All across America this past year-and-a-half 700,000+ people have died an agonizing, terrifying, drowning-in-their-own-fluids death, their relatives helpless, saying goodbye using Zoom or FaceTime. Families broken and shattered; husbands, wives, children and grandchildren left bereft; doctors, nurses, and physicians assistants dying along with them or holding their hands as they draw their final, tortured breath.

   Many of those deaths were absolutely unnecessary. They happened because of decisions made by a small group of people led by Donald Trump.

   If you or I made any decision, grounded in the desire to gain a political or other type of benefit, that caused even one single person to die we’d be on our way to prison. Look at people who simply decide to text while driving…and then kill a pedestrian. Prison.

   Trump not only caused over 130,000 Americans to die unnecessarily (according to Dr. Deborah Birx’s sworn testimony before Congress last week), but there’s a pile of evidence — which I’ll lay out below — that he did it because he believed the virus was hitting Blue states and Black people the hardest.

   If this is true (and I’m building a case here that it is), it’s called second-degree murder, which, to use the definitions of the State of Florida where Trump lives (there is no federal homicide law) constitutes:

“The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life…”

   From the first case in the US on January 20, 2020 until the week of April 7th of last year, for four months Trump and his team were actually trying to do something about the Covid pandemic.

   Trump put medical doctors on TV daily, the media was freaking out about refrigerated trucks carrying bodies away from New York hospitals, and doctors and nurses were our new national heroes.

   By March 7th, US deaths had risen from 4 to only 22, but that was enough to spur federal action. Trump’s official emergency declaration came on March 11th, and most of the country shut down or at least went partway toward that outcome that week.

   The Dow collapsed and millions of Americans were laid off, but saving lives was, after all, the number one consideration. Jared Kushner put together an all-volunteer taskforce of mostly preppie 30-something white men to coordinate getting PPE to hospitals.

   They even had a plan for the Post Office to distribute 650 million masks — 5 to every American household — to stop the pandemic.

   But then came April 7th, when the New York Times ran a front-page story with the headline: Black Americans Face Alarming Rates of Coronavirus Infection in Some States.

   Other media ran similar headlines across the American media landscape that day, and it was heavily reported on cable news and the network news that night. Most of the non-elderly people dying from Covid, the report found, were Black or Hispanic, not white people.

   White conservatives responded with a collective, “What the hell?!?”

Limbaugh declared that afternoon that “with the coronavirus, I have been waiting for the racial component.” And here it was. “The coronavirus now hits African Americans harder — harder than illegal aliens, harder than women. It hits African Americans harder than anybody, disproportionate representation.”

   It didn’t take a medical savant, of course, to figure out why, and it had nothing to do with the biology of race: it was purely systemic racism. African Americans die disproportionately from everything, from heart disease to strokes to cancer to childbirth.

   It’s a symptom of a racially rigged economy and a healthcare system that only responds to money, which America has conspired to keep from African Americans for over 400 years. Of course they’re going to die more frequently from coronavirus.

   But the New York Times and the Washington Post simultaneously publishing front-page articles about that disparity with regard to COVID19, all on April 7th, echoed across the rightwing media landscape like a Fourth of July fireworks display.

   Tucker Carlson, the only prime-time Fox “News” host who’d previously expressed serious concerns about the dangers of the virus, changed his tune the same day, as documented by Media Matters for America.

Now, Tucker said, “we can begin to consider how to improve the lives of the rest, the countless Americans who have been grievously hurt by this, by our response to this. How do we get 17 million of our most vulnerable citizens back to work? That’s our task.”

   White people were out of work, and Black people were most of the casualties, outside of the extremely elderly. And those white people need their jobs back if we’re going to get Trump’s economy back on track in time for the upcoming election!

Brit Hume joined Tucker’s show and, using his gravitas as a “real news guy,” intoned, “The disease turned out not to be quite as dangerous as we thought.”

   Left unsaid was the issue of for whom it was “not quite as dangerous,” but Limbaugh listeners and Fox viewers are anything but unsophisticated when it comes to hearing dog-whistles on behalf of white supremacy.

   Only 12,677 Americans were dead by that day, but now that Trump and his rightwing media knew most of the non-elderly were Black, things were suddenly very, very different. Now it was time to quit talking about people dying and start talking about getting people back to work!

   It took less than a week for Trump to get the memo, presumably through Fox and Stephen Miller.

   On April 12th, he retweeted a call to fire Dr. Anthony Fauci and declared, in another tweet, that he had the sole authority to open the US back up, and that he’d be announcing a specific plan to do just that “shortly.”

   On April 13th, the ultra-rightwing, nearly-entirely-white-managed US Chamber of Commerce published a policy paper titled Implementing A National Return to Work Plan.

   The next day, Freedomworks, the billionaire-founded and -funded group that animated the Tea Party against Obamacare a decade earlier, published an op-ed on their website calling for an “economic recovery” program including an end to the capital gains tax and a new law to “shield” businesses from lawsuits.

   Three days after that, Freedomworks and the House Freedom Caucus issued a joint statement declaring that “[I]t’s time to re-open the economy.”

   Freedomworks published their “#ReopenAmerica Rally Planning Guide” encouraging conservatives to show up “in person” at their state capitols and governor’s mansions, and, for signage, to “Keep it short: ‘I’m essential,’ ‘Let me work,’ ‘Let Me Feed My Family’” and to “Keep [the signs looking] homemade.”

   One of the first #OpenTheCountry rallies to get widespread national attention was April 19th in New Hampshire. Over the next several weeks, rallies filled with white people had metastasized across the nation, from Oregon to ArizonaDelawareNorth CarolinaVirginiaIllinois and elsewhere.

   One that drew particularly high levels of media attention, complete with swastikas, confederate flags and assault rifles, was directed against the governor of Michigan, rising Democratic star Gretchen Whitmer.

NBC News, when they’d gotten hold of April emails from within the White House, ran the headline“Trump Administration Scrapped Plan to Send Every American a Mask in April, Email Shows.”

   When Rachel Maddow reported on meat packing plants that were epicenters of mass infection, the conservative Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court pointed out that the virus flare wasn’t coming from the “regular folks” of the surrounding white community; they were mostly Hispanic and Black.

   The conservative meme was now well established.

   Then came news that the biggest outbreaks were happening in prisons along with the meat packing plants, places with few white people (and the few whites in them were largely poor and thus disposable).

   Trump’s response to this was to issue an executive order using the Defense Production Act (which he had refused to use to order production of testing or PPE equipment) to order the largely Hispanic and Black workforce back into the slaughterhouses and meat processing plants.

   African Americans were dying in our cities, Hispanics were dying in meat packing plants, the elderly were dying in nursing homes.

   But the death toll among working age white people, particularly affluent white people (who were less likely to be obese, have hypertension or struggle with diabetes), was relatively low.

   And those who came through the infection were presumed to be immune to subsequent bouts, so we could issue them “COVID Passports” and give them hiring priority.

As an “expert” member of Jared Kushner’s team of young, unqualified volunteers supervising the administration’s PPE response to the virus noted to Vanity Fair’s Katherine Eban“The political folks believed that because it was going to be relegated to Democratic states, that they could blame those governors, and that would be an effective political strategy.”

   It was, after all, it was exclusively Blue States that were then hit hard by the virus: Washington, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

Former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy’s grandson Max Kennedy Jr, 26, was one of the volunteers, and blew the whistle to Congress on Kushner and Trump. As Jane Mayer wrote for The New Yorker, “Kennedy was disgusted to see that the political appointees who supervised him were hailing Trump as ‘a marketing genius,’ because, Kennedy said they’d told him, ‘he personally came up with the strategy of blaming the [Blue] states.’

   At year’s end, the United States was ranked 5th worst in the world in our response (behind Brazil, Mexico, Colombia and Iran); we have about 20% of the world’s Covid deaths, but only 4.5% of the world’s population.

   Why?  Apparently because Trump and his Republican enablers and co-conspirators were just fine with Black people dying, particularly when they could blame it on Democratic Blue-state governors.

   And once they put that strategy into place in April, it became politically impossible to back away from it, even as more and more Red State white people became infected.

   Everything since then, right down to Trump’s December 26th tweet (“The lockdowns in Democrat run states are absolutely ruining the lives of so many people — Far more than the damage that would be caused by the China Virus.”), has been a double-down on death and destruction.

   How could anybody think this was anything other than negligent homicide at best and intentional murder at worst? 

   Even Sweden has put together a commission to look into their government’s response to the pandemic, and it’s already reporting its result.

   In Brazil, their Senate has compiled a 1000+ page report, detailing the mistakes and malicious actions President Bolsinaro took — very much like Trump did — that caused hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths, and they’re recommending he be prosecuted under Brazilian and international law.

   It’s astonishing that there’s no major, national commission or special prosecutor looking into what happened here in the US, particularly when so much of the evidence of the Trump administration committing murder is publicly available.

   If a half-million people had died — unnecessarily — under Obama as president, you know how the GOP would react.

   After all, they spent millions to hold 4+ years of multiple hearings across several congressional committees over 4 American deaths in Bengazi, taking thousands of hours of testimony, including an 11-hour day from Hillary Clinton.

   During the Clinton presidency Republicans gave Ken Starr and his assistant Brett Kavanaugh four years and $70 million to uncover the democracy-ending crime of Bill Clinton getting a BJ from a consenting adult. (Seriously: Newt said it endangered “the survival of the American system of justice.”)

   In this case, there are actual dead bodies, and a hell of a lot more than four of them.

   Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer must appoint select committees in the House and Senate to investigate this crime, and Attorney General Merrick Garland must appoint a special prosecutor with a grand jury. 

   Americans deserve to know why their friends and relatives died such a terrible death when every other country in the world (except Brazil) took strong and effective action to limit infections and fatalities.

   And if it can be proven that Trump and his buddies like Scott Atlas let all these Americans die because they thought it would help them politically, people need to go to prison.mhartmann in

 

 

Uzbekistan has been discussed as the most likely contender to accept some sort of U.S. military presence, even as Tashkent consistently denies the possibility.

 

   Russia’s foreign minister has asked Central Asian states bordering Afghanistan not to host U.S. or NATO forces, following recent reports in American media that Washington continues to put out feelers to establish some sort of military presence in the region.

   “We again call upon the countries neighboring Afghanistan not to allow a military presence on their territories by U.S. or NATO forces, who plan to redeploy there following their departure from Afghanistan,” Sergey Lavrov said on October 27.

   His remarks were addressed to all of Afghanistan’s neighbors, which include the Central Asian states of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, as well as China, Iran and Pakistan.

   Of all these, Uzbekistan has been held up as the most likely contender to accept some sort of U.S. military presence, even as Tashkent consistently denies it is on the agenda.

   Lavrov made his statement two weeks after U.S. media reported that Pentagon officials were part of a U.S. delegation that paid a visit to Uzbekistan during which military cooperation was discussed.

   “Top of the agenda will be the possibility of housing ‘over the horizon’ counterterrorism forces, an arrangement that would allow the U.S. military to more easily surveil and strike targets in Afghanistan,” the Politico website reported on October 13, citing “a defense official and a congressional official briefed on the trip.”

   “I’m concerned about the notion that the U.S. can keep eyes and ears inside Afghanistan now that we’re outside,” Politico quoted August Pfluger, a House Foreign Affairs Committee member from Texas who was part of the delegation, as saying.

   “Having a friend in the region in geographic proximity to that potential terrorist safe haven is important tactically and strategically.”

   Tashkent immediately denied reports of ongoing talks about hosting a U.S. military or counterterrorism presence, which have periodically surfaced in the U.S. media since April, months before Afghanistan fell to the Taliban in August.

   The matter “is not being discussed,” Foreign Minister Abdulaziz Komilov told reporters flatly on October 14.

   A foreign policy doctrine adopted in 2012 prohibits Uzbekistan from hosting foreign troops and bases. A military doctrine that came into force in 2018 reinforced that rule. (With Russia's blessing, the U.S. used the Karshi-Khanabad Airbase in southern Uzbekistan between 2001 and 2005 for missions in Afghanistan. Tashkent evicted the Americans after Washington criticized the 2005 massacre in Andijan.)

   It is not in Tashkent’s interest to allow Washington to use its territory for military purposes, suggested Kamoliddin Rabimov, a France-based Uzbekistani analyst.

   “To preserve its neutrality and geopolitical independence, official Tashkent should not let itself get dragged into the Afghan conflict, and does not wish to start a new geopolitical experiment for the sake of Washington’s interests, since this would simultaneously complicate relations with Russia, China and the new regime in Kabul,” he told Eurasianet.

   Komilov has also ruled out Uzbekistan re-joining the Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) – a regional security bloc that Tashkent quit in 2012 – as a result of the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.

   “At least at this moment we do not see a need to restore Uzbekistan’s membership in the CSTO,” Kamilov said on October 22.

   “But in parallel, active cooperation is in progress with the Russian Federation and with neighboring states to some degree on security matters.”

   Tashkent’s stance on relations with the Taliban government is similar to that of Moscow. Both favor engagement, but stop short of formal recognition.

   This month alone, officials from Uzbekistan have held two meetings with Afghan government representatives. Komilov visited Kabul on October 7, and days later Taliban officials visited Termez in southern Uzbekistan, a border town which is a staging post for the dispatch of international humanitarian aid to Afghanistan.

   Uzbekistan also held military drills with Russian forces near the border with Afghanistan in August, days before Kabul fell to the Taliban.

Originally published by EurasiaNet.org

 

Update

Russia considers unacceptable the presence of any US or NATO military infrastructure in the Central Asian countries bordering Afghanistan. This was stated by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrovo, speaking at the Third Ministerial Conference of Afghanistan's Neighboring Countries (Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) underway in China. (March 31)

   Der Wohnungsbau ist im Umbruch. Das Nullenergiehaus ist das Ziel. Architekten, Baustoffindustrie und Gesetzgeber eint das Ziel, gesund und vor allem energiesparend zu bauen. Fotovoltaik aufs Dach, Wärmepumpenrohre in den Boden. Fabelhaft, und so fortschrittlich!

   Aber ist es das, was künftige Generationen wünschen werden? Man darf zweifeln.

   Künftige Generationen werden vermutlich körperlich grösser sein als wir – in Zentimetern Körperhöhe gemessen. Um 1914 waren deutsche Männer im Durchschnitt 167,2 cm gross. Um 1950 hatten sie 176,8 cm erreicht. Und jetzt sind sie bei 180 cm angelangt.

   Die Höhe von Wohnräumen ist in Deutschland aber seit 1945 nicht mitgewachsen. Daraus ergibt sich die kuriose Situation, dass mehr und mehr Männer – und einige Frauen -- in ihrer Wohnung die Decke mit den Fingern berühren können. Die diversen Landesbauordnungen schreiben Mindesthöhen zwischen 220 und 250 cm vor.

Die in Hamburg zwischen 1948 und 1966 errichteten Backsteingebäude haben meist eine Raumhöhe von 2,2 Meter. Ab den 1960er Jahren betrug die Raumhöhe in Neubauten meist 2,4 Meter oder mehr. Bis zum Beginn des Zweiten Weltkriegs errichtete städtische Wohnungen besitzen häufig Deckenhöhen von 3,3 Metern und mehr

   De facto werden in Deutschland seit Jahrzehnten Wohnungen und Häuser mit durchschnittlich 250 cm Raumhöhe gebaut, in Duisburg-Marxloh ebenso wie in München-Grünwald.  Man hat sich daran gewöhnt. Im Laufe der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung sind die Wohnräume zwar grösser geworden, aber nur in der horizontalen Dimension.

   Wenn Makler ein Anwesen anbieten, das nicht einmal diese Raumhöhe erreicht, nennen sie es gerne „gemütlich, heimelig, romantisch“.

   Ob kommende Generationen das akzeptieren werden?

   Was nach 1945 sinnvoll war, als Wohnraum für Millionen Bombenopfer und Flüchtlinge billig geschaffen werden musste, wirkt heute absurd. Die Menschen werden nicht nur grösser, auch ihre Ansprüche steigen.  Wenn die ihnen zur Verfugung stehenden Wohnräume Schuhschachteln gleichen, suchen sich ihre Ansprüche andere Zielrichtungen: beispielsweise Fahrzeuge und Ferienreisen. Nur raus aus dem trauten Heim!

   Nicht alle Deutschen akzeptieren das 2.50 Meter-Schicksal.  Auffällig gesucht und hoch bewertet werden Uraltwohnungen und -Häuser,  vor allem Altbauten aus der Gründerzeit mit ihren hohen Räumen. Derzeit bieten Baufirmen sogar neue Luxuswohnungen mit 3.50 Meter Raumhöhe an, denen sie besondere Heizersparnis bescheinigen, weil man weniger lüften muss.

   Jedenfalls sollte Deutschlands Bauwirtschaft bedenken, dass künftige Generationen andere Ansprüche stellen werden und die heutigen Wohnungen ärmeren Interessenten überlassen könnten, vor allem Einwanderern. 

   Was die Bauvorschriften anlangt, sollten die deutschen Länder über die Grenzen schauen. Italien beispielsweise erlaubt keine Wohnbauten unter 3 Meter Raumhöhe. Daran könnte sich Deutschland orientieren, wenn es seine Vergangenheit überwinden und in zukunftssicheren Wohnbau investieren will.

Heinrich von Loesch

   China's new imperialism is a cause for concern not only for Western democracies, but also for Russia, Japan, and India, as well as for developing countries that are heavily indebted to China as a result of its belt-and-road policies and other investments.

   It is hardly an exaggeration to regard Xi Jinping's China as a matter of global concern. With each passing month, with each passing year, China's already huge economy becomes even more dominant because its economic growth outpaces the progress of most other countries.

   Earlier hopes and assumptions about China's peaceful and cooperative intentions have evaporated in Hong Kong. The brutal crackdown was followed by a series of verbal and military threats against Taiwan and border skirmishes with India. The spat with Australia and the turmoil in the South China Sea demonstrate China's imperialist ambitions, ignoring its neighbors and aiming to establish itself as lord and master in Southeast Asia and the adjacent Pacific.

   To ensure that the world notices the iron fist behind Xi Jinping's expansionism, China has again increased its defense spending and continues to upgrade and modernize its military. Taking a cue from Russia, China appears to be developing the infamous hypersonic technologies that can nuke any place on Earth, and against which there is no defense.

   Most troubling, however, is Xi Jinping's new economic strategy aimed at increasing China's self-sufficiency. When a country seeks economic autonomy, alarm bells usually ring among its neighbors.

   In this interdependent, globalized world, who needs autarky unless the country is preparing for conflict, for war? China's ambition to become economically independent suggests two alternative explanations: Either Beijing expects foreign aggression and wants to defend itself, or it is itself planning a war against another country or countries. In either case, the conflict can be expected to be extensive, i.e.,  at world war level.

   Only a global sized conflict would justify autarky. Autarky without a looming global war makes no sense: it sacrifices the benefits of international competition and participation in the world economy for no reason.

   China's current policies are not ephemeral: they are likely to remain fundamental for a long time, as Xi Jinping has already secured his lifetime tenure at the helm.

   The consequences of China's long-term strategies are rather unpleasant for the rest of the world.  As China's economic (and military) weight continues to increase each year, Mr. Xi can wait and watch his power grow. One day, China will be the elephant in the room and will have overtaken all other economies. The world economy will then largely consist of China and the seven dwarfs (US, EU, Japan, Russia, India...).

   At that point, nothing will threaten China's supremacy. There would be no danger of another world war, as the new Pax Sinica would likely prevail for generations to come.

   Why, the world will ask, has Beijing's planned economy proven so superior to the liberal economies of the dwarfs?

   The answer is simple: because a planned economy can direct all activities toward a political goal, such as autarky and world domination.

   Liberal economies are by definition chaotic because they are geared toward maximizing individual and corporate wealth and pleasure. Even if politicians recognize that a country, such as China, is a common enemy and should be constrained, individuals, in their pursuit of profit and growth, will happily continue to trade with that country and help increase its power.

   China's quest to become self-sufficient, if successful, would mean that China's economy could exist (for a time) without the world, but the world could not exist without China. The current global shortage of microchips is just a taste of the shortages that would occur if China - the workbench of the world - stopped supplying the electronic and mechanical devices that all countries have grown accustomed to and depend on. The shelves of millions of dollar stores and China stores would be left empty.

   Two major powerhouses are currently striving for world domination: the Islamists and China. Let us hope none of them will succeed.

John Wantock

 

 

Update

China is watching you without your knowledge. With the support of the Chinese government and cheap sales to conquer the market abroad, Hikvision has become a global video surveillance heavyweight. The company would allow China to engage in espionage, according to information from The Atlantic.

Hikvision is a Chinese company specialized in the design of video surveillance equipment. This company, owned by Chinese public funds, has become one of the most important actors of the sector, but it seems to leave an open door to spying for the Chinese state.

.

 

 

Wen wählen?

   Die deutsche Bundestagswahl steht vor der Tür. Wen wählen, wenn man eigentlich keine der Parteien mag? Nicht wählen ist keine Option.

   Da kommt die Rettung unverhofft in Form eines UN-Berichts: Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung -- Bericht 2021

   Selbst ein kurzer Überblick des Berichts zeigt, dass sich der Klimawandel beschleunigt hat und die Weltgemeinschaft ungebremst auf eine Katastrophe zusteuert. Die Lektüre vermittelt Alpträume. 

   Ich selbst war Teilnehmer jener berühmten Konferenz der Vereinten Nationen über Umwelt und Entwicklung, die 1992  in Rio de Janeiro stattfand.  Ein schwieriges Welt-Gipfeltreffen, das erstmals gemeinsame Menschheitsziele definierte, und das unter Schlafentzug litt, weil die chaotischen Verkehrsverhältnisse von Rio die Teilnehmer extrem belasteten. Dass die Konferenz dennoch ein Erfolg wurde, dankte man vor allem der Associação dos Cafeteiros do Brasil, deren cafezinho-Stand die Teilnehmer selbstlos mit Wachmachern versorgte. In diesen entscheidenden Tagen war nicht Erdöl, nicht Uran wichtigster Treibstoff der Welt, sondern Kaffee.

   Nun, fast dreissig Jahre später, bescheinigt uns die UN, dass die Weltgemeinschaft versagt hat und das Schiff immer schneller dem Untergang zusteuert. Was tun?

   Als Einzelner kann man nur eines tun: die persönlichen Prioritäten umschichten in Richtung auf Klimaschutz, um mit sich selbst in Frieden zu leben.

   Was ist der erste, notwendige Schritt?  Eine Partei zu wählen, deren Klimaschutzversprechen glaubwürdiger als das der anderen Parteien ist, auch wenn man dabei manche grüne Kröte schlucken muss.

 

Freiheit, die wir meinen?

   Mehrere Parteien haben die Forderung nach mehr Freiheit in ihren Wahlslogans betont. Freiheit, ja, aber welche?

   Wenn man die Programme der Parteien und die Reden ihrer Protagonisten anschaut, dann zeigt sich, dass Freiheit 2021 in Deutschland etwas ganz spezifisches bedeutet: nämlich die Selbstverwirklichung des Individuums ohne Rücksicht auf Vernunft, Mitmenschen und Umwelt.

   Keine Impfungen, keine Masken, keine Abstandsregeln mehr, dafür wieder Discoparties, Grossveranstaltungen, Flugreisen, SUVs und endlich mal richtig die Sau rauslassen. Ist das die Freiheit, die unsere Parteien meinen?

 

Oh Christo!

   In Paris ist mit grossem tamtam der Arc de Triomphe eingewickelt worden in memoriam Christo, des Erfinders der Verpackungskunst.

   Das Volk staunt und die Gazetten sind des Lobes voll für Frankreichs wieder erwachende Pionierrolle im zeitgenössischen Kulturschaffen.

   Dennoch: den Beobachter beschleicht ein mulmiges Gefühl im Angesicht des mutmasslichen Quadratkilometers Plastikfolie, den dieses Kunstwerk verbraucht hat. Der ökologische Fussabdruck dürfte riesig sein: zum einen der Aufwand an Erdöl zur Erzeugung der Folie, zum anderen deren spätere Beseitigung. Vielleicht lässt sich das Plastik recyceln oder als Wertstoff nach Myanmar exportieren. Sonst droht Verbrennung.

   Dass man den Triumphbogen analog einwickelt anstatt ihn digital zu photoshoppen ist ein Rückschritt in eine längst überwunden geglaubte Epoche.  Das wäre den Franzosen klarer geworden, wenn man statt des Arc de Triomphe das Palais de l'Élysée verpackt hätte, mit dem Präsidenten innen drin. 

 

Den Taliban danken

   Die Welt rätselt, ob Afghanistan noch ein autonomer Staat ist oder in Wirklichkeit eine Kolonie des pakistanischen Militär-Geheimdiensts ISI geworden ist.  

   Wer auch immer die Taliban sind: Afghanen oder pakistanische Proxies und Versuchskaninchen für ein künftiges Emirat Pakistan: sie buchstabieren die Scharia ins tägliche Leben eines Volkes, eines Landes, eindrücklicher noch als in 1990er Jahren, als sie schon einmal regierten.

   Für die gesamte islamische Welt ist es faszinierend zu beobachten, wie sich nach zwanzig relativ freien Jahren die Rückkehr des Mittelalters in den Alltag buchstabieren lässt.

   Dass Frauen Bildung und ausserhäusliche Arbeit verweigert wird entspricht der verzweifelten demografischen Lage in Afghanistan: Millionen arbeitsloser Männer brauchen ein Einkommen, damit die sich (und die Frauen) ernähren können. Da darf nicht sein, dass um die wenigen Jobs auch noch Frauen konkurrieren, die vielleicht sogar fleissiger und gebildeter sind.

   Um zu verhindern, dass Frauen sich neben dem Haushalt noch bezahlte Arbeit wünschen, könnten die Taliban ja  Haushaltsgeräte wie Waschmaschinen, Spülmaschinen und Staubsauger verbieten. Mal sehen.

   Jedenfalls wird das Verbot der Frauenarbeit massive Konsequenzen zeitigen. Zum einen wird Afghanistan arm bleiben wie so viele andere islamischen Länder, die auf den wirtschaftlichen Beitrag der Frauen aus Gründen der Religion oder Stammestradition verzichten. Zum anderen ist auf eine Minderung des demografischen Drucks in Afghanistan garnicht zu hoffen, denn die gewaltsame Domestizierung der Frauen wird bewirken, dass sie den ihnen ausser Haus versagten Erfolg in der Schaffung von Humankapital suchen, also in zusätzlichen Kindern.

  Man muss den Taliban danken, dass sie den Übergang eines Landes in das, was wir Europäer Mittelalter nennen, jetzt vorexerzieren als Anschauungsmaterial für Millionen, die die Rückkehr zu den Anfängen des Islam idealisieren und teilweise sogar aktiv danach streben, wie Pakistan es erlebt.

--ed