,deliberately plaing with humanity's existence is not acceptable.
Complain about this comment
@Menedemus
I think the LHC sucked our comments into a big black hole :)
Complain about this comment
Benagyerek #11
"i like the eu."
So do I. As someone who lives in a nation that competes with it, I like it because it makes their industries even less efficient, more bogged down with bureaucratic red tape, more expensive to run, more inflexible, and less competitive than they were even before the EU came along.
"i just wish it was a bit more democratic and explained itself better, and that the politicians that run the whole show looked at the world from a european perspective instead of worrying about promoting their own national career prospects all the time."
But then it wouldn't be the EU. These are the new aristocrats that replaced the old lords and ladies. They have all of the trappings of aristocrats. They are quintessentially European to the core.
"imo, two thirds of the contributors to this blog are raving europhobes"
Makes me wonder what's wrong with the other third. If I were European, I wouldn't be happy either. A lot of them have left. How do I know? All of the accents I hear around my way lately. If you closed your eyes, sometimes you'd think you were in right in the center of Britain from the sound of it.
"that talk a load of sloblock. they don't represent any "silent majority", quite the reverse. someone mentioned something about dead dogs attracting flies - unfortunately in this respect mark's blog is one hell of a posthumous canine."
With our without lipstick?
"the problem that most members of the european public have is that they don't understand the eu at all, and therefore tend to distrust it."
Au contraire, I think the reason they don't like it is that they understand it all too well. There's just nothing they can do about it. It was quite an alluring trap.
"in the uk only, you have the added problem of a disgustingly biased press. very few people in most european countries would ever vote to abolish or withdraw from the eu if there was a referendum (again with the exception of the uk)."
How do you know? The French government couldn't imagine their population turning down the Constitution. And what about the Dutch who turned it down and the Irish who rejected Lisbon, and maybe even the Polish?
"i sometimes hope the uk does secede - the resulting catastrophe would be the best way to demonstrate what a bunch of clueless ideologues most europhobes are, and would make a great case study for the rest of europe."
I certainly hope they don't? If things go as badly as you say, they might wind up on America's doorstep again. How many times do we have to throw that poodle a free bone? Next time we should try throwing lipstick instead.
Complain about this comment
i hope there are no witches or war-locks out there...
Complain about this comment
dennisjunior1
Lions and tigers and bears, OH MY!
It is dangerous out there in the jungle. Right now the bear is snarling. The more he's fed, the greater his appetite becomes. The tiger has had his whiff of fresh air, his moment in the sun. Now he's back in his cage where he earns about a dollar a day sewing clothes and assembling electronic toys. And what about the lion? He seems to suddenly find himself in free fall. Look out belooooooooow. My it's a long way down to the ground. Is somebody expecting something to happen? Is someone hoping a messiah will come along to save the world? A messiah named Barack Obama maybe? I wouldn't expect much or you may be in for a big let down. He's not Jesus....even if one of his spindoctors claims otherwise.
Complain about this comment
whats so funny? .... like the music or not ....
you will findthat most pagans revier the earth and nature ... the devel don't enter into it ........... unless we want it toooooo ... so beware .....
Complain about this comment
Named-Erion, I assume that the experts in the field have conducted the appropriate risk assessment. Experts, as in people who know far more about this particular area than I do.
It has been in fact stated that a safety assessment has been done and reviewed by an independent grou of scientists. I'm sure they would have done calculations on how likely the tiny black holes are to grow before they disappear... and I'm sure assessments for a LOT more issues I do not even know about.
The above has been done not by a single person who maybe crazy or suicidal, but by groups of people, reviewd by other groups. They did not find dangers.
People are not very familiar with the concept of probability. For example, due to quantum effects there is a non-zero probability that the Earth will spontaneously transport itself or jump into the Sun, destroying it and killing everything on it to the last bacteria and virus. However, the chance of that happening is *miniscule*. Are you going to worry about it? I do not even know if the chance of a LHC created black hole is zero, or larger, or smaller than the previous apocalyptic event. I'm not going to worry about either.
As for another universe being created from the experiment... well, some people theorise that universes are already being createdev erywhere, all the time... the problem in those scenarios is that they separate themselves from our own, and become unreachable... too bad! Creating a new universe is one way to move on when this one finishes, or it's just the time to expand. Maybe the LHC will actualy teach us some things we need to know about how to make it happen.
Complain about this comment
Teflon was actually invented during WW2 but it was only during the apollo programme that anyone found a real use for it. Because its non-stick actually getting it to stick to the metal frying pan was a bigger problem than inventing the actual teflon in the first place!
Equally CERN more or less had the first functioning 'internet' but the current web was created by many different inventions all being cobbled togther. The US army is due as much credit as they had a multi server comms 'web' designed to be still functional after a nuclear strike. Wikipedia has a very long, very in depth and frankly very dull article all about the development of the web.
But in answer to your main question- yes, this project at CERN has been running for decades and will probably run for decades longer.
Complain about this comment
"If we are to create the condtitions of the billionth of a second after the big bang in an isolated enviroment simmilar to the begin of the universe and after the big bang the energy released by the particles colision grows then the black holes,dark matter and energy would grow with it,what's to stop it becoming a new universe?"
The amount of material present. Every atom currently in the universe was present at the big bang. The CERN tunnel will have a billion of a zillionth of that material available. You can't create matter out of nothing. For the same reason any black hole created will have such a tiny gravitational pull that the billions of tons of switzerland will pull the black hole apart not vice-versa.
Complain about this comment
"If we are to create the condtitions of the billionth of a second after the big bang in an isolated enviroment simmilar to the begin of the universe and after the big bang the energy released by the particles colision grows then the black holes,dark matter and energy would grow with it,what's to stop it becoming a new universe?"
The amount of material present. Every atom currently in the universe was present at the big bang. The CERN tunnel will have a billion of a zillionth of that material available. You can't create matter out of nothing.
Complain about this comment
Thanks Peter_Sym @50
Of course, the wife could be swearing at me rather than "by Teflon" when I burn the sausages but I blame that on her washing up scratching the Teflon coating!
Good information. Thanks
Complain about this comment
Ah yes, the world ending in 2010. Because as Dogbert says; "The universe was created by a being of infinite power, intelligence and unknoweable complexity who really likes big round numbers."
Complain about this comment
ma2 @ 45
"So do I [like the eu]. As someone who lives in a nation that competes with it, I like it because it makes their industries even less efficient, more bogged down with bureaucratic red tape, more expensive to run, more inflexible, and less competitive than they were even before the EU came along."
please detail your experience of dealing with european red tape. i don't think you know what you are talking about.
the reason the eu issued vast amounts of regulation in the 80s and 90s was because of the process of harmonisation - i.e. creating a single common set of regulations that would supercede the 27 separate sets of national regulations that existed before. people (especially in the uk) complained about eu regulation because, yes, a lot of new regulation was created that replaced the old national regulations they were used to and it just seemed like a big hassle. but for american firms, eu regulation is a godsend, as it means they now only need to comply with one set of regulations in order to do business across the entire eu.
i can tell you from personal experience that us regulations regarding immigration, financial services and taxation are ludicrously over-complicated compared with the eu's. happy to detail if you are interested.
"But then it wouldn't be the EU [if it was more democratic, etc]. These are the new aristocrats that replaced the old lords and ladies. They have all of the trappings of aristocrats. They are quintessentially European to the core."
again you clearly speak from ignorance. i know people who work in the commission and they are far from being aristocrats.
there is certainly a problem with technocratic elitism that you find in any centre of power, including washington. but the expansion of the eu has greatly eroded the influence of the "enarques" for the better, as i mentioned in my reply to maxsceptic. i hope this process will continue.
the real issue is this: the eu is about basic principles of international cooperation and solidarity that most people would agree with. but just because you agree with the principles does not mean you cannot criticise the practice. it is certainly true that the way the eu functions is way too divorced from the public. this is because it has evolved as an intergovernmental technocratic project. it wasn't born out of a revolution like the usa. but that doesn't mean we should just give up. it is entirely possible to reconnect it with the public if the national governments are willing to give up their control of the project, and to take the kind of steps i described in post 16.
"Makes me wonder what's wrong with the other third. If I were European, I wouldn't be happy either. A lot of them have left. How do I know? All of the accents I hear around my way lately. If you closed your eyes, sometimes you'd think you were in right in the center of Britain from the sound of it."
have you been in chelsea, london? you would think you were in chelsea, ny, except that the ny version is so fugly in comparison.
"With our without lipstick?"
sorry - i understand the reference but not the joke. pls explain.
"Au contraire, I think the reason they don't like it [the eu] is that they understand it all too well. There's just nothing they can do about it. It was quite an alluring trap."
no. again you are talking out of ignorance. the reason is that they do not understand it. for example, please read the results of the eurobarometer poll conducted by gallup immediately after the failed irish referendum on the lisbon treaty. two main conclusions: (1) most people who voted no did so because they did not understand the treaty, (2) almost everyone ("no" voters and "yes" voters) thought the result did not imply ireland would withdraw from the eu. the point is that people cling to the status quo when they are being asked to opine on something they do not understand and do not feel comfortable with. equally, if asked, most people would vote against leaving the eu for the very same reason.
"How do you know [that people don't want their countries to leave the eu]? The French government couldn't imagine their population turning down the Constitution. And what about the Dutch who turned it down and the Irish who rejected Lisbon, and maybe even the Polish?"
see my previous reply..
btw, the irish government could very well imagine their people voting no. that is why they ran such a lame defensive campaign that just engendered even more distrust amongst voters.
"I certainly hope they don't [i.e. that the uk does not leave the eu]? If things go as badly as you say, they might wind up on America's doorstep again. How many times do we have to throw that poodle a free bone? Next time we should try throwing lipstick instead."
i agree you should stop throwing bones. it would be a useful eye-opener for those in the uk that delude themselves by thinking that we have anything culturally in common with the us other than a shared language.
Complain about this comment
benagyerek;
It looks lke we disagree on just about everything...including having a common language. The words are similar but many of them have different connotations within our different cultures even if their denotations are the same. Some have exactly opposite meanings. My favorite example is what is meant to table an item on an agenda at a meeting. In the UK it means to discuss it. In the US it means to set it aside for another day.
The EU follows the same model of governance Europeans instinctively cling to in one guise or another, the centralization of power and uniformity of law. It's is a model Americans instinctively detest, fear, and by and large reject. This also carries over into corporate governance structures. The centralized model allows for relatively rapid action taken by a handful of people while the decentralized model only allows this in an emergency where local power is overriden in the charter just for such rare situations. But the central power model not only facillitates corruption and tyranny, it is inflexible trying to find a one size fits all solution to everything which often doesn't work. To do this, it must anticipate every conceivable contingency in advance and codify it. That is why it always leads to massive bureaucracy to write and enforce the codes.
My personal experience with Eurocracy was limited. I lived in France for a couple of years in the early 70s before the EU was in full power but it had a very complex bureaucracy still based on the Code Of Napoleaon. I read the EU redlines and I must say it is an extremely difficult document to understand. One thing that was clear in it though was that it was not what it was advertised by UK politicians to be, an opt out for Britain. What it was, was a five year deferral after which all of EU law could be imposed on the UK unless the UK resisted. In that circumstance, the UK would be subject to penalties and punishment without limit by a panel on which it would not even be represented. That the EU proceedings are secret, that its documents are written in arcane language difficult even for experts to parse the meanings and implications of is a sure bet that it is no democracy created by and for the common people but a mechanism for an unaccountable elite to wield power over everyone from cradle to grave. In the US we have a name for that, we call it tyranny. That is what the thirteen colonies rebelled against to become the United States of America and what it rejects to this day. You are right about one thing though, we are completely different. I've been saying that all along.
Complain about this comment
A united Europe is not a bad idea, I find myself agreeing with that. But how the EU is set up right now, is an extremely bad idea. Where's the parliamentary democracy and where's the parliamentary control on those who in fact make the laws in Brussels?
And I do agree with people who suggest that one should distrust what one does not understand. I do believe I understand some of the workings of the EU (hence my 'hatred' of the anti-democratic set-up) but I believe there is no-one who fully understands how the entire thing works (apparently, that was the idea).
And the fact that politicians are unwilling to even try and explain how it works, signals to me (and I believe to many people) that they have something to hide.
And there is no decentralization whatsoever with all things EU, centralization has only ever been the way. And centralization of so much powers is not a good thing, just think Berlin 1933 or Moscow (same era).
Complain about this comment
To MarcusAureliusII (56):
You made a note about European way of doing things and how you see it as bad as it is bureaucratic, centralized, unified and laws and regulations are written in professional language. I would like to remind you that while there are costs associated on doing things this way there are also costs associated on doing things in American way.
In US there are 1 lawyer per 265 people, in UK it's 1/401, in France it's 1/1403, in Sweden it's 1/2087 and in Finland it's 1/3019. All these countries have almost the same GDP nominal per capita so differences can't be result of economic disparities between countries. I would suggest that these huge differences are largely caused by combination of incoherent and vague laws. Both US and UK have common law and rest of the Europe has civil law based legal systems. Essentially the lack of bureaucracy, centralization, unification and precise laws lead Americans spend more on their lawyers. Now I don't say the American system is better or worser than the European system, but both of these systems have their own associated costs. Personally I rather fill more forms and have laws that are precise and exact than to spend large amounts of my time and money to lawyers.
I would also like to ask what is the big deal with European countries sharing and pooling their power and unifying laws and regulations via EU? If you look at the US you have had the same history of unifying state and federal laws. You in example have the notorious Commerce clause in your constitution that has given your federal government power to legislate and override state laws. In a sense you too have had and still have the same centralization and unification going on that the Europe is engaging via EU.
Lastly EU documents are written in precise and exact language which sometimes can sound very unclear and unintuitive, but you have to remember that all official documents of EU are translated to 22 official languages meaning that all the meanings and expressions must be precisely the same in every translated version. If EU wouldn't use the professional language that it's using now, Europe would very quickly sink to the same level of lawyerism that the US is suffering.
Complain about this comment
ma2 @ 56 and mcdv-1975 @ 57
i think we are in much more agreement than ma2 gives credit.
first of all thank you ma2 for your constructive post at 56. i was very annoyed by your unnecessary antagonism in post 45. i am glad we can discuss things sensibly.
i think you conflate two things. i agree that there is a certain type of gallic technocracy that is pretty abhorrant. it is true that the eec was originally modelled on the french bureaucratic system, and this accounts for a lot of its problems - its high-handed arrogance, its inflexibility and willingness to meddle in areas it should not.
but the eu today is a lot more than just "greater france". germany for example is a very decentralised country - imo its states have more independence from berlin than us states have from washington. unfortunately for obvious historic reasons, germany took a back seat to france when the eec was first being formed. now with the accession of so many other countries, not least the 10 post-communist countries that have lived under genuine bureaucratic tyranny for a half century, i understand from friends in brussels that the culture (and the dominant language) is changing for the better.
a related issue is the general problem of technocratic elitism, which i think arrises in any centre of power, including washington. interestingly, i think there is a strong parallel with the cern debate here.
as mcdv mentions above, the basic problem is trust. it is a necessity of modern society to have experts. 99% of people do not have the time or desire to understand high energy physics or to consider the technical requirements of regulating e.g. european airport landing slots. that is why we have scientists and bureaucrats. the problem is how can we trust these people with their expertise? how do i know that the cern physicists are a bunch of nutty professors who would happily take a 5% punt on the possibility of annihilation just so they can perform a sexy experiment? how can i be sure that the faceless bureaucrats in brussels are not a bunch of crooks or meddlesome busybodies out to justify their own existence (as indeed many are)?
at least in the case of the eu, i think the only answer is direct democratic accountability of the european commission. it gives people a sense of control over the whole project, it elects personalities at the european level that people can relate to, and it makes damn sure that brussels pays attention when people aren't happy.
i have yet to hear anyone on this blog disagree with this key premise. i don't see how anyone can disagree with it. and yet when have we ever heard any national government in europe advocate including direct election of the commission in any of the interminable series of european treaties? the situation reminds me of the emperor's new clothes. or maybe turkeys not voting for christmas..
a request to mark: next time you speak to a national government head or to barroso, why don't you ask them why this is?
Complain about this comment
Why national governments do not support directly elected EU representatives, or democratic election on EU scale?
My first guess would be they are afraid of losing their own power and influence. An EU wide elected representative would speak for FAR more people than a national one, and so have more power and influence. This simple I think.
Complain about this comment
rob_hob @ 60
yup. nail on the head. this is the true brussels conspiracy.
Complain about this comment
There have been some interesting comments made in this thread and I particularly took note of the comment by Jukka_Rohila @58.
It is very interesting to see the difference between the EU countries for lawyers per head of population.
I know we have seen a massive increase in civil court proceedings of late in the UK for claims for damages for all sorts of things that 20 or 30 years ago people would not dream of pursuing - it has led to allegations that the UK is developing legal class that has a compensation culture as its raison d'etre.
I see that the common thought for why people vote "no", whenever they get the chance to vote on EU development, is that they do not know or understand the purpose of chnage and so vote for the status quo. I do not dispute that.
However, what I do now understand (and which I did not understand when I first started commenting on Mark's Blog!) was that the UK is singularly self-flagellating in that, if the EU issues any Decree or new Regulation, the UK adopts it with a vengeance.
I now understand that the Continental European Countries and Nationals are much more laissez-faire and selective as to what rules and regulations they will rigourously enforce.
This almost-religious UK adherence to EU regulations is perhaps the real reason behind the British Citizens dislike for membership of the EU. I don't know why there is this British desire to be singularly EU Law abiding but it is enforced with zeal by our own governement, local authorities and, of course, is great work for lawyers!
It has struck me that the reason might be (having seen Comment #58) was that so many Members of Parliament are career Lawyers on sojourn - Lawyers love Law and love to create Laws. An examination of Laws created by the UK Parliament in the past 30 years shows that the UK Parliament has had diahorrea when it comes to creating new and useless laws - many of them derived from EU rules and regulations.
If the UK Government and it's own local authority bureacrats could only adopt the "more relaxed" continental approach to EU rules, the EU might find itself just that little bit more 'acceptable' to the British people.
Thus in many respects, it is the British Parliament and the UK Lawyers Cartel that is the cause of so much dislike of the EU through not being "continental europe" enough in how it manages the adoption and enforcement of common EU rules and regulations.
Complain about this comment
menedemus @ 62
i think the issue you raise ties in with the general difference between common law and roman law jurisdictions identified by ma2.
in the uk we have historically legislated less and relied more on case law, precedence and the common sense of local officials. the flip side of this is that when we do enact law, people take if very seriously.
in france, italy, spain, etc, the historic experience has been a much more detailed level of top-down legislation with the result that people are more used to applying selectively.
but i think this is only a small part of the explanation for british euroscepticism. i would also blame:
- uk has never been invaded, occupied or lived under dictatorship in living memory, so we are more used to considering interaction with the rest of the world more as an option, and only a necessity when something nasty like hitler appears across the channel. i think this is mainly an issue for the pre-war generation and is therefore fast becoming irrelevant.
- language barriers, reinforced by the fact that we share (broadly speaking) the same language as the us which tends to make us feel an exaggerated affiliation to that country, and the appallingly low number of british that actually learn any foreign language. this problem will go away as everyone else in europe starts speaking english (currently 51% of the total eu population, with 89% of children learning)
- a crusade by the right-wing press to attack and misrepresent the eu at every stage (another genuine conspiracy, this time fomented by two people - rupert murdoch and conrad black (rip) - neither of whom is actually british or even european). i see no change here.
- the diffidence that the french (who historically spearheaded the entire european project) have treated the british, which is due to their deep-seated fear of the uk as a rival and the general fragility and insecurity of the french national psyche that was borne out of german occupation. fortunately sarkozy was not cast in the same mould as chirac, mitterrand or de gaulle so this may finally improve now.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the plug for our DVD Mark. Omnia is not really a rock band though, more a folk band :-) Glad you like the music, although it's just a little remix for the DVD intro. You can hear our real music elsewhere on the web, just use your favourite search engine.
Interesting discussion (and thank you Max for your kind words).
Working where I do, I'm used to seeing all kinds of conspiracy theories. The EU is apparently a Catholic, Masonic, Jewish, Muslim and Atheist conspiracy. So I guess we're getting it about right. I just love all those Antichrist sites, great entertainment.
(And for those who confuse Paganism with Satanism (and there are some) - well, if we don't believe in the One True God how can we believe in the other fellow? Think Buddhism and you're closer.)
Best
Complain about this comment
Witches and warlocks. Well a witch is a member of a legitimate religion called Wicker, most people in the EU are atheist or Christian and warlocks only exist in Harry Potter. As for the end of the world being caused by the EU, I understand it was originally set up to stop war in Europe and that no to member states have actually warred against each other. So what are they going to do peace and trade each other to death.
I must say as a Non-Christian, (Buddhist) I feel very uncomfortable with the Wicker antichrist metaphor.
Complain about this comment
Long, long ago, in another galaxy (or was it in another portal, directed at geeks) it has been noted, that Euro currency symbol is nothing else but a QUAKE II sign placed sideways. So go figure... :-)
Complain about this comment
Not all of the Science World support the Big Bang THEORY. After almost 80 years of trying, the Big Bang crowd have yet to find a single, indisputable, piece of experimental data that supports their theory. All of the data pointed to as supporting the theory can also be used to support other competing theories.
That doesn't mean that they're wrong. But that doesn't mean they're right, either. "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy", to my mind, are no better than "resurrection" and "transubstantiation" and are actually very strong arguments that the whole line of thought is fatally flawed.
Whether or not the LHA "recreates conditions just after the big bang" or not, it will hopefully give our species insights into the nature of matter that are new and that open avenues for advancement that will benefit all Humans sharing this globe.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohilla 358
The United States in not ruled by common law. It is ruled by statutory law which is codified. Some of those laws may have had their ultimate roots in English common law but that is ancient history.
When I spoke about arcane legalese, I was referring to the EU Constitution and comparing it to the American Constitution whose language is plain and brief. The Constitution is the founding document which sets forth the structure and limits of government. In the US, the structure is broken down in a way that fractures power and divests it to localities insofar as it is possible. This assures that no one entity, no one branch of government can overwhelm the power of the others. In fact it is difficult for even two of thim in collusion to do this. This is the system of checks and balances which was so carefully and painfully crafted by the founders of America. The EU Constitution is not like this at all.
Of necessity, laws often use arcane language even in the US. But ultimately their constitutionality, their validity is judged based on the simple language in the constitution. There are a large number of laywers per capita in the US in part because the law is and is meant to be an accessible tool for ordinary people in everyday use. It is what keeps us not only from tyranny but from anarchy. With legal remedies to correct wrongs done us, we are discouraged from literally taking the law into our own hands. Nor are the courts monolithic nor any of them holding ultimate power. Within the court system itself there is the appeals process and ultimately the Constitution can be amended.
Different states have different constitutions and different laws locally to the degree it is allowed in the Federal Constitution because one size does not fit all and each state is sovereign to the degree that its people can vote for legislatures which pass laws agreeable to their local citizens within the restrictions of the state and federal constitutions.
The US Constitution was not invented as an afterthought or the ultimate imposed payoff to a ruse of what was sold as a free trade agreement, it was intended as a schematic for governance. It did not need unanimous approval nor does amending it. That it because it does not represent one entity, government authority that was origianally sold as another, a trade agreement.
Complain about this comment
Nice presentation on the Constitution of the United States of America... Too bad its been so violated in the name of preservation of Iraqi freedom. Which seem to be, as much as an attack on American Connotational freedoms as any hostage that they might happen to find. The only convection so far seems to be Osama bin Laden's chauffeur driver. Sara Palin and all this ?Country First? nonsense asked if we think we should read the Terrorist their rights... Well if might be asking a big favor but maybe its a good idea before you go torturing the poor saps to death. Is it too much to ask for The Constitution first?
As far as the Cern super particle accelerator... Ya know it might be nice to have a little Black Hole to hang around the house (that is of course if you can afford to have your house devoured every nano second or so). Still you all know this IS NOT going to happen because their going to need an extra 4 trillion volts give a take a few billion). We all know to get to the real black hole it takes an infinite amount of money to build a really big Supercollider you're going to need to start with something like Leman Brother of better yet a Bear Stearn with a ring collar the size of a Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac then you'll see what a Black hole is truly like...
Kinda of makes all that Pagan Dance and AntiChrist nonsense seem rather quaint.
Complain about this comment
Lucky7Star
The protections afforded by the Constitution of the United States does not apply to those captured in war against America. Not only that but some of it may need updating through amendments since it was conceived and written in a time when the threats the American government and people face as a day to day reality in modern times could not possibly have been anticipated by its authors. Until those amendements have been enacted, there may be times when the US government is technically in violation of it. That is entirely understandable and acceptable to a practical people such as Americans even if it is incomprehensible to people who have been taught by their culture to live their lives by rigid dogma exclusively.
Complain about this comment
#65 - that would be Wicca, and no, not all witches are Wiccans, just as not all Wiccans are witches. And you're right - male witches are just that, male witches, and not warlocks. I do hope we're not about to see a return to the days when Christians persecuted all and sundry simply because we don't share their beliefe in a book that has been revised numerous times to suit the prevailing politis of the day.
And I liked the video, btw!
Complain about this comment
#70 marcus
doesn't the the us constitution have some kind of privisory allowing it to be suspended in wartime?? in school they told us about the government suspending habeas corpus during the us civil war, working with the kkk in world war 1, concentration camps for asian americans in world war 2, mccarthy's blacklist in korean war, executing black nationalists during vietnam etc
personally, i'm not sure i'd want an eu constitution to have that kind of latitude, but you seem pretty convinced that it has made the us people safer.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS