Pom perompompom…pomperompompom…pomperompompom…. Actually it’s not so bad to be alone in the house…reminds me of those days when my folks and sisters had gone off and I was able to sniff in the oldest one’s drawers without fear of being detected…just had to make sure her stuff looked like untouched upon leaving the premises… She was just in full Duran Duran swing and I knew she kept some tutorial bookies for young girls with here and there a nice pic in it…ah….memories….


……………………………..(sigh)………………


…yup…am definitely feeling like I’m starring in Home Alone 5…but before the wackos try to break in…almost wished some hacker ‘d show up… just to break the monotony…


............................(checking comments section)......................


Uh-oh. Mark from Colorado wrote: "You're really spoiling for a fight, huh. I'm up for it if you are.". I would be very careful making such bold statements Mark. Extreeeemely careful. According to my old Rand McNally '93 Colorado has about 3,400,000 inhabitants and Maine some 1,300,000. Which means that Belgium with 10,300,000 is still outnumbering the two of you by more than two to one.


OK ok...after all you're not that bad Americanos. [RANT OFF].


I'm off till the end of the week to Florida! Booked an Air France flight to Miami. Will try do do the Keys too. So see you by Friday!

Kerry, Friday 23rd, 2004:

You have no idea how alike you and Tom are, are you certain that if we traced his family and yours that they don't intersect somewhere?


I might hope not.


Kerry, Friday 23rd, 2004, after packing sunglasses and protective cream:

PS, Hope those rough days are due to the quarterly filing, not family stuff.


It was the quarterly filing. Pfah! As if Mainers ever care!


CNN Weather, Friday 23rd, 2004:

"(AP) -- Arctic air was forecast to bring accumulations of 6 to 12 inches in the eastern Great Lakes, while an area of low pressure was expected to cause scattered snow showers in the Northeast. Wind chill values across were to plunge as low as minus 20."


Bar Harbor is in the Northeast isn’t it? Whoahahahahaha!!!!!


Michael, Friday 23rd, 2004

Mark from Colorado, how about inviting Christiane from Switzerland, Robert, Rachel and Arruda to the comments section?

…Sorry fellas and gals... have just been lurking lately... had some rough days... no time to post anything valuable... noticed though that Tom's best friend, the one with the French face, won in Iowa and that Dean went off not with a whimper but with a bang... Knew practically nothing about SOTU until I came upon it here... so whadda ya think was the reason those soldiers were looking less than happy? Were they sitting next to Hillary mayhaps?


…………(reading latest post)………….



[RANT ON] Oh yeah, sure. Tom, Kerry, Scott and wife off to the Richard Grason Inn in Bar Harbor until Monday “for some R&R which means plenty of discussion, but no blogging”! Sure. Leave me alone defending the West's values eh? Sounds pretty socialistic to me. Guess you’ll discuss the chef’s menu or have a fight over who’ll get the Ashley bedroom and who’ll sleep in the Melinda cave. Scott, I hope there’s more than one wall between the two. I heard Tom snores like an A 10 attacking a Republican Guard column. I suggest you drop him into the Tyler bedroom, although Kerry confided me he’s afraid alone in the dark. Kerry, you don’t really want to sleep in this Melinda thing, the color is giving me a migraine already. That “fully-equipped gourmet kitchen” REALLY SUCKS!!!! If you think the loser who runs the place is mentally half as stable as the Lion of Kosovo and can have a look at my site without succumbing to the Mother Of All Depressions then hand him the link to it, maybe guests will be able to have decent meals by the time LPB III is POTUS. “Spectacular view of Frenchman’s Bay”…”French doors lead from the Melinda Room…”. Who the hell came up with the idea of hiring this place anyway? I bet it’s Tom. For all his ranting on the French he doesn’t fool this one. Admit that you are a sly Frenchofile Tommy. What you gonna say now eh? C’est la vie?

“We leave the site in Michael's adept hands to use as he pleases.” Hah! You bet!!! In my country we have a saying: “When the cat is off the mice dance on the table.” Well, you asked for it yourself Kerry. You practically begged for it. Don’t start whining come Tuesday.


…………(seething)..........


Can't think properly anymore… Good night to all those living outside Maine... good night for me at least... in His Infinite Goodness The Lord hath wanted it that Belgium should be perpetually six hours ahead of Maine... not to speak of Colorado...


.............................................

Here's a great piece on the Patriot Act. Bookmark this one for future use against frothing civil libertarians.

The last passage is the most telling: "As for civil-liberties abuse, a useful measure of just how profoundly threatening the law is should be Section 223, the Patriot Act provision under which citizens can seek monetary damages if they are mistreated. To date, the number of lawsuits is zero."

Grand frère cracks down on the beard menace threatening France.

Maybe that's why they didn't back us in the war with Iraq. At the start of the war, Saddam just had a moustache.

Did I ever mention that the International Criminal Court sucks?

Well, there was nothing earth shattering in the SOTU address. Here's a few negatives:

Ted Kennedy getting air time.

Ted Kennedy getting air time fondling his ample jowls.

A $300,000,000 "initiative" (nice call, Kerry) to help people leaving prison to get training, etc. to re-enter the work force and not be repeat offenders. In other words let's reward criminals with money taken from people who obey the laws. I can't tell you how pleased I am at the thought of my hard earned money going to assist the guy who broke into my house last year. I wonder if I can get in on some of this training should I fall on tough times. Probably not without committing a crime first. Here's what I propose for ex-cons: You let them out of jail at the end of their sentence. That one is free.

Some of the most sorry military personnel ever (again, nice call Kerry). Those who had a pulse couldn't even be bothered to pay attention. Must have been Wes Clark's old staff.

"Limiting spending increases to less than 4%." What a miser! This counts as cost cutting in Washington.

John Kerry referring to the economic recovery as a "Wall Street Bush League recovery" in an interview after the speech. What a wordsmith. I'm not sure I'll be able to take much more of his tall, twisted head.

About 15 other new ways to piss away taxpayer money on things the government should have nothing to do with.

On a positive note, here are a few good things from the SOTU:

As Kerry said, Bush really set the Dems up with that Patriot Act line. How long are these people going to continue to think he is stupid?

Many important Democrats looking classless, petulant, and unprofessional on camera. I know; what's new?

A strong denunciation of socialized medicine. Bush showed some good backbone here. Looks like we're going to avoid the biggest disaster of modern government for a few more years.

Another mispronunciation of "nuclear". I'm glad the pres is holding his ground on this important issue.

Well that's all I can remember. It will be fun to watch the Democratic candidates fall all over themselves trying to out critique each other tomorrow.

This is good news. "Arab fighters die in gun battle after Iraqis inform on them"

Keep this this in mind as the Democratic candidates hammer Bush on the budget deficit.

Jose Maria Aznar strikes me as exactly the type of person I wish there were more of in the EU. The linked interview is interesting, Aznar impressed me during the events leading up to the late unpleasantness in Iraq, I'm sorry to see he is stepping down.

Michael, any comments or impressions?

Mark, you wrote:

"Now I have to hear Michael's comments about the EU trade agreement with Syria. I thought France had 1 vote in the EU, not 15! How did Italy and Spain vote on this?"

Mark, since I have to get my quarterly VAT Declaration prepared and ready by tomorrow (otherwise I will get shot by the BFP, Belgian Fiscal Police), I must and will try to keep this entry short and precise.

Well, the mere fact that this EU-Syria Association Agreement has been reached – may I remind you, after five years – is just an illustration of the vast difference in policy between EU and USA, while both have basically the same goals. As you will find out here, the Association Agreement implies a.o. measures to guarantee basic human rights as well as enhancing free trade and liberalizing the Syrian economy, which is very much state-controlled. I don’t seriously think the US will be opposed to these goals.

The EU hopes to achieve them through embracing and kissing the Syrian government all over; the USA plays hardball to make them do it. It’s just a matter of policy but both America and the US have the same goals – Iraq all over again.

Now, being a rightwinger myself – btw, Mark, that was quite some confession from Lee C., Scott (not the one from Maine, that one from Oregon), CVS etc. yesterday on Omar’s blog - I generally have no problem denouncing the EU’s all too often “soft” approach. I, too, think that a much more straightforward course would yield better results. In this particular case, however, you have to understand that the talks were already well underway long before 9/11, in a time when the US itself was not yet up to go for it the Iraq way. 9/11 happened, but it happened in the US, and because of that the idea of pre-emptive strikes (Afghanistan, Iraq) and ballsy politics became acceptable for (the majority of) Americans. Through inertia and European complacence and, yeah, because the softies content is higher over here, Europe is not yet ready for the American way (it might change when an Airbus crashes in the Eiffeltower, God forbid). And that’s why after 9/11 these talks just continued with an Agreement now having been reached. We’ll see what comes out of it, but indeed, I’m not holding my breath.

You’ll like to hear it when I say that I expect more from the events in Iraq for Syria to change than from the EU’s Association Agreement. In a weird way both the EU’s and the USA’s moves don’t even have to be counterproductive in this particular case. You know, those Syrians sweating with 130,000 GI’s in their backyard but, nervously, not exactly knowing how to put oil on the waves without losing their face and then, miraculously, hey, there’s just in time this nice framework for political and economical reforms offered by the Europeans!

Well, on the voting system as agreed upon under the 2002 Nice Agreement, I’ll have to refer you to my earlier post. Don't fall asleep behind the keyboard.

I think the issue had to be agreed upon by the Council of Ministers through Unanimity Voting. Since it passed, all member states must have agreed. Note, however, the scheme you get presented under the link is the one envisaged for the 25-member EU due in May. Unanimity thing was already in place I guess.

One last note: thank you Tom for not so long ago recognizing the rationale behind the EU. The EU is not there because of leftists. If Europes politicians would have the same grit as their American counterparts (well… except for this particular Vermont variety - and you know I don’t mean Bremer), there would be a EU just as well. The vehicle is good. The driver could be better.

So much for being short. Hope at least it was precise.

Will the madness never end?

Someone's ability to discern right from wrong is just a wee bit hosed up.

I quote:

"To applaud the US army's capture of Saddam Hussein and therefore justify its invasion and occupation of Iraq is like deifying Jack the Ripper for disembowelling the Boston Strangler."

This is a picture a friend of ours took the other day down at Mere Point in Brunswick. It is a cold weather phenomenon known as sea smoke.



Click on the image above to see a larger picture.

This story supposedly documents American National Security Agency "corruption". The only problem is that when you read the story you find that there is nothing there. Much ado about nothing.

Hat tip to Moxie loving Andrew Stuttaford over at the NRO Corner

Michael, this is exactly why I do not like John Kerry and do not want him as my next president.

"Kerry, for example, now attacks President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, under a resolution the senator supported. He laces into No Child Left Behind, an education plan the senator backed. And he vows to modify the effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which the senator helped enact."

Honestly, I think Clark is the worst of the lot now; he is a bald-faced liar. Dean is a flake and the things he preaches today don't square with the way he ran Vermont (quite a bit to the right of garbage he spews these days).

I thought I was the only one who felt this way about the Olympics.

Mark, you wrote:

"What is it with this "European Union" idea? I understand why European nations would want to have "free-trade" agreements with each other and other friendly arrangements. But, why did they think a single currency was a good idea? Unlike the United States, the European countries have distinct national histories, languages and cultures. You can't just wrap them up together and say "EU." Am I wrong?"


Mark, in short: after the steel and coal industries of core European states integrated, the necessity and benefits of free movement of capital, persons, services and goods was recognized. This was realized during the fifties and sixties. I'll skip the political developments, too long to elaborate here. During the seventies it was realized that in addition to the free movement of capital etc... a single currency was the natural addition to the set of measures, because of:

*elimination of the high transaction costs during valuta changings
*ending the uncertainty inherent with unstable exchange rates
*easy price comparing for citizens of EU states travelling within the EU
*a more efficient common market, thus creating additional jobs

There's even an international benefit: the euro strengthens the international monetary stability.

As a matter of fact, indeed, because of the strong national identities you can't just wrap us together and label us "EU". The whole process started with an idea of Robert Shuman in the early fifties and right now we have arrived at the point where an EU "government", the Commission/Council of Ministers and a EU "House of Representatives", the European Parliament, are consolidating their hold on a lot of events normally considered the realm of the separate states. When wil this process end? I don't know, possibly when the EU will have become something like the USA and will then be called the USE, say in 30 years or something. So it's really not "just", if it's gonna go this way the whole thing will have lasted 80 years.

Now Mark, I'm fully aware of the tremendous costs and financial abuses inherent to this process, as Tom, Scott and Kerry repeatedly regularly point out, justified even. I have never doubted that it will be, and has been, a "long, hard slog". But as a European, I'm willing to live with that. I am FOR the Union, I'm just AGAINST it being led mostly by leftists.

Consider the following situation: if leaders like Washington and Madison had not recognized at a very early stage that a Union of the then 13 states was necessary, where would you be now? What we now know as the USA would be an amalgam of some 50 republics, each with their petty policies and sensitivities, perhaps (certainly?) warring each other from time to time. Texas dollars being stronger currencies than, say, Maine dollars or even worse, Colorado dollars (heh heh). A unified and common Foreign Policy? Forget it. California, Texas, New Mexico, Florida et al want to intervene in WWI in Europe but Wyoming, Kansas, Missouri etc. don't want to... sheesh what a mess...

If you feel uneasy about a stronger EU here's some consolating viewpoint: just as we in Europe were beneficiaries from the US's Federalism (during WWI and WWII), so the US might be someday in the future, be glad to have us, your ancestors, as a powerful ally.

I believe that in 30-50 years the world might well be divided in five or six powerful blocs. China, very likely a Latino-American bloc (there's already the Mercosur like our ECCS in the 50's), India, furthermore maybe a bloc around Japan, I read Japan has aspirations to lead something like the EU, Russia and allies... and USA/USE, unlike the others with common roots and values. I said it before, I see us more like future partners than like adversaries.

Btw, CONGRATS with your blog! Will try to hop in from time to time and leave some comments. See you at the Iraqis too.

Now this is art.

I'll accept all of your apologies for disagreeing with me now.

P.S. What's up with Elvis getting the halo? Jesus looks envious.

Hey Michael, does this mean that the Belgian who becomes EU president next will have a Belgacom or Delhaize logo on the back of his suitcoat?

Michael,

You're absolutely right about the motivations behind this exhibit, and I am as disgusted as you are with these people and their cause. It's probably a distraction for us to be debating what art is and isn't here, as this topic has been kicked around for ages and to my knowledge there is not a satisfactory answer. The apparent aim of Tom's original post was to point out the lunacy of the exhibit, and my reply probably got us a bit off track.

The basic point is this: The content of a piece of art cannot disqualify it as art, no matter how offensive and ill intentioned it may be. There is a famous quote regarding art who's author's name escapes me that goes like this: "There is no such thing as bad content, only bad form. This explains the place of form in art." I believe this applies here.

The rise of antisemitism in Europe is indeed frightening, and should be opposed at every opportunity. But what would we all say if a gallery in New York denied the display of artwork glorifying the creation of Israel on the basis that it was too offensive and ill intentioned to be considered art?

Tom, I’m on your side on this. Under other circumstances I would agree with Scott, underwriting his assessment that it is “art”, albeit really bad, crappy art. Being a European and given the fact the exhibition took place in an EU country I feel compelled however to put the whole thing in context.

The context is this:

*Last summer the Mayor of Rotterdam, The Netherlands, had to intervene personally in the case of the so-called “Black Schools”, where the majority of students are young immigrants, mostly Moroccans. In several schools the pupils made it impossible that history lessons on the Holocaust were given, wreaking havoc in the classrooms and shouting slogans like “Joden, die moet je doden” (“Jews, those you have to kill”). The case was brought to attention by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a 33-year old MP of Somalian origin and former Muslim. Check out this link. It's in Dutch but you'll get the meaning.

*There’s a Europeanwide phenomenon of anti-Semitism on the rise, with, e.g., threatening of prominent Jews and desecration of Jewish graves. If you got the time, take a look here.

*Past autumn German Press was for some weeks in turmoil over the forced resignation from his party by Christian-Democratic MP Martin Hohmann, whose bold remarks accused the Jews of being a people of perpetrators, citing that millions of Russians died in the early twenties in a Revolution orchestrated by Jews. A symphatizing Bundeswehr Special Forces General, Gunzel, was also force to resign. Read the story at Time. Believe me, a lot think like Hohmann and Gunzel but speak not out (yet).

*Gretta Duisenberg, the wife of former European Central Bank President Wim Duisenberg, made a lot of press the past years for her biased stance in the Palestinian issue, always glorifying the suicide bombers and accusing the IDF of terrorist behaviour in the Occupied Territories, and even going so far as hanging a Palestinian flag from her house. Btw, there's a strange side-story on this lady, do a Google for former CIA-agent Philip Agee.

*On Dec 5th, 2001, Brussels Head Rabbi Albert Guigui, was beaten and spit in the face in a Brussels metro station by a group of youngsters of North-African origin.

*etc. etc etc...

Believe me, it's just the tip of the Iceberg.

The bottomline is, in Europe as a whole there’s a frightening rise in Antisemitism, more often than not thinly veiled as anti-Israelism. One can rightly criticize the IDF’s actions in the West Bank and Gaza as being harsh and humiliating to the Palestinians, although when history will pass its judgement the Israelis’ actions will become – are already – quite understandable. The point is that in Europe hatred against Israel for its policy is being used as a vehicle to commit Europes ages-old disease: Anti-Semitism.

And that’s where this so-called “art exhibition” comes in the picture. What's embarrassing me is not so much that the "work" was from Jews themselves – I frown upon and consider as a nutcase many a modern artist - but the fact that such a distasteful thing was organized in a European country which praises itself for its religious tolerance. Exhibiting crap like this fake bloodpool is just another sickening example of "Political Correctness". Glorifying wackos blowing innocent civilians up is good. But don't try to make a hush about a burnt Paris synagogue. It has NOTHING to do with art. Not even with bad art.

Tom,

Regarding the Swedish art exhibit, I have to disagree with you. Like it or not, this is art, even if it is silly, pretentious art based solely on shock value, which anyone who knows anything about art knows is the easiest and least sophisticated way to express an idea. This is why we see so many images created by political artists with Bush depicted as Hitler. It's hopelessly easy, shocking, (at least is still is to some) and juvenile, and doesn't speak to anyone other than those already living on the same fringe as the artist.

This is how I judge all political art: If the work cannot convince anyone of its intended message beyond those who already hold the same belief as the artist, then it is a silly rant and deserves no more attention than the temper tantrum of a child. Unfortunately, the political art scene seems to be a catch all for talentless people who feel that a shocking, shallow message wrapped up in leftover childhood angst is enough to qualify their work. I mean really, when was the last time you saw a beautiful piece of political art?

Unfortunately, all this crap is still art; it's just really bad art. The Israeli ambassador made a big mistake by making such a scene. He would have been much better off ignoring the piece, or dismissing it quietly for the waste of matter that it is. The creator of that piece is now getting entirely more attention than he deserves.

I want to have about 6 more kids, buy another huge SUV, and move to the Bay area just to piss these people off.

This kind of crap is not art. What the hell is the Museum of National Antiquities doing displaying it. I'd probably have done more damage than the Israeli ambassador.

Interesting article (USERNAME: downeastblog@gwi.net; PASSWORD: downeastblog) on past judicial recess appointments (of which there have been more than 300).

"Some of the more famous cases include Earl Warren's 1953 appointment by President Eisenhower to be chief justice of the United States and Thurgood Marshall's 1961 appointment by President Kennedy to the 2nd District Court of Appeals."

Hat tip to NRO's Corner.

Nice culture.

"Reem Raiyshi a mother of two from Gaza...was named as the woman who blew herself up Wednesday at the major crossing point between Israel and the Gaza Strip, killing at least four Israelis and wounding seven others."(Emphasis mine)

I'm sure that her children's lives have been improved by her actions. I'm also sure that somehow it is George Bush's fault that these people are ignorant, murderous, barbaric savages, But you already knew this.

Christ, and I thought Lieberman was a moderate, not a stinkin' commie. He's not fooling Kim though.

O.K. The real reason I posted this link is because Mr. Du Toit says "a first class ball-kicking" which makes me laugh. But he does make a good point about Lieberman as well. The entire Democratic lineup is definitely rather underwhelming.

The most foul and foreign French.

French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie says her government is willing to help train Iraq's police and military but rules out sending French troops there.

.

Huh? Maybe they are planning on setting up an online training class.

Interesting story by a liberal assailing some of the anti-globalization idiocy that seems to be trendy these days.

"Perhaps the candidates are simply pandering to unions, or bashing President Bush. But my guess is that they sincerely believe that such trade policies would help poor people abroad — and that's why they should all traipse through a Cambodian garbage dump to see how economically naïve these schemes would be."

As usual, the motivations behind these "moral" stands are not thought through. Something similar is going on with genetically modified foods. Millions in Africa are starving because their leaders will not accept food from the U.S. because it is "genetically modified" and therefore European nations (EU?) will not deal with them or fear of "contaminating" their crops.

But it just "feels good". Yeah. Tell that to a Cambodian scavenging a garbage dump.

Good.

"Toronto-area Muslim leaders say thousands from their community are boycotting travel to the U.S. in their trek to Mecca this month..."

Hat tip to NRO's Corner.

Goddamnit. This sort of thing is becoming all too common. I don't care what your opinion on the death penalty is, the encroachment of "international law" into the U.S. legal system is a very disturbing trend.

I almost threw up when I read this: "Prime Minister Jean-Claude Raffarin and conservative government have pledged to cut value added tax (VAT) on sit-down restaurant meals to 5.5 percent from the standard 19.6 percent." (Emphasis most definitely mine)

And France has to ask the EU's permission to lower its own meal tax?! Michael, you most assuredly mad Belgian, are you sure you support this whole EU thingy? I'll be glad to send you an application for U.S. citizenship.

I'm very happy that President bush has nominated Charles Pickering to the federal appeals court. While it it is only effective until the next congress takes office in January 2005, the president effectively took charge of this ridiculous situation and made the first move. I'm not sure what the Dems are thinking but all of this delaying and refusal to do their jobs has to be turning off some of their own constituency.

George Will takes a very insightful look at the concept of the nation state and how it relates to current world affairs. The forming of the EU and the attempt by the US to create democracy in Iraq are not treated kindly here. This is a long read, but well worth it. Will proves here that he is one of the top political commentators around, if just a bit long winded.

Ayatollah Sistani seems to be threatening trouble. I think this would be very short sighted approach to shaping the future government of Iraq. First, with this much clerical interference, Iraq is well on its way to being as successful as Iran or Saudi Arabia (which are on their way out). Secondly, (and perhaps the reason he insists on immediate, direct, nation-wide elections) if things play out according to Sistani's wishes the Kurds and Sunnis are going to be slightly under represented. Thirdly, I am not sure the Iraqis will really cotton to theocratic rule. For all of Saddam's negatives, religion was not shoved down the people's throats and women had more freedom than in most of the Middle East.

So Sistani, we in the West have hundreds of years worth of experience in democracy, you have hmmmmm, oh yeah, NONE. Shut up and learn something.

This story makes my gun-toting inner-child feel all warm and squishy. Common sense, and in L.A. of all places!

P.S. I'd be glad to oblige anyone who asked me to use my banana "in a happier way." My guess is that it would only be happier for me.

This is the sort of attitude that would frighten me as a European. Particularly this line:"The Brussels-based commission is currently considering whether to mandate the smoking ban Europe-wide, or give each state the freedom to decide whether, and to what extent, to ban smoking in public." (emphasis added). This shouldn't even be up for discussion, of course each state should have the freedom to decide.

Amazing. I actually agree with the French on affirmative action. I particularly like the line: "Affirmative action has traditionally been seen as an ill-conceived American invention that celebrates differences and encourages divisions." Amen to that brother.

Sigh. The "Lion of Kosovo" unimpressive as ever. Oh look! Here's the actual statement.

Regarding immigration policy depending on nationality, I tend to agree with Scott. Part of our problem these days is that we've offered our nation up as a sort of huge, milk laden teat for all the world to suckle. Back when our immigration policies actually made sense (ie. we were discriminating in who we admitted and denied) it made sense to grant asylum to Cubans who were fleeing a ruthless, totalitarian regime. The difference was they were looking to escape their situation, our social services were not beckoning them to latch on to a big ol' nipple. Also, these people for the most part planned on returning to their nations someday, once their totalitarian governments were overthrown.

Alas, today the picture is a bit different (Thank you Senator Kennedy and the 1965 Immigration Reform Act). People from oppressed nations can tug at our heartstrings claiming to be fleeing oppression when they really just want the freebies the American taxpayer provides.

I believe that particularly since September 11th, 2001 we need to make drastic changes to our immigration laws. An amnesty for illegals, pardon me "undocumented workers" is not the answer. We can find Americans to perform the menial labor that these people currently do (See this article by Kate O'Beirne at NRO) by removing (my preference) or otherwise heavily gutting our national social services so the people living on these services will have an incentive to work. This would also dampen the zeal of those from around the world who flock to our nation for a handout.

(RANT ON) I know, I'm a heartless, conservative bastard. It's called pragmatism, and while it may not make your inner child (gag) all warm and fuzzy it will allow you clowns to remain in your little syrupy, utopian dreamworld because we'll still have a United States of America. If we had things your way and lived in our little collectivist commune and Read Marx out loud as we played our bongo drums, guess what? You guys would be the first one complaining because of the totalitarian way things were shaping up, AND you guys would be the first ones shot into the shallow graves you'd just dug yourselves.

So yes, you soft-hearted, softer-headed, "can't we all just get along?", group-hug types should be thanking the likes of me. And you're welcome! (RANT OFF)

What the hell is the matter with President Bush? This new initiative to promote marriage is egregious on two fronts. First fiscally, we need to be cutting spending. I'm not talking about the federal government's interpretation of cutting, ie. increasing the annual buget by only 6% instead of 7%. No, I'm talking about cutting millions and millions and millions from the budget. This initiative is right up there with the National Preschool Anger Management Project (I am not making this up, scroll down a bit). We need a sea change in the attitudes of our representatives when it comes to spending money. They need a firm budget amount each year and then have to work everything in under that number instead of just piling the pork on without even a thought as to how it will be paid for.

Second, the government should have no purview here whatsoever. This includes the courts forcing gay marriage on states, decreeing no fault divorce, etc,. Apparently "Compassionate Conservative" means free-spending, big government, and now - Dating Service!

Regarding immigration, one thing is for sure: Our policy has to remain the same regardless of one's nationality. I don't mind discrimination when it comes to immigrants, as long as it's based on things like potential employment, financial status, criminal record, etc. Essentially, all things that can lead to a person damaging our system rather than improving it. (I'm sure the PC weenies are loving that.) Political fashion has no place in deciding who gets in and out of the country.

The fact that we border an impoverished nation is irrelevant. We need to do what's best for us. We have no obligation to any other nation when it comes to securing our borders, unless those other nations would like to start paying taxes into our system. If you look at the history of Mexico, they had as much opportunity to get things right as the U.S. did, but they squandered the opportunity. It reminds me of the bleeding hearts that were wailing when we invaded Afghanistan, whining that these poor, peaceful people have been overrun by countless armies over the centuries, and we're just the latest invader to come and beat up on them. At what point are these people responsible for their own problems? Is it somehow our fault that nations like Afghanistan, despite being around much longer than the US, can't seem to get it right? Of course not.

I'm for helping out Mexico insofar as it helps the US, and no farther. Beyond that, it's just another handout that will come back to haunt us.

Kerry,

I think the Bush marriage initiative is a crock. As many others have already outlined, the government has no business meddling with marriage, period. I also believe that the premise that marriage encourages fiscal responsibility and productivity is highly suspect. The statistics suggest that people who are married are generally more financially stable and create more stable environments for children, etc. I don't dispute this. What I do question is the cause and effect implied here, as if marriage itself magically makes people more responsible and more productive, and therefore less likely to live in poverty. It seems like a classic case of letting the policy drive the data rather than the other way around. It is just as likely that people who are predisposed to marriage are naturally more responsible and productive people to begin with, which means that promoting marriage (which would likely be ineffective anyway) would do nothing to reduce poverty or increase productivity. Of course, this is only one of several potential misinterpretations of this data. It is like saying that children who listen to classical music at home score higher on standardized tests, therefore classical music makes children smarter. It is also possible that parents who expose children to classical music are generally smarter or more involved in their children's education than those who don't, which would explain the higher test scores.

No matter what you believe about marriage, I'm sure most sane people can agree that the Bush administration needs to start talking about ways to spend less money, not more. Enough already.

This sounds rather ominous.

Hey Mainers! I know this is just from Cable Nuts Network but it's therefore not less relevant!!!

So when GWB steps down in 2008 will you send him over here? Cleaning up Belgian mess would be a nice old man's pastime.

It looks like the whole Paul O'Neill thing is fading quickly. With the government now investigating him, he made an appearance on NBC's Today show this morning, and was seriously backpedaling on many of the statements in his book. He asserted that the whole thing about Bush planning for war with Iraq before 9/11 has been spun by the media, and that he thought this was a responsible move by the Bush administration. I haven't read O'Neill's book (like I'm going to buy that), but it its believable that the desperate left would seize upon any scrap of evidence that could be used against Bush, whether it has substance or not. O'Neill also said he would "probably" vote for President Bush in the next election.

We all know that this guy was a lousy Secretary of the Treasury. It seems plausible that his statements weren't all that bad, and the left is simply running with them because that's all they have. It also seems plausible that he's a weenie and doesn't have the backbone to stand by his statements. Either way, this is shaping up to be a non starter.

Put this one into the vast "evaporated hopes of the left" file.

This comment on Tim Blair's site pretty much sums it up:

Look, Howard Dean's head is shaped like a thumb. Or, a big-toe.

I simply can't hear the voice of someone whose head is shaped like a digit, or a pied.

His head isn't a real man's head, it's a cartoonist's head. Maybe that's what makes him so mad .......... his head looks like a toe.

Hat tip to Jeff Jarvis.

Thomas Friedman has a very interesting Op-Ed piece (requires registration) regarding the upcoming decision whether to admit Turkey to the EU or not. While I don't necessarily agree with all of his suggestions (such as the U.S. subsidizing the E.U.), I think a lot more hinges on this decision than economics alone.

This from The American Spectator:

What former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and other Bush administration blabbermouths failed to mention when leaking NSC documents and the like for the forthcoming book O'Neill worked on, is that the Clinton administration had many of the same documents prepared laying out plans for a Iraq post-invasion Iraq.

"We had the same stuff," says a former senior Clinton Administration aide who worked at the Pentagon. "It would have been irresponsible not to have such planning. We had all kinds of briefing material ready should the president have decided to move on Iraq. In fact, a lot of the material we had prepared was material that the previous Bush administration had left for us. It just isn't that big a deal. Or shouldn't be."

Exactly. It isn't that big a deal, especially considering the source. I believe Mr. O'Neill spent a large chunk of his time in office touring Africa with rock star "Bono".

Michael,

Thanks again for "EU 101". You pointed out a lot of things that I was not aware of.

As Kerry points out, this all seems like a recipe for a massive, lethargic bureaucracy, but we can't claim to be immune to that on this side of the pond, either. I still feel that the much greater cultural differences within the EU versus those within the U.S. will make it that much harder to get anything truly productive done. Here's to hoping that both the U.S. and the EU someday figure out that less is more when it comes to government.

The left's position against Bush on the war in Iraq is going to start looking even more like a house of cards if this turns out to be true. The anti-war left is so committed to the theory that Bush lied about WMD's that if these shells turn out to contain chemical weapons, they may as well forfeit in 2004.

Just for grins, here's some potential responses from the left if the above story turns out to be true:

A few artillery shells with chemical agents don't count as WMD.

Sure we found WMD's, but how come Danish soldiers could find them and American soldiers couldn't? We need a full scale investigation.

Since the shells have been buried for at least 10 years, then it's possible they were buried before the first UN resolution banning them, which makes them only "sort of" illegal.

Bush Sr. had the weapons planted back in the first gulf war, knowing that his son would invade Iraq 12 years later, find the weapons, and fulfill their evil Illuminati plot.

These things have been sitting in a swamp for 10 years, how dangerous could they be, anyway?

Ok, so there's chemical weapons in Iraq, but where's the evidence of Saddam's nuclear program? Bush still lied!

Bush knew about the chemical weapons from the beginning and waited until an election year to reveal them for his own political gain. Wait, that would mean that he wasn't lying. Never mind.

Hi you all. Kerry, I promised you to pick up the thread on your Dec. 31 questions and here it is. Permit me to quote you:

“Michael, upon re reading the agreement, it says that unanimity (one country blocking is enough) is reserved for among other things foreign policy and defense. This caused some interesting feelings, my first was, "oh no worries, they'll NEVER get anything done that way"--then it hit me, "OH NO, that's exactly it!". If there were an event such as Iraq, in this layout, it would take only ONE state (France, say?) to say "Mais non, les Americains, malheureusement, je regret...." well you get the picture. One state could block help from the entire of Europe under auspices of "defense" or foreign policy.”

Well, this was the bottomline of your worries. It shows that you have been reading the resume on an earlier posted link quite well. Before addressing your topic, allow me to elaborate:

The EU’s “government” consists basically of two parts, namely:

a.) THE COMMISSION
For those people remotely aware of the EU’s functioning this is the part of the executive body that mostly shows up in newsreels. From May 2004 on, there will be 25 commissioners (ministers), one for each country. I don’t know yet if and how their terms will be affected by the enlargement but until now each commissioner served a four-year term and one of them is President. Right now this chap is Romani Prodi, a Centre-Left former Italian PM with a good record. Well, until now and in order to not complicate things too much for you Americanos, I said that this Commission was the EU’s government. Hmmm, that’s not exactly the whole truth. Let us rather say that the entire executing body is comprised of, indeed, this Commission, AND the so-called Council of Ministers (see b.). Not gonna make this post top-heavy and indigestible, if you want to know more about a.) check this out.


b.) THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS
Well, this Council of Ministers, the part of the EU’s executive body that’s less often in the spotlights, has the final say on legislation. Unlike the Commission, membership is fluid, with each government mandating an appropriate minister depending on the subject to be treated. E.g. the issue is border control, then the Foreign Ministers form the Council.

The presidency of this Council of Ministers rotates among the member states with each state being “Council Host” for a 6-month period. Want to check out more about this, click here.

And another good link on the Council is this.


Have I got you this far? Unbelievable. Take a cigar.

Now, if you want to get the final clue hold on for a sec. Are you puzzled by the appearance of Berlusconi suddenly popping up last summer as “head of the EU” but don’t you know how his function relates to Prodi’s? And now Berlusconi has been succeeded by the slightly less colourful Bertie Ahern, Ireland’s Taoiseach (gaelic for PM) but his fella Prodi is still around??? How come???

Well, it’s all about the EU’s governing body being made up of the Commission on the one hand and the Council of Ministers on the other hand. It’s really not that strange, compare it with a Board of Directors and an Executive Committee if you want. The Commission handles the day-to-day business but the Council prepares and takes the strategic decisions. So Prodi who is President of the Commission just serves out his four-year term, Ahern on the other hand is President of the Council and will be replaced again in six months. Prodi does the shopping and cooking, Ahern plans installing a new kitchen (ahem ahem).

Now that I assume that you got the stuff above locked and loaded, let me elaborate again on Kerry’s concerns. As said, it’s the Council of Ministers which has the final vote on strategic issues and for that the following voting system was put in place (on the 2002 Nice Summit):

a.) UNANIMITY is required among the Council’s Ministers for, yes, the key matters defence, foreign policy, all kinds of taxation, culture, education, health, border control etc… And indeed Kerry, if ONLY ONE of the 25 member states opposes a decision this decision cannot pass!

b.)QUALIFIED MAJORITY VOTING, the two formulas are:

* Decisions taken on a proposal of the Commission (e.g. the internal market):

From May 2004 (25 member states): require 255 votes of the 342 PLUS must be approved by simple majority of the member states (one country = one vote, in this case 13!)

• Decisions taken in all other cases:
Require 255 votes of the 342 PLUS at least two-thirds of the member states (in this case 17).


Well Kerry, in a way you are right with you concerns. On really important matters France’s vote can block any decision even if all 24 others are in favour of it. Truth to tell, I’ve been worrying too because it indeed does not bode too well for when gut-requiring issues are at stake. On the other hand we should not be too pessimistic. After all, the EU’s Council of Ministers is a democratic entity, with envoys from democratic countries. Any decision-making is ultimately subject to the approval of European citizenry. On that we must stake our hopes for reason and sound judgment ruling the EU’s decision-making. This is not some kind of process like the UN’s Security Council voting system you know, where – let’s call a spade a spade – a dictatorship like China, or an increasingly pro forma democratic Russia can block all the goodwill on the Earth. You can be quite sure that when France is too stubborn on any given subject there’s going to be a lot of talking and negotiating behind the scenes. And contrary to the UN, the EU’s countries’ economies are getting so intertwined there’s plenty of room for bargaining, so that if again France would refuse to bend, it has to reckon that e.g. other countries won’t be that indulgent when at a next meeting Frances interests would be more directly involved.

Hmmmm, think I will post somewhat on the EU Parliament and its judiciary, then something on the EU’s military plans and then it’s time for some other stuff. Your servant, Michael.

I guess the "Lion of Kosovo" can make claims like this when he hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of being elected. What a fool.

And now David Limbaugh with a counterpoint on the immigration plan...

Here's a piece in the Wall Street Journal defending Bush's immigration plan. There are a few details here that I had not heard yet, such as the fact that current illegal residents would have to pay a fine to qualify for their work visa, and they would also have to prove that they have employment. There also seems to be no plans to make this 3 year work visa a stepping stone to citizenship.

While I'm not ready to jump on board by any means, this article doesn't make the plan sound quite so horrible. What I'd like to see detailed are the specific plans to crack down on the flow of additional illegal immigrants once this is passed. So far that has only gotten some lip service, and in my opinion it's the most important part of the proposal.

Kerry,

I'm not sure I buy Jarvis' viewpoint on Bush's immigration proposal. Outsourcing certainly does send money, and to some extent, jobs, outside our borders, but there is more to the equation than merely keeping the jobs here. All of those new immigrant workers are going to be eligible for benefits, which cost the American taxpayer money. If the majority of these workers are working at payscales below what most Americans would accept, as seems to be the plan, then it is likely that they will be taking more from the public treasury than they put in. There are a lot of complex variables involved here, and it's nearly impossible to predict the outcome of such a move. As the Germans discovered, you can wake up in a recession with a massive population of immigrants collecting far more benefits than they are putting into the system.

I was watching O'Reilly last night, and Dick Morris had an interesting observation about Mexican immigration. He pointed out that over the last several years no states have gone from being Democratic states to Republican states. However, several states (I can't recall which ones) have gone from being Republican states to Democratic ones. The reason? The states that switched from Republican to Democrat received enough Mexican immigrants to tip the scales in favor of the Democrats. This points out one of the potential unintended consequences of Bush's immigration policy. While I'm not against immigration as a concept, and I don't have anything against Mexicans, I do worry about allowing a large population of people into this country who are likely going to vote for more and more benefits for themselves out of the public treasury. While Bush is counting on the Hispanic vote in 2004 with this move, we may see the massive influx of Mexican "guest workers" mysteriously become citizens, and then say "thanks for letting us in, but we're voting Democratic anyway."

Ideally, I believe in the concept of open borders. Two things keep me from supporting that concept in our current environment: First, our current welfare state makes it so that immigrants can move here and live of the American taxpayer instead of adding to the economy. Second, the war on terror has made open borders a near suicidal policy for the US. Without the fear of terrorism, we could get rid of our social welfare system, abolish the minimum wage and other regulatory policies, and open the borders. The result would be a booming economy open to anyone who wants to come here to work. Unfortunately, al Qaida and the American left (and now the right) has seen to it that this system will never see the light of day.

Here's a class act from Donald Rumsfeld. I wonder if The Lion Of Kosovo would have turned this honor down?

Now this is diversity training.

This guy has a point.

I love this.

Hat tip to Eye on the Left

This just shouldn't be.

Hat tip to NRO's Corner.

Tom,

Thanks for pointing out yet another piece of depressing policy from the Bush administration. Before reading this I would have said that Bush is just trying to secure the Hispanic vote for 2004, but given the statistics pointed out in this article, that doesn't really seem plausible. Beyond Bush's strength on national security and tax cuts, I can't think of any to vote for the guy, other than the "unusually weak" crop of democratic contenders. Clearly there is a plan at work here, but I'll be damned if I know what it is.

I can actually understand some kind of amnesty towards existing illegal immigrants, as the cost of tracking them down would be astronomical and we would likely only find a small fraction of them. However, encouraging more and more illegal immigrants to come here while giving only lip service to tighter immigration standards is complete insanity. This type of policy brings in the type of person who generally takes more from the public fund than he puts in, and you don't have to be a PHD to see where that gets you.

Hopefully this ridiculous policy has no chance of becoming law, and GW is just trying to look like he cares about illegals, all the while knowing that this idea will get canned. Somehow I doubt it, though.

John O'Sullivan over at NRO talks about President Bush's proposed immigration reforms:

Even on its own terms, Mr. Bush's plan is full of holes. Experience from Germany to California shows that "guest-worker" programs invariably increase illegal immigration since they create welcoming cultural enclaves of foreign nationals into which the "illegals" promptly vanish without trace. Amnesties also encourage illegal immigration by sending the message that if an "undocumented worker" makes it over the border, he will eventually be granted legal status. The 1986 amnesty prompted just such an upsurge in illegal immigration. And what exactly is the point of stricter border controls if you admit anyone willing to work-temporarily — for starvation wages? Surely not even Republican congressmen are likely to be deceived by such a "palatable" absurdity.

Read the whole thing.

Tom,

I saw your cousin in action last night. I hope he wins; cette femme est très chaude!

Yes, the ICC is a joke, and it illustrates many of the problems inherent in worldwide bureaucracies such as the UN. While from an ideal perspective the concept has some merit, there is no way to ensure accountability or even a semblance of neutrality within the system. The sad spectacle of the US state department sucking up to Cameroon trying to get authorization to enforce 12 years of resolutions against Iraq is a glimpse of what we'd be dealing with in legal matters if we bought into the ICC.

Any democratic or federal system has limits in both size and scope. While the US is a large democracy, it is not particularly balkanized internally, so things go relatively smoothly. If you applied the same federal system to the entire world, it would implode almost instantly due to the vast cultural differences and vastly different intentions of the member states. More democracy in this world is a good idea. Bigger democracy is not.

Hey! This guy is my cousin. I am not making this up.

Scott,

The ICC is bad stuff, nothing we want to get tangled up in and should discourage others from as well. Augusto Pinochet is a case in point, detained in Britain (no crimes committed there) on the order of a Spanish magistrate (no crimes committed in that country either). Now Pinochet is not the most savory of characters but was a vast improvement over Allende who he removed by coup (for which many would like the ICC to try Henry Kissinger as well, but that's a topic for another day), but more importantly, whatever crimes he committed were in CHILE, not Spain, not Rwanda, not Vanuatu, but Chile. This needs to be dealt with by the Chileans in their court system.

Now I can guarantee that if this thing ever gets off the ground you're not going to see names like Arafat, Mugabe, Castro, or Qaddafi brought up for indictment, it's going to be more like Bush, Kissinger, Powell, Rumsfeld (my man!), or Sharon. These are all names by the way, that have been bandied about as candidates for justice Hague style. We might as well keep our soldiers and sailors at home as well. This is a just bad idea which just sounds so nice and utopian but will have very far reaching, unintended consequences.

Those disciplinarians at the Hague strike again. Rumor has it that if Saddam is tried there he could be given a "time out" if found guilty.

Kerry,

You had to go and mention small business taxes. Now that my blood pressure is up, I'll sum this up for Michael: If you own your own business in the US, half of what you make, sometimes more, goes to the government. This puts me in a higher tax bracket than the CEO of IBM. Needless to say, I made a bit less than he did this year.

All taxes on capital gains from investments should be eliminated. The fact that we punish fiscal responsibility and financial success in this country (and others) is completely ludicrous. The estate tax is a particularly obscene incarnation of our broken tax code. The answer to this problem can be found here. In short, we switch to a consumption based system of taxation, eliminating the income tax and all taxes on investments and estates. Unfortunately, this concept has little chance of success, because it would take a great deal of power away from the very people that would have to vote it into law. We can dream though...

Kerry, you've also nailed the problems with our system of education. I am also a big fan of privatization. The singular problem that needs to be addressed is the fact that we require by law in this country a certain amount of education. I believe in this law, because without it we would just be creating more and more dependency over time. Since by law we require a certain amount of education for every citizen, there must be affordable education for low income families. I think there is a way to do this in free market system, but I have to research the details. I like the idea of vouchers under our current system; perhaps some version of that combined with abolishing the NEA could work.

Here's one more note regarding taxes. One of the things that keeps the entitlement spending going is the reference to the "poor" portion of our population. By the IRS's current system of measuring income, about 20% of the population qualifies as poor. Here are some of the flaws with that system: First, it doesn't take net worth into account. Someone who has a net worth of $10,000,000 that takes a year off and draws no salary is classified as poor. The system also has no way of tracking how transient people of low incomes are in regards to their income. Children of middle and upper class households working part time or summer jobs are classified as poor, but most of them move out of this category as soon as they enter the work force full time. If you look at the numbers over time, you realize that only 3% of the US population remains poor over an 8 year period. You won't be hearing this from the politicians any time soon, however. 20% just sounds so much more impressive. Bring on the entitlements!

Here is more evidence of success in the war on terror.

Michael I am very impressed with your knowledge of our country but don't think the analogy quite fits. The U.S. went from the Articles of Confederation to the federal system in a very short period of time. We were not dealing with, in some cases, hundreds of years of customs, language differences, etc., even with the relative homogeneity of those 13 original colonies the system was unworkable. Even with some sovereignty and independence being given up it was still to OUR government. I know an argument can be made that it is YOUR (Europe's) government, but remember France is one of the players here.

With the European Union I just see so much control being voluntarily handed over to a supranational organization and that would scare the hell out of me. I would be fighting it the whole way if it were announced that we were combining with Canada and Mexico to form a North American Union. I hope never to see that day. I suppose since this process has been ongoing for 50 years it is not such a big deal over there (and public apathy regarding the EU does seem to be high in Europe), is inevitable, and a break has to be made somewhere. This reminds of the anecdote about the frog in the pot of water. It just seems to me that there could be more inter-European cooperation without giving up quite so much nationally.

Now this is probably a uniquely American outlook (we tend, as I'm sure you've noticed, to wear our patriotism on our shirtsleeves) because we are somewhat isolated (and Britain as you mentioned) and have seen no major conflicts on our soil in quite some time. Howell didn't label Flanders the "cockpit of Europe" for nothing - and that was before Napoleon and the World Wars! I can understand the desire for integration based on military history, but hasn't NATO effectively neutralized that?

Well that's enough of that for now, I'm sure we'll discuss this issue much more in the coming years.

Oh yes Michael regarding Texas, you are quite right. God bless Texas!

Tom wrote: " I just don't understand how people seem so willing to give up their nation's sovereignty and independence. I cannot even imagine something like this going over in the U.S."


Ah Tom, but is this not precisely what happened in your country? I understand that after the British were defeated the Continental Congress first drafted the Articles of Confederation in which a central government was instituted, albeit with little power. I see a parallel here with the ECCS/EEC during the fifties. And the 1787 attempt to revise the Articles into the Constitution transferred much more power to the Central Government and defined the Congress' composition. This reminds me of the, admitted, much more numerous steps through Treaties to shift more power from European states to the EU's Commission. I read too that there was a lot of discussion between Federalists and Anti-Federalists in Early America and here again I see a striking similarity with the hefty opposition from some EU countries, e.g. the UK, to cede more power to "Brussels".

Last but not least, the "growing" of the EU through consecutive admittances of candidate member states looks very much like the joining of new states to the original 13 in what had become the USA. I would not be surprised if in time the EU's denomination is not changed again, and then probably definitively, in USE!

From my point of view Europe is now going through exactly the same process as the US once did, be it at a slower rate. And this is because on the "Old Continent" the nations, over the centuries, acquired such strong national identities.

Whereas Oregonians and Californians and North Dakotans and Texans will deem themselves Americans first and Oregonians, Californians, North Dakotans and Texans later (well... possibly the last peculiar group of individuals is maybe not such a good example), over here in Europe the situation is on historical grounds totally reversed.

Danes, Brits, Italians and Austrians are Danes, Brits, Italians and Austrians FIRST and Europeans later - many have not even come so far to think of themselves as true "Europeans", especially in those countries with a long and proud history. Each nationality has its own stereotype, as you are probably well aware of. Remember the well-known joke about the difference between the European Heaven and the European Hell. In the European Heaven the Germans are mechanics, the Brits police officers, the French (grmbl) cooks, the Dutch fundraisers, the Belgians lovers, the Scots whisky-distillers and the Swiss bankers. In European Hell the Brits are cooks, the French mechanics, the Germans police officers, the Swiss lovers, the Scots fundraisers, the Italians bankers and the Dutch whisky-distillers. So yes, it's going to take time for our populations to get used to the European idea. The reluctance of the British to give up their pound e.g. is a purely emotional matter. While the majority of UK businessmen would be glad to accept the euro the general population is not yet ready for it nor will it be for some time to come.

The UK harbors arguably the strongest national feelings and this is because it has now been since 1066 since it was last invaded (by the French!). Also, I think they are probably still deluding themselves they are as yet some kind of world power. I must admit, though, that from all former colonizing countries they played a clever trick in coming up with the Commonwealth. For Germany, France, the Netherlands, Portugal and yes, my country too, the decolonisation process was invariably a rather traumatic experience, as those countries were either being deprived of their former colonies through humiliating treaties or quite simply roughly kicked out. The UK though, can still kid itself to some degree that it "rules the waves" and the idea that it should yield power to some Higher Authority has therefore the greatest trouble to gain ground.

Kerry, I am not forgetting you. Will adress your questions this week. Just allow some time yet.

Michael,

Sorry about wringing you out for so much insight on the EU. I think we all had a backlog of questions as the reporting on the EU over here is somewhat limited.

I hope you are right about the EU's intentions. I don't fear a powerful and influential Europe, as long as their goals are as you suggest. So far the outward appearance from my point of view has been otherwise, but I'm willing to keep an open mind about the the whole thing. It's nice to hear you mention our common roots; that seems to be overlooked too often these days. You're also right about us mixing up the topics here a bit to include non-EU subjects. In that spirit...

Tom, I hope you were wrong about GW continuing his spending spree as well. I've given this a lot of thought, and it just doesn't seem to make sense that an administration that has shown considerable political savvy up to this point would continue to pour money into social programs after securing a second term. Stranger things have happened, though.

Just as an FYI for Michael, you'll probably never hear Tom, Kerry or myself complain about defense spending during a time of war or otherwise. It's the wealth redistribution nonsense that gets us in a froth.

I thought I'd mention that I got the book "The Quest for Cosmic Justice" by Thomas Sowell for Christmas this year. I'm only about a third of the way through it, but it's an amazing piece of work. A definite must read for anyone with a remote interest in politics, economics, or sociology in general.

I hope this is true. I wouldn't mind being dead wrong on this particular 2004 prognostication.

Michael, to answer your questions:

1) Howard Dean - I don't know, I really haven't thought it through, it's just a feeling but if anyone I think it might be Gephardt. Of all of the Dems the only one with any sense or decency is Lieberman (although he lost my respect in the 2000 election by campaigning against pretty much everything he had supported in the senate up to that point) and he will not be the candidate.

2) Congressional spending - I have no problems with the money spent on the war effort, it is quite necessary in my opinion. I do have problems with all of the spending on social programs (Americorps, Medicare drug benefits, etc). I am a big supporter of President Bush, but a fiscal conservative he ain't.

3) John Kerry - I obviously don't like him. I don't know if it is well covered over there, but he pretty much finishes every statement by mentioning his Vietnam service. OK, that's an exaggeration but he repeated it ad nauseum until even the press corps was ridiculing him. The "F'ing" part refers to his dropping the F-bomb in an interview and a play on his middle initial. I actually think he is probably the most despicable of the current crop of Democratic candidates and that is saying a lot.

Tom wrote (a.o.):

"Howard Dean will not be the Democratic party candidate for president. (Pure gut feeling on this one)."

So who do you think will it be? Gephardt? (not holding my breath though, whoever it is will get slaughtered anyway)


"Congress as a whole (both sides of the aisle) with W's blessing will continue to spend our tax dollars like sailors in a whorehouse."

This is curious to me. I understand fiscal conservatism is needed (you see it in your own household) but as the US is in a state of war (to me it's really a war situation) do such considerations not move to second plan? I mean, in WWII the state deficit was soaring to the stars too, no?

"Finally, and I know I'm going out on a limb here, John F'ing Kerry will tell us that he served in Vietnam."

Obviously you don't like this guy very much (just an observation)

This is a perfect example of why I cannot imagine anyone wanting to join the EU as it is currently formulated.

A few predictions of my own for 2004:

(Disclaimer: These are purely hunches on my part, I claim no responsibility for them if they prove to be incorrect. If they come to pass, then I am a genius pure and simple.)

Osama Bin Laden will continue to remain dead - we will not find any evidence.

The Tories under Michael Howard will finally begin picking up steam in Great Britain with their message of a European union of a federation of individual nation states and not a bureaucratic superstate.

The EU will continue to muddle along with the French pushing toward a 2 speed system of tightly integrated countries. This will allow Monsieur Chirac to play the role of big fish (in a smaller EU barrel).

Howard Dean will not be the Democratic party candidate for president. (Pure gut feeling on this one).

Congress as a whole (both sides of the aisle) with W's blessing will continue to spend our tax dollars like sailors in a whorehouse.

Finally, and I know I'm going out on a limb here, John F'ing Kerry will tell us that he served in Vietnam.

Here's a New Year's prediction: 2004 will be really annoying to anyone remotely involved in American politics. While conservatives will have much to celebrate, including the likely second term of GWB, they will have to endure another year of his entitlement spending, which unfortunately and ironically may seal his victory. I now believe and hope that the President, with his second term secure, will start some actual governmental reform based on fiscal conservatism. It took only two years for LBJ and a liberal congress to give us out current welfare state, let's hope conservatives can dismantle it in even less time. Democrats will have a long, hard slog through the year knowing that they're probably going to get routed in the next election. Things will get ugly as frustrations run high, but we're likely going to see the beginnings of revolution within the democratic party. Let's hope they all re-read the constitution before reorganizing.

2004 will also bring us a mostly independent Iraq, but we'll still see the attacks on Iraqis and coalition soldiers continue for a very long time. Iran will feel more and more pressure as a free Iraq begins to thrive. North Korea will settle down in the wake of Libya's concessions, seeing that going along with the US and it's allies is more productive than threatening nuclear war. Europe will continue getting the EU house in order, and I suspect relations between the US and the EU may improve as the US economic recovery fuels a worldwide economic surge.

Here's my big prediction: Osama Bin Laden will be found, and Democrats will accuse GWB of waiting until the election before apprehending the man. They will also claim that Republicans killed Jesus, but will later retract the statement so as not to offend the sensibilities of non-Christians.

One last thing: I will be proven wrong about the majority of these predictions, and this post will be mysteriously deleted from the archive.

Happy New Year to all of you!

Happy New Year to you too Michael! I read that Time issue as well, some heartbreaking as well as uplifting stories there. The American GIs never cease to amaze me in their ability to evaluate, adapt, and overcome in almost any situation. They are average Americans who volunteer to serve their country and as volunteers will always have an advantage over non-volunteer forces. Their esprit de corps and belief in what they are doing sustains them through Hell. I read an article just before the war began in which it was stated that many Europeans did not believe it possible, given the size of our forces, that they were all volunteers.

This is not to diminish the contributions of all the other nations fighting with us, we are grateful for every one of them. I am just glad to see them treated in our press with respect and admiration for once and very proud of them. Let's hope this new year begins bearing the fruit of their efforts.

Kerry and Scott,

I am preparing a valuable answer to your questions. Can't do it overnight, need some time and that's just what I haven't got now.


On the other hand, saying the following and meaning it with all of my heart takes no sweat:


"HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU AMERICANS!!!!!"

Thanks for the GREAT JOB the US is doing in restoring peace, order and democracy throughout the world!

And now that I am at it: as I have been enjoying the festivities of the past evening, with good food, beverages, friends and family around I feel more than ever compelled to give at least some thought and a couple of prayers to all Coalition soldiers out there, but especially the American ones since they always bore and bear the brunt of the fighting. I have a subscription to Time Europe and in last week's issue, with the great photo on it featuring Sgt. Buxton, Spc. Grimes (beautiful lady btw) and Gunner Whiteside, there was a heartbreaking story on the fate of a.o. Lt. Colgan who perished from shrapnel in his brain during a patrol in Adhimiya district, one of the hotspots of Baghdad. Lt. Colgan was a hell of a father, husband and soldier and leaves behind his wife Jill and two cute kids. I am wondering how Jill and her kids are coming through this very period which is supposed to be full of joy and happy prospects. I hope and pray enough family and friends are around to stand by her in this difficult time. I sometimes take a look at CNN's Coalition casualties info. These heroes portrayed there, because they are nothing else, not only restore peace, order and democracy; they are protecting my very way of life.

Damn right Time chose The American Soldier as Person ot the Year. Who else?

Michael,

This is all very interesting information. From an American non-leftist point of view, I have no trouble with the basic concept of the EU, even though I've been a strong critic. I think the core issue that bothers many of us over here is the notion that the EU exists to counteract the economic and diplomatic influence of the United States. Of course, I have no trouble with a strong EU competing with us economically. I believe in free markets, and if the EU wants to compete on a level playing field with the US and everyone else, then we're all better off. What is troubling to me is the point that Kerry touched on, where there seems to be such a paranoia about US dominance that the EU, or at least it's most powerful members, will obstruct the US on issues like Afghanistan or Iraq just to keep us contained. Hopefully, as you mention, there are enough EU members to counteract this bias and keep things more neutral, but so far the balance of power seems to be with those who would choose to work against us even if doing so puts them in the company of Al Qaeda or Sadaam Hussein.

I also fear that while it may seem to be beneficial to the nations of Europe to be part of a larger and more powerful union, the prevailing political belief in Europe is still socialism, and I just can't see the EU accepting a free market situation with the US or other nations. Basically, I feel the protectionist, regulated economy of a socialist Europe will be at odds with a mostly free market capitalist US economy. This historically leads to the free market economies outperforming the regulated economies, which will be bad for Europeans and will only exacerbate anti US sentiment.

I'd like to get your take on this, as you clearly have more knowledge of the EU and its intentions. I've hammered the EU pretty hard in the past, but that doesn't mean I'm against a thriving European economy or a politically powerful Europe. I just don't see the EU's current direction leading to anything productive in the long run.

Hi Kerry,

Well, obligatory voting… at election day we are forced at gunpoint to move our ****s to the ballot boxes by BP (Belgian Police) and the Army…No, seriously: yes it IS obligatory (Belgium is one of the few remaining EU countries to have it that way) AND indeed you get fined for not showing up. Personally I don’t bother much as I like to cast my vote.

“With the socialist faction growing all of the time, what happens when there is a situation like Afghanistan or Iraq? Will we be able to count on Britain, Spain, Poland, and our other "allies"?”

As much as I deplore the fact that the EU’s left-wing political families are basically in charge, you have to remember that your staunchest allies in Iraq are mostly socialists too. PM Blair is Labor, PM Leszek Miller of Poland and the Polish President, Kwasniewski, are socialists. Miller is even a former communist. I might add just as well soon-to-be EU members Bulgaria, with an ex-communist, Georgi Parvanov, as President, and the Czech Republic, with Vladimir Spidla, a social democrat, for Prime Minister. It is remarkable to see how in Eastern Europe ex-communists and social democrats are dominating the political agendas. That most of them support the US in Iraq stems, I believe, from both a generally perceived realization that it was the US which were at the root of the Soviet Union’s demise and, hence, the downfall of the Iron Curtain, AND from less esoteric motives because they are angling for US support for their ailing economies (actually they want to have it both ways because they are eager to join the EU for the same reason).


What I want to illustrate with this is that being a leftist EU country not necessarily means not being able to “do the right thing” when it matters in cases like Afghanistan and Iraq. What worries me more with the left-leaning EU is that I doubt its ability to produce adequate answers to core “domestic” issues such as stopping the influx of (illegal) immigrants, counter the drain of not only labor-intensive industries but recently also of highly intellectual work to developing countries, the ageing of Europes population and hence the still heavier burden on the active people, in other words keeping the welfare state a doable thing etc. etc…


Because I want to be frank with that you know, the mere existence of the European Union is something I endorse VERY MUCH. And not only because I don’t have to swap Belgian francs for DMarks or French francs anymore if I want to visit my mother-in-law in Poland or visit Boulogne-sur-Mer in Frogistan. I believe the EU is a necessity for Europeans, creating a powerful politico-economic framework to counter the problems mentioned above, easing and facilitating economic activity from Dublin to Sofia and from Helsinki to Malta. And if that creates a large “Eurocracy” and if financial scandals emerge (and they do), well, I can live with it.


I think that in spite of an at first sight lukewarm EU interest among Europeans most feel comfortable we matter in today’s world because of the Union. The actual leadership realizes this more than anyone else. The UK’s, France's and Germany’s governments know all too well the days they could play first violin on the world scene by themselves are definitely over. You rightly suspect a country like France might want to use the EU as a vehicle to still do just that. But I wouldn’t worry too much about that. Just take a look here. To get a proposal passed, the Commission (the EU’s government) needs 255 votes (of the 342). In the 25 member Union France just has 29. The second column really deserves study you know. The recent Brussels summit was such a poor show because a.o. Germany insisted it should have more say than Poland or Spain as, after all, it has double the population of those countries (80 million as compared to roughly 40 million for both) while it has under the Nice agreement only 29 votes compared to Spains and Polands 27. Fair enough argument, but they should have fought for it at Nice and not now.

Hi Tom,

regarding your questions yes, every 5 years elections are held in which the members of the European Parliament are chosen. The last election was in 1999 and 626 MPs were chosen to rfepresent some 370 million European citizens. Since I am now 38 years old and have been voting since I was 18 (obligatory in Belgium) I have cast my (European) vote four times.

Now if you permit me to elaborate on that, as for:

a.) The European Parliament (the EU's "House of Representatives")

The parties of all member states are merged into "supranational mother parties" according to their relative position in the political spectrum. So politicians who are known to be christian democrats in Belgium (CD & V), the Netherlands (CDA), Germany (CDU) etc... all group together in the so-called "European People's Party" (kind of confusing isn't it? - you would suspect such a name would be chosen by leftist parties). After the 1999 elections this party became the biggest fraction in the EP, with the socialist fraction being the second largest.

Being the biggest fraction in the EP apparently did not enable the European Christian Democrats to get an explicit reference to Christianity in the draft of a European Constitution.

Uh oh. "European People's Party"; socialist fraction the second biggest one... yes I see you yankees shaking your heads again at the notion of a leftist Europe... and true it is, unfortunately enough.

Anyway, so next year we will have the next edition of the European elections. Soon 450 million European, old and new ones, heh heh, will have to go to the ballot box.




b.) The European Commission (the EU's "Government")

Well, the Chairman of the European Commission, the European PM so to speak, is appointed in the first instance by the governments of the member states, only afterwards his appointment is mandated by the EP. This is called "double legitimacy". Current Chairman is Romano Prodi, an Italian.

The Chairman then appoints the members of the Commission (what you would call secretaries). Approval of the governments is needed, afterwards the whole equipe's appointment needs approval from the EP.

For all the fuss being made around the EU, since the EU's budget is still quite small in comparison with the combined budgets of the sovereign member states, the EU seems to have trouble attracting the big political guns of the respective countries. Talent goes where the money is, I guess. As the EU will evolve towards a true "superstate" in, say, 30 years (?), the roles will be reversed (an almighty and financially extremely powerful "federal" government and relatively weak member states). Then the political heavyweights will flock en masse to the EU's top levels, for sure.

Indeed, while some of you may have heard of Prodi and Chris Patten (the EU's "Foreign Minister") I doubt the names Michaele Schreyer (budget), Pedro Solbes Mira (Economy), Guenter Verheugen (EU Extension) or David Byrne (health) will ring a bell. Basically they are all second graders in the national policies of their native countries.

Regarding the second part of your question Tom, yes, the EU has already created a massive amount of legislature, to the extent that it is now felt necessary that some simplification is mandatory. E.g. in Belgium European laws form already between a third and a quarter of all laws Belgian citizens are subjected too.

Kerry I will elaborate on the distinction UN/EU later on but now I still have wooooooooooork to do. Sheesh, and it's already 11.50pm. Aaaaaaarrrghhhhh!!!!

Merry Christmas everybody (late, I know it)

Oops, apparently no 1,000 character limit here. Don't be afraid, when I said I hoped it would be a long ride, I also hoped it would not be a long, hard slog.

I'll try to keep it entertaining but if I had to clarify only a little bit of the EU I really had to make it this long.

Before I start with this, my first contribution in what I hope will be a long ride, I would like to thank Tom and Kerry Dupont for the chance they have given me in expressing my views as a European. I hope I will be able to shed some light from “our” perspective on issues that are of concern to both Americans and Europeans.

As a European, I am a bit puzzled by the apparent sarcasm with which the nonconclusive EU Brussels summit of 12-13 Dec. was covered in American media. What was all the fuss about? Basically there were two main issues: the “agreeing on” of a first draft of a European Constitution as well as finally reaching a consensus on voting power between the 25 member states when, on May 1st 2004, 10 new countries will be joining the European Union.

I have often been musing that what the EU needs more than anything else is a good PR team. One that is able to clarify to the broad public the sense of this seemingly endless series of summits (Maastricht, Schengen, Copenhagen, Lisbon, Nice, you name it…) as well as the deeper, underlying meaning of there being something like a European Union at all. Americans don’t have to worry about being puzzled by “Europe”, its countless institutions, its trade wars with the US, its spawning out of a plethora of laws etc. etc… To most Europeans, and by this I mean indeed a vast majority of European citizens, the emerging supranational body leaves them just as clueless as Americans.

A brief historical sketch of how the EU became the EU is in its place:

a.) May 9th, 1950: Robert Schuman, France’s Foreign Minister, proposes establishing the ECCS, the European Community of Coal and Steel, with the aim of integrating the steel processing industries of six European countries: France, West-Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. In 1951 through the Treaty of Paris the ECCS is a fact, it is the nucleus of what will become the EU.

b.) In 1958 the Treaty of Rome establishes the EEC, the European Economic Community, composed of the countries mentioned above. Its aim is the economic integration of its member states. Customs duties between them are abolished, there will be free movement of goods, persons, services and capital, as well as a common policy on labor, agriculture, social issues,
transport and trade.

The Treaty of Rome is also important because here already we see the emergence of a political dimension, as the EEC is provided with:

• a Council (some kind of advisory body)
• a Commission (the executive body)
• a Court of Justice
• a Court of Auditors
• a Parliament (Assembly)

c.) The EEC scores a major achievement in establishing common prices for agricultural products

d.) The Treaty of Brussels (1965) merges ECCS, EEC and Euratom in the European Community (EC).

e.) 1973: the EC expands with the UK, Ireland and Denmark joining.

f.) Greece joins the EC in 1981.

g.) Spain and Portugal join in 1986.

h.) The Single European Act of 1987 provides for a single internal market.

i.) A milestone is the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992. Maastricht is of paramount importance because for the first time
the European Unity (EU), as the EC was renamed at the treaty, outspokenly vows for:

• establishing a single European currency
• a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)
• a common military policy, to be implied by the WEU (West European Union, a till then sleeping
institution meant to coordinate military efforts by EC countries)

After Maastricht European citizens slowly begin to realize the European Community is a supranational economical AND political body which will have an increasingly important impact on their lives. The very notion of a “superstate in being” is becoming more and more apparent as the European Commission (the “EU’s “government”) and the European Parliament (the EU’s “House of Representatives”) start truly behaving like the executing and law issuing bodies of such a state.

j.) Austria, Sweden and Finland join the EU in 1995.

k.) The European Central Bank (ECB) is established in 1998, charged with preparing the issue of a single currency.

l.) In 2002 12 EU nations introduce this currency, called the euro. They thus form the European Monetary Union (EMU). Conditions to enter are embedded in the so-called Stability Pact (1996), which requires participating nations to reduce their budget deficit to 3% of their GDP as well as limiting their debt to 60% of their GDP.


It is important to understand the sheer magnitude of the administrative and legislative work involved with creating the EU as it is today, over the decades since WWII. For almost sixty years the world was in turmoil and news headlines were made by the Cold War, countless conflicts on all continents including the European continent, the demise of the colonial empires, the emergence of China and recently India as major international power brokers, economic crises, environmental problems, the Middle East etc. etc… During all this time European statesmen and visionaries silently laid the foundations of and started building a European superstate. Very likely in the beginning it was never meant to be that way but as more and more goals were accomplished and institutions established the vision of a single economical, political and (over the last decade) military union became a tempting goal at the horizon. While the world was watching the power politics of the US and the Soviet Union and hordes of brutal dictators worldwide got more attention than they deserved, European soft-spoken presidents, premiers and technocrats built up the infrastructure supporting the unified Europe. Since a lot of money was involved in building accommodation for the hundreds of representatives, the thousands of their staffs and cabinet members, aides etc. and the tens of thousands of the new “Eurocracy”, it was inevitable that scandals would emerge. Nevertheless, the building anger resulted in vast complexes and halls across its member states, but principally in Brussels, Belgium, where the European Parliament has its seat, as well as countless subordinated organs and institutions.

On the other hand, the EU’s maiden trip in trying to implement an effective common foreign policy when faced with the humanitarian disasters in the broken up Yugoslavia proved such a disaster that the US had to hurry to their help to break the stalemate.

So where has the European Union arrived today? And where is it heading to? (to be continued)