ICH WAR AUCH EIN BERLINER.

But just for one day. Hi all. Every year around Easter I’m visiting with my wife and kid my mother-in-law and brother-in-law in the Polish city of Wroclaw. Since my company is a member of the German-based commercial group MHK and this feted its 25-year anniversary in Berlin last Saturday, April 16th, we decided "om het nuttige met het aangename te verenigen" – to combine the useful with the agreeable – as they say over here in Belgoland. So we off to Berlin.

The obligatory meeting with the group’s 2004 financial roundup and strategy talks was mostly what business meetings without clear-cut objectives are: lots of blah-blah-blah and yawning. However, I did not regret the 200-kloms detour for, a.) I got to collect my year’s bonus, hoorah, and b.) we took the opportunity to do a little sightseeing in Berlin, which had changed an awful lot since I was last there on a drab late autumn day in 1989, only months before the Wall came down. Not gonna make this a long thread, but I got some pics and info to share with you:



The first one is a photo of the Reichstag, the German Capitol so to say. This monumental piece of late 19th Century architecture has a troubled history. After its completion in 1894 it was officially designated as the place where the German people’s representatives should gather. It being still the time of Wilhelm I and Bismarck, these parlementarians had precious little power. Only in 1916, when unrest among the population resulted in the Kaiser’s authority eroding, was the inscription "Dem Deutschen Volke" (For the German People) added. In the twenties however the Reichstag did start to function in a truly democratic way – but not for long. Months after Hitler came to power, in early 1933, the Plenary Hall was set on fire – allegedly by a young Dutch Communist, Marinus Van Der Lubbe, but in reality by the Nazis themselves. They used the turmoil in the wake of the event to force through oppressive legislation, such as the Reichstagbrandverordnung and the Ermaechtigungsgesetz, bills which essentially suspended the legislative role of any parliamentary body. In short, they killed Parliament and allowed the Fuehrer to rule by decree. All in all a monstrous course of events. For those fools who liken 9/11 and the ensuing Patriot Act to the Fire in the Reichstag and the Nazi laws killing off democracy I recommend studying German history from 1933 to 1945. Maybe they also can check out whether Hitler sought for, and obtained, a Resolution 1441-like permission from the League of Nations to liberate Czechoslowakia and Poland.

Anyway, from 1933 on the building was mostly an empty charred hulk, although when the Russians entered Berlin in late April 1945 they seemed for some reason to regard it as a symbol of National Socialism, for they threw lots of troops against it – and the tenacious defense by Waffen SS units may have strengthened them in their conviction. Some of you may recall the famous photos of Russian soldiers hoisting the Soviet flag on top of the Reichstag (at the very moment this happened, there was still fierce fighting in the building’s basement).

During the Cold War, as West Germany (the Bundesrepublik) had its Bundestag (parliament) in Bonn whereas East Germany (the Deutsche Demokratische Republik) had its Volkskammer first in makeshift quarters, then from 1976 in the Palast Der Republik, there was little use for the Reichstag. That changed in 1990 with the reunification of East and West Germany, and the parliamentarians of both republics once again took seat in the imposing building. Under the guidance of the British architect Sir Norman Foster important transformations took place - in fact only the outer walls remained as before. He provided light for the Plenary Hall through an ingenuous system of mirrors placed in the gigantic glass and stell dome replacing the original dome. The renovation would cost 600 million DM (think in excess of 300 million US$). This is a really good link with marvellous photos.


The second pic shows the impressive Television Tower, or Fernsehturm in German, as it rises 365m high over Berlin’s Alexanderplatz. It was commissioned in 1969 (building started in August 1965) and meant as a showcase of East-German ingenuity and building and engineering competency. The 250m high concrete shaft weighs 26,000 tons and carries the 4,800 ton heavy ball, which houses a.o. a rotating restaurant (360° every ½ hour). The aerial carrier on top of the "Kugel" weighs another 245 tons. A lift takes you up in 38 seconds. The Fernsehtower is Berlins tallest building, that’s something you can use in a quiz. Good links here and especially here.





And last but not least, a remnant of the division which once existed between East and West Berlin: Checkpoint Charlie. In 1961 the then DDR Head of State Walter Ulbricht ordered the building of the infamous Wall dividing East and West Berlin since for some reason the marvellous living conditions in the East were not at all appreciated by the spoiled East German workers. On August 13, 1961 the Wall was a fact, and from that moment on tourists from abroad, diplomats and military personnel of the Western Powers were only allowed to enter East Berlin via the crossing point at Berlins Friedrichstrasse. It was named Charlie because there was already a Checkpoint Bravo at Dreilinden and a Checkpoint Alpha at Helmstedt. Checkpoint Charlie was removed on June 22, 1990. The former Allied guardhouses are now located in the Allied Museum. The shack you see in the middle is in fact a copy of the American guardhouse, erected on the original place on August 13, 2000. Checkpoint Charlie 101 here.


MFBB

Got an iPod, Michael? If not, and you want one, for the love of God don't buy one in The Netherlands!

Looks like GM, icon of the American auto industry, is in deep trouble.

Ok, there's no doubt that these guys have made a series of management errors over the years, but I can't help but think that if this massive corporation goes down, the words "Killed by the UAW" should be inscribed on its grave stone.

I thought it appropriate on April 15 to post this diatribe from T. Coleman Andrews, who is a former commissioner of the IRS:

(I ripped this off from Neal Boortz's site. Boortz is a huge pusher of the FairTax plan, and has just finished a book with John Linder (R) Georgia on the subject.)

"Congress went beyond merely enacting an income tax law and repealed Article IV of the Bill of Rights, by empowering the tax collector to do the very things from which that article says we were to be secure. It opened up our homes, our papers and our effects to the prying eyes of government agents and set the stage for searches of our books and vaults and for inquiries into our private affairs whenever the tax men might decide, even though there might not be any justification beyond mere cynical suspicion.

The income tax is bad because it has robbed you and me of the guarantee of privacy and the respect for our property that were given to us in Article IV of the Bill of Rights. This invasion is absolute and complete as far as the amount of tax that can be assessed is concerned. Please remember that under the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress can take 100% of our income anytime it wants to. As a matter of fact, right now it is imposing a tax as high as 91%. This is downright confiscation and cannot be defended on any other grounds.

The income tax is bad because it was conceived in class hatred, is an instrument of vengeance and plays right into the hands of the communists. It employs the vicious communist principle of taking from each according to his accumulation of the fruits of his labor and giving to others according to their needs, regardless of whether those needs are the result of indolence or lack of pride, self-respect, personal dignity or other attributes of men.

The income tax is fulfilling the Marxist prophecy that the surest way to destroy a capitalist society is by steeply graduated taxes on income and heavy levies upon the estates of people when they die.  

As matters now stand, if our children make the most of their capabilities and training, they will have to give most of it to the tax collector and so become slaves of the government. People cannot pull themselves up by the bootstraps anymore because the tax collector gets the boots and the straps as well.  

The income tax is bad because it is oppressive to all and discriminates particularly against those people who prove themselves most adept at keeping the wheels of business turning and creating maximum employment and a high standard of living for their fellow men.  

I believe that a better way to raise revenue not only can be found but must be found because I am convinced that the present system is leading us right back to the very tyranny from which those, who established this land of freedom, risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to forever free themselves..."  

T. Coleman Andrews.  Andrews Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service for three years, from 1953 until 1955.

THE GATES OF HELL ARE OPEN IN IRAQ

I could have used another fancy title, like "THE STAVDA WATCH" , "BELGIAN COMMIES ARE AT IT AGAIN", or "GULP???". Instead I chose this one. It’s the literal translation of the caption above the article shown below, as it appeared in this weekend’s edition (April 9/10, 2005) of leading Belgian newspaper "The Daily Crap", aka "De Standaard" aka "The Stavda" aka whatever wait till we smoke your rat’s hole out.





The caption is capitals under Talabani's photo reads: "THE ATTITUDE OF THE US TOWARDS SYRIA AND IRAN IS NOT AT ALL MEANT TO STIMULATE DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM".


Said article is the rotten fruit of a imperfect brainstorm inside the head of a fella named Ayatollah Jawad al-Khalisi, who is the Secretary-General of an outfit called the Iraqi National Constituent Congress. On June 17, 2004, Auntie Beeb had this to say about the INCC:


The Iraqi National Constituent Congress has brought together prominent Sunni and Shia figures to oppose the US-led occupation of Iraq. It was formed in May 2004 and is led by the respected Shia cleric Jawad al-Khalisi.

On its 16-strong leadership panel are other Shia leaders, and also Sheikh Harith al-Dhari, leader of the Sunni Muslim Ulema Council (note from MFBB: the Association of Muslim Scholars).The group's 500 members also include Kurds and Arab nationalists.
It has pledged to boycott any US-sponsored political group, including the Iraqi Governing Council, to re-establish the national army and to restore sovereignty under the auspices of blah blah blah...


Ok, now that you know that, I’ll have the honor of providing some translated excerpts. Watch out though:

"The US-British occupation of Iraq is poisoning all political processes in my country and across the Middle East. The elections held under the control of the occupying forces in January were neither free nor fair.

The occupying powers are now following a policy of divide and rule, encouraging sectarian and ethnic divisions and imposing them on all the institutions they have created.

Incidents such as the recent kidnapping of an Italian journalist, released only to be received by a hail of bullets from the US liberators, have fuelled widespread suspicions in Iraq as to who is in fact responsible for many of the terrorist acts - kidnappings, assassinations, and indiscriminate bombing and killing -that are engulfing the whole of Iraq...

Not one of the terrorist crimes has been solved and not a single perpetrator put on trial. After each major terrorist crime, the arrest of perpetrators is proclaimed, using names and personalities spread by the US-controlled media...

These crimes are a taste of the hell created by the US project in the Middle East..

In the same way, the Iraq crisis cannot be resolved by patching up a detested occupation with fraudulent elections and sectarian and ethnic caucuses supported by the occupiers...

The US today is still the ally and backer of many such tyrannical regimes in our region and elsewhere..."


Had enough? I certainly do. Now, take a look at how this article was published in the Guardian, since "De Standaard" copyrighted it from that newspaper in the first place. I'd say that Belgians beat Brits in opinionmaking.


…and compare it with the way The Pride of Belgian Journalism puts it, above. The format you see is the one used in the "Opinie & Analyse" pages (Opinion & Analysis, I’m sure you were smart enough to figure that out). In these pages, De Standaard’s selected, ahem, analysts review global political issues and offer, well, opinions and analysis, in other words informed comment. The way Mr. al-Khalisis ramblings were trusted onto precious Flemish recycled paper however tends to lead the innocent, or shall we say, the silly reader to take what is printed for granted. The article and the way the layout is done leaves no room on the page for other topics, since below it (not shown), there’s just an overview of De Standaard staff explaining who does what.

My point is, I’ve been looking on the Web for more info on Jawad al-Khalisi. I’ve been querying on ITM and Big Pharaoh, searching for election results here and there and, to cut a long story short, found no evidence whatsoever that this dude represents anything more than "vijf man en een paardekop", or five blokes and a horsehead, as we here in Flemingland say. Meaning the INCC Secretary-General weighs in on Iraqs political decisionmaking about as heavily as Camilla Parker-Bowles.

Now the question is: WHY for God’s sake would newspapers like the Guardian or De Standaard be willing to spend so much attention to a dipshit raving Khomeini clone whom they think worthy of offering his insights on Iraqi democracy while he can’t in all likelihood tell the US’s electoral processus from, say, Zimbabwes? The answer is simple: a nice rant fitting exactly in the gloomy picture they so LOOOOOOVE to present. Looooooooots of sappy quotes castigating the evil US of A.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake. Drivel like this is no exception. Like I said time and again before, "news" like this is the rule. Comprendo? Now if you feel ever so apt to blame the euroweenies for their ungrateful attitude towards Uncle Sam, try to imagine for a moment how YOU would look at your government if you were fed nonsense like this not for two months, not for two years, not for two decades, no, for FORTY GODDAM YEARS!!!!

Oh, I know how proud you all are of your "winner-takes-all electoral system". And frankly, you have every right to. It makes for clean and straight politics and quick formation of administrations. No mess like in Europe or Iraq (ok, forget 2000, blame that on, uh, Bush). We all know the fancy maps of the States with Jesusland colored bright red and some fringe areas on the east and west coast in blue huh? Now, while that’s a nice way to illustrate Dubyas victory, you’d maybe do well to ponder how the map would have looked if you had adopted Europes representative system. The States would be Purple from LA till Bangor and from Anchorage to Nogales folks.

By which I mean to say: you had FOX. You had Power Line. You had the WSJ. You had Buckhead. You had Rush Limbaugh. You had LGF. You even had Sandy Bergers, Joe Wilsons and Dan Rathers screwups. AND STILL Bush won only by a – admit it – narrow margin!!! Now, over here in the Union of Nanny States we have NOTHING of all that. But we have PLENTY of stinkin sh*t like The Stavda. Why are you surprised Europe is anti-American?

The media is the key people. Take my word for it. I won't say it twice. The media is the key. The media is the key. The media is the key. The media is the key. the media is the key. The media is the key. We need a European FOX. For starters. Presto.


MFBB


UPDATE:

In Iraq The Model's comments section, I asked the Fadhil Brothers and the other posters if they knew who this Jawad al-Khalisi was. Omar was so kind to answer me by email not two hours later:

Hi Michael,
regarding your question on the comment section:

I actually don't think that this Ayatollah is a member of the National Assembly because he was against the elections in the 1st place.
but still, the constitution drafting society may include many members from outside the Assembly. I will do more research on this and update you if I happen to find any further information.

Best my friend,

--
Omar.
www.iraqthemodel.com


So. This guy al-Chalico is in all likelihood not even a member of the 275-strong Iraqi Assembly. I gather he means doodley-squat in Iraqi politics. The Graudian and De Standaard see fit to give the A-hole a FORUM.... just because he says what they LOVE TO HEAR. Thanks Omar. May you eat Belgian Fries at least once in your lifetime.

THE BOEING-AIRBUS SAGA.

For some time I have been wanting to write some stuff on the Boeing-Airbus mêlée, since it is reminiscent of the greater economic struggle being waged between the USA and the EU. Its example can thus not only highlight the pitfalls but also the mutual benefits of economic interaction between adversaries which sport both striking similarities as well as radical differences in philosophy and approach.

Initially, I meant to keep the story short, but as I began digging into the ample material available on the Net, it became apparent I'd need to make this a fleshed-out post around several chapters or else leave the task to others. Indeed, the intricate Boeing/Airbus Saga is something deserving far more attention than the piecemeal media reporting, and I hope that in the nearby future some author will take up the challenge to devote a volume on the subject. In the meantime, I hope the following post, structured around five chapters, can shed some light and offer new insights on a conflict which, while it threatens to turn ugly, also holds the promise of substantial mutual benefits. The chapters are:


1.) A new era: the Airbus A380

2.) A Brief History of Airbus

3.) The Boeing/Airbus Feud

4.) A difficult choice - and Boeings dilemma

5.) Conclusions


Today, I will submit the first two chapters.



1.) A new era: the Airbus A380.

It must have been a glorious moment for the quartet of key European leaders President Chirac, Chancellor Schroeder, PM Zapatero and PM Blair, marred as all four of them had been for different reasons, when on January 18, 2005, the Airbus management, before a 5,000-strong audience and in the presence of said gentlemen, revealed its new flagship, the A380, to the press. The 73-meter (238ft 8in) long triple-deck passenger jet was proudly displayed in Airbus’s gigantic assembly hall, the biggest building (490m x 250m x 46m) on the site of the so-called Jean-Luc Lagadère factory in Blagnac near Toulouse. The A380, which will eclipse the Boeing 747 as the world’s biggest airliner, can seat 555 passengers in a three-class arrangement, but this can be raised to 800, which is why the official denomination is A380-800. Its specifications are impressive: a wing span of 79.8 m (261ft 10 in), a height of 24.1m (79ft), and a maximum takeoff weight of 560 tons (1,234,600 lb). Thrust is provided by four 302 to 374kN (68,000 to 84,000lb) Rolls Royce Trent RB 967 turbofans or four EA GP-7267 turbofans (EA = Engine Alliance, a joint venture of General Electric and Pratt&Whitney).




For all its innovative technology like advanced avionics and novel materials (a.o. a fibre-aluminium composite material called GLARE), the outward appearance of the A380 is, apart from its size, rather conventional. Indeed, were it not for the double row of windows, the big Airbus would simply look like an upscaled version of the veteran A330/340. That is not to say no trails leading to a distinctly different look have been considered, since one of the numerous models provided for a very wide (twelve seats abreast) rather than high airframe as well as twin tails. But in the end the designers returned to the trusted basic passenger’s jet configuration as we have known it for forty years, a sleek cylindrical body upon swept-back wings with engines podded underneath. It should also be noted that this conventional layout greatly attributes to easier pilot conversion and commonality throughout the Airbus family.





The massive Airbus is, as everyone realizes, the first true competitor to Boeings 35-year old 747. And it shows: on the very day the A380 was presented, January 18, 2005, Airbus could boast 149 firm orders. The company claims the break even point for the gigantic investment is some 260 orders. By contrast, sales for the Jumbo have all but dried up, the few examples sold yet being mostly intended for cargo.


b.) A Brief History of Airbus

The story of Airbus is a study in microcosm of successful European cooperation. It all started in 1970 when Frances Aerospatiale and Germany’s Deutsche Aerospace merged to form the Airbus Industrie GIE (Groupement d’Intérêt Economique, literally Group of Economic Interest) consortium, as by the late sixties it had become increasingly clear that no single European aircraft company could compete effectively with US giants like Lockheed, McDonnell-Douglas and especially Boeing. In 1971 Spains Construcciones Aeronauticas S.A. (CASA) joined, and 1972 saw the launch of Airbus’ first aircraft, the A300, which could transport 226 passengers in a two-class layout. It is interesting to note that by introducing this plane, Airbus directly entered the middle class segment of commercial airliners.

The mid-seventies were by far the toughest years for the young consortium with very few new orders placed (none in 1976!). All that changed after a desperate attempt by Airbus to break into the US market when the US’s bankrupt Eastern Airlines leased 23 A300B4s (initially four) at very favourable conditions (a.o. with maintenance and US certification paid for by Airbus). This apparently boosted airline confidence in the new company enough to resume placing orders. And so, by the beginning of 1978 Airbus had 133 plus firm orders as well as a market share by value of 26 percent. 1978 also saw the introduction of the A310, in outward appearance a shorter A300 but incorporating such novelties as a two-man cockpit and CRT displays instead of dials.

In 1979 British Aerospace became Airbus’s fourth full member. In 1984 the A320 entered the market, setting a new standard as the first commercial jet with fly-by-wire and sidesticks. Now while the A300 and the shorter A310 were essentially middle-class jets, the A320 was meant to be Airbus’s competitor for the so-called "narrow bodies" (single aisle, short range), competing in that field with jets like Boeings 727 and 737, BAC’s One-Eleven and Douglas’ DC-9. The A320 was the first of Airbus’ "small" family, a range that since 1984 has seen the emergence of the A318, for 100 passengers, and the A319, capable of transporting 125 passengers. Linking Airbus’s lower manufacturing end to its middle class was the A321, essentially a longer A320.

Having thus established itself in the market for small and medium-sized commercial jet planes, Airbus then embarked, in 1987, on the production of jets in the "widebody" segment (double aisle, medium to long range), and these would eventually become known as the four-engined A340 (launched 1993) and the twin-engined A330 (launched 1994).

In 1991, Airbus began talks with major international airline companies to investigate the development of a new super-huge passenger aircraft, of which production finally started in 2000. Before the advent of the 747’s first true nemesis though, in 2002, almost ten years after the introduction of the A340, came first two larger versions of this plane with extended fuselages, the A340-600 and the A340-500.

It should furthermore be noted that only in 2001, thus thirty years after its creation, Airbus formally became a single integrated company instead of a conglomerate. Shareholders in the new Airbus company are EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company, being the merger between Aerospatiale Matra SA of France, Daimler Chrysler Aerospace AG of Germany and Construcciones Aeronauticas SA of Spain), with 80%, and the UK’s BAE SYSTEMS, with 20% of the new stock.


MFBB

THE TOUR OF FLANDERS

Time flies. It’s not one year yet since on July 3rd, 2004 the Tour de France, that Mother of All Cyclist Races, started – but the string of minor tournaments leading up to it has. That string includes classics like Italy’s Giro d'Italia, Holland’s Amstel Gold Race, and the so-called Spring Classics: Belgium’s Tour of Flanders, Ghent-Wevelgem-Ghent, Liège-Bastogne-Liège and France’s Paris-Roubaix, the "Hell of the North". Tomorrow, April 3, the Tour of Flanders will be held.

I’m covering it this year for two reasons: first, frankly said, I need a break from the (load of ) bad news reporting – and God knows there’s a lot of. There is the developing power struggle between an EU Commission asserting itself and several European governments who think the EU should be meant as a cloak to serve their interests. Most important of all there’s the utter failure of multiculturalism which is becoming more clear day after day with, sadly, the recent surge of violent attacks by mobs of mainly young Moroccans on police patrols in France, The Netherlands and Beligum. More on that later, alas.

Secondly, I thought that this years’ cycling frenzy might interest you since for the first time, US cycling legend and sixfold Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong, has decided to participate in at least some of the preluding events – including tomorrow’s Tour of Flanders.

That Tour of Flanders is actually a 256km-long race held in the western part of Flanders, with a trajectory spanning a wide arc starting somewhere to the southwest of Brussels going northwesterly towards Bruges, and encompassing a region called the "Flemish Ardennes", which sports many low hills featuring narrow cobblestoned streets leading to their summits. Now while the race actually starts in Bruges, where the land is flat, the Flemish Ardennes are reserved for the last part of the Tour – see map – kind of keeping the best for the last. And of those "calf-biters", no one is dreaded more than the so-called Muur van Geraardsbergen, where a height difference of 92 meters over a distance of 1,000 meters (9.2% on average, one steep stretch of 20% on the last part of the Muur) shifts the cyborgs from the mere mortals. The "Muur" leads to the summit of the 111-m high Oudenberg, the hill overlooking Geraardsbergen – which is my beloved hometown, one of Flanders oldest cities (1068).

Since the Tour of Flanders is in fact outgrowing its status of minor TdF preluding event and becoming a huge tournament in itself, with tickets being sold long in advance (even in the States!) there’s no way I will be able to secure myself a nice spot on top of the Oudenberg to personally take a shot of Lance on this 89th Edition of the Tour. So instead I took to the site this evening, to give you at least an idea of the battlefield of one of tomorrow’s hot spots. The first picture below shows the last meters of the cobblestoned road to the Oudenberg's summit, which is crowned by a nice chapel. The guy on the photo - one of the ubiquitous amateurs today - obviously has had enough. I can sympathize.



The second picture shows the Chapel from another angle and from a plateau on which there is also a small pond...



Finally, this photo was taken from the very summit of the Oudenberg, 111 m above sea level. In the distance you can make out the land below. The cyclists have to climb 80% of the height difference over a fairly short distance, at some point confronting a 20% slope. It's excruciating!





I will be glad to report on the race's outcome tomorrow evening.


MFBB


UPDATE:

The Tour of Flanders has been won by 24-year old Belgian promise Tom Boonen, who also one of the first rides in 2004's Tour de France as well as its last one. Details here. As you can notice, Lance was 28th (248 cyclists participated). Nothing to worry about, Lance did not intend to win.

REAGANOMICS THROUGH EUROPEAN GLASSES/ DEATH OF THE BOLKESTEIN DIRECTIVE?


A lot of people are way smarter than me. Still, I can’t really say I was lingering somewhere near the restrooms when God handed out neuron kits and brain cells. That is why, now some five years ago, I was surprised myself how I could ever have mistaken Ronald Reagan for a dumb cowboy. Five years ago a friend of mine asked me who I thought was the most important 20th Century US President. I guess that while I considered my cautious answer – Roosevelt – certainly not the sole candidate for the laurels, I’d never have contemplated bestowing the honour on Ronald Reagan. At that time.

The reason? European MSM. During all of the Reagan years, we in Europe were fed with a continuous battering of negative spin and half-truths on Mr. Reagan. Unrightful beneficiary of the credit for liberating the US hostages in Tehran. Religious zealot. B-film actor fallen upward. Heinous warmonger in central America. Player with fire in scoffing the USSR. Dumbass. Liar to Congress and the American People. Social Butcher. Idiot. Etc etc… No occasion was missed to highlight his – admitted – numerous lapsuses. That’s why the quotes that stick with yours truly are not that his economic thinking was influenced by Von Mises, Hazlitt or Hayek, but that he once toasted on Bolivia while on an official visit to Brazil. Or that he once claimed that it’s actually trees which are mainly responsible for air pollution.

Anyway, on that day, now some five years ago, my friend, a rightwing madman and a Michael like myself, showed me another Reagan, one who should have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize for eliminating the nuclear threat through pioneering ICBM reduction talks. One whose Administration produced important legislation slashing insanely high taxes (70%!) from the Carter era. One who gave Americans not only their jobs back but also their Pride. And one who, simple as the phrase may sound, by denominating the USSR as an "Evil Empire" saw a hundredfold clearer the inhuman face of the Warsaw Pact regimes while Western Europes socialist "elites" had no qualms being thick with their namesakes on yonder side of the Iron Curtain.

But that was politics.

Politics is easy stuff. One can be a Professor in Politics, tell nonsense for three decades and at the end of his/her carer still come away with honorary doctorates in nanny states and retire as Sir or Herr or whatever.

Economics though, is another matter. Belgian, or should I say Flemish, Blogger LVB has a first installment on Reagan as seen through an economic lens. In an eloquent way he sheds some light on Reaganomics from a European Point-of-View. That’s why I think that the Americans reading Downeast (afaik the majority of our readership) should read this. FYI, LVB is a pro free market type. Professionally, he's an Internet entrepreneur. Some excerpts:


[Reagans policy] ...policy meant a radical rupture with Keynesianism where consumption was stimulated by massive government spending. Keynes put the emphasis of economic policy on the demand-side (consumption). Reagan, by contrast, put the accent on the supply-side (production). Keynes believed that demand would create supply, but Reaganomics started from the opposite idea, namely that supply would create demand. In this way of thinking, the supply side of the economy (the economic activity, production etc…) had to be stimulated in order to create wealth. The best way to do this was to cut the marginal tax rates on personal income. Such a tax cut would create a strong incentive to increase economic activity and would have spectacular effects on growth, investment, risk-taking and saving...

....

When tax rates are raised, people reduce their participation in taxed activities, such as working, risk taking, saving and investing. When tax rates fall, people increase their participation. Fortunately, Reagan understood this logic immediately. Few people know that Reagan had a major in economics, which he obtained at the Eureka College (Illinois) in 1932. The economic theory he was taught was untouched by Keynesian thinking and, as a consequence, very appropriate to the problems of the eighties. Reagan followed the advice and took action. The top marginal tax rate of 70% was lowered in two phases: to 50% with the "ERTA" (Economic Recovery Tax Act of October 1, 1981) and in a later phase to 28% (The Tax Act of 1986). These tax cuts created 18 million new jobs in 8 years, lowered inflation to 4.3% and cut unemployment from 9.7% to 5.4%. One of the longest and strongest economic expansions since World War II had begun, with an average annual growth rate of 3.5%.





(Economic mentors Von Mises and Hayek and President Reagan)



If you have read the post, you may want to read a little further and check out his post on the so-called Bolkestein Directive, which was essentially shot off this weekend. Bolkestein is EU Commissioner for Internal Markets and Taxation; as a leading proponent of the Dutch Centre Right VVD, he was nearly crucified by the PC Crowd in the early nineties for haveing the audacity to say that the integration efforts in The Netherlands were a shambles. If only they had listened to him: the news coming out of Holland these days is appalling.

Anyway, the Bolkestein Directive was meant to create the legal framework for liberalizing services throughout the EU. For example, if you are a Czech flower arranger, making it easy for you to set up business in Austria. Or if you are a Lithuanian plumber, facilitate working in another EU country. All this under the regulations of the service provider’s country. In other words, if you work as a Polish architect in France, you still pay the (lower) Polish taxes. The Bolkestein Directive was one of the tools to generate millions of new jobs and make Europes economy the strongest by 2010. (Old) European neoprotectionism killed it prematurely. One of the most outrageous statements of the past week was Chirac's, who more or less said that unlimited free markets are as bad as communism.

Poor Europe. Read it at LVB. It's in English.



MFBB

Hey European types - this story can't possibly be true can it?

"Lets take a look at the case of Gerhard Haderer. He's an Austrian cartoonist who published a satire on the life of Jesus. Like most satires, it is not very respectful, but it contravenes no Austrian law. Unbeknown to him, however, the book was republished in Greece, a country not known these days for its attachment to freedom. The book was banned, Haderer was found guilty of blasphemy and sentenced to jail. He's appealing, but if he loses, he can under EU law be extradited to Greece to serve his time and Austria cannot do anything about it."

WTF?

HAPPY THOUGHTS OF THE DAY.


Yesterday evening at around 7pm, yours truly (to the left of the goatf*cker) was heading off with his lady to some eating event organised by a diving club (there were salmon and fries on the menu card) and on dropping off the kid at my parents house I was able to see a few TV newsshots. Just a few secs of watching neocommie Belgian TV was enough to get furious and possibly have my appetite spoiled, so we quickly left for our salmon. However, fellow Blogger De Andere Kijk (The Other View) had the guts to watch "Eén" (One), as the Belgian/Flemish state-run TV broadcaster has recently been renamed. Watch it out, rather. This is a translation of the report he filed:



You are wrong, wrong, wrong!


Two years ago Operation Iraqi Freedom started. "Our" national broadcast again did its utmost best to "offer content" at this anniversary. The 7pm news was typical again:

*one could see the victims of American bombs, but not those of suicide terrorists driving [their bomb-laden cars] into [crowds of] their own compatriots.

*"remorseful" ex-soldiers and angry parents of deceased soldiers were allowed to have their say, while soldiers stationed right now in Iraq and parents who did not want the name of their killed son was used for propaganda, could not be heard.

*the man/woman in the street who can complain about the so-called absence of an "exit-strategy"

*the demonstrations of "the population" against Bush while your TV screen was full of red flags, of UK Socialist Party banners and of communist symbols and strongmen

*I even saw a placard with "HANDS OFF IRAN AND SYRIA". Indeed, let dictator Assad and Mullah Khamenei go on terrorizing their own and other populations.

*the moral bankruptcy of the Left is devastating. The show they perform is shameful and yes, dangerous.


UPDATE 20/3: today again some "coverage" of "our" national broadcaster. Again a couple of "remorseful" ex-soldiers and angry parents. To top it all off, an interview with Giuliana Sgrena who wants an explanation of George W. Bush himself.


Thank you De Andere Kijk.

I will say it again and again: while there may indeed be a certain resentment and inherent anti-Americanism among European populations, mostly born out of a certain sense of inferiority and impotence, I keep insisting that the media is the key in (starting to) altering the political landscape in Europe. I would say that 10-15% of the European populace are diehard moonbats, 7-8% pro-US and the middle field, well, in the absence of the European Neocommunist networks they would be either indifferent or mildly pro-US. As it is now, this undecided, lukewarm-for-everything-but-soaps-wages-vacations-sexlife-retirement mob is prone to a constant bombardment of false impressions and outright deep red propaganda. Take our national TV broadcaster: I have a fairly good idea who the producers are, the directors, the anchormen: I know their backgrounds, I know the circles they come from: leftist to extreme leftist, all of them. You won’t find a single rightwinger at "Eén", except for an occasional lower level technician maybe, and even that is doubtful.

Our state-run TV networks have to be privatised. And Europe needs its FOX, or FOX-like, networks. The media is the key.


MFBB

P.S.: the salmon and fries were good, just a tipsy getting cold.

THE DUTCH ARE SCREWED BIG TIME...


Teachers of the Mozaiek elementary school are very concerned about the radicalization of their pupils. Mohammed B. [Bouyeri :The killer of Van Gogh] is revered as a hero, when Hirsi Ali is shown on school TV they mimic ‘shooting’ movements. When they visited the Anne Frank House pupils said “they deserved it” and
"They should have killed more Jews".

The radical behavior is not new. The teachers of the Christian elementary school say they ask for years now attention to this problem. Teacher Marlene van den Berg: "After the September 11 attacks, they made a St. Nicolas [children feast where presents are packet in self made creative wrappings] surprise of the WTC towers, complete with flames and falling people. We started the dialog: What do you mean, why do you do this? Then you get a ruthless answer: They deserved it, they had to do it a long time ago"...


Hat tip to Dutch Report. I recommend you bookmark that site.

On a population of 16 million, The Netherlands count 1.6 million, or 10%, non-western immigrants. 1 million of them is Muslim. Somali-born Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who spoke out against Islam and who since the fall of 2004 has to be kept under close guard on a Dutch marine basis in central Amsterdam because of death threats by Islamic extremists, estimates that 2/3 of those 1 million Muslims are NOT integrated, nor do they show any desire to do so. Criminality among young Moroccans, who make up the bulk of the Muslim population in The Netherlands, is rampant: 80% of crimes committed in Utrecht, famous for its university, is contributed to Moroccan youths. It is estimated that by the middle of the century the Dutch population will count some 18 million plus inhabitants, of which 32% will be immigrants or their descendants. The number of native Dutch emigrating from their homeland is growing year after year, and in 2004 passed the peak of 1954.

MFBB

Maine state legislature taking on the tough issues Part 2.

Time to head up to Augusta with some pitchforks and torches...

"My name is Walter Moore and I'm running for mayor, and you know what? I don't speak Spanish and I don't intend to learn." -- L.A. mayoral candidate Walter Moore

I don't think he'll win but I do admire his refreshing lack of pandering.

Good to know that our local Maine lawmakers are paying attention to the pressing issues of our time. Never mind that we are the most overtaxed state in the union and still have massive, escalating debt; never mind the pathetic, failing state health care debacle; never mind the out of control property tax situation; let's keep mothers of the future from aborting their fetuses based on knowledge of the baby's sexual orientation!

As if the Democrats who control this state aren't screwing the pooch hard enough, now we've got Republicans going off the deep end too. Hmmm, how are those real estate prices in New Hampshire?

Just in case you needed another reason to hate the UAW...

FREEDOM OF SPEECH ACCORDING TO THE LEFT...






Ok, this is not #@ù%*!!?=+/?!#!!!?§!?!Giuliana Sgrenas car riddled with 400 American bullets but, as it happens to be, the Alfa Romeo of Vlaams Belang strongman Filip Dewinter. On February 28, he was invited to participate in a debate at the University of Leuven organised by the LVSV (Liberaal Vlaams Studentenverbond, or Liberal Flemish Student’s Association). Also participating in the debate was Bart De Wever, another Flemish politican (NVA) with a secessionist agenda. Before the debate started, six leftwing militants protested against Mr. Dewinter’s presence. After the debate, the Flemish Rightwing politician found that his car had been busted: the windshield and one sidewindow caved in, extensive damage to the paint, and eggs, black paint and an unknown substance smeared here and there (not all damage visible). No doubt the work of sensitive, sophisticated persons of tolerance and diversity. Estimated damage costs: 4,000 Euros.

Although the debate was considered "risky", there was no police. Police in Leuven falls under the authority of Socialist mayor Louis Tobback, archenemy of Flemish Conservatives and the Concept of Sanity. Hat tip for this story: Visual Hugo’s Flying Circus and Deekodiver.

Freedom of speech according to the Left, yeah. I know all about it.

MFBB

OUTRAGE: EUROPEAN PUBLIC BOMBARDED DAY AND NIGHT WITH NEOMARXIST PROPAGANDA!!!

First of all, I want to extend my heartfelt condolences to the relatives of the Italian top security agent Mr. Nicola Calipari.

........

It may not be very polite to elaborate in the following way on the circumstances surrounding Mr. Calipari’s death. Nevertheless, if the Left uses the tragic passing of this no doubt brave officer in such a callous way, I don’t see why I shouldn’t be allowed to add my view on the story. So here goes:

You can’t have failed to miss the Left’s cause célèbre of the day. Make that days. I have no intention to smear Downeast with the ramblings of a May ’68 fossil, so from that BBC article I will only pluck this quote:


"Everyone knows that the Americans do not like negotiations to free hostages, and because of this I don't see why I should exclude the possibility of me having been the target," she said.


No, "Mrs." Sgrena, that’s the first time that I hear that "Americans don’t like to free hostages". And 'lo and behold, it gets better.


And in an article for Sunday's edition of her newspaper, Il Manifesto, she said the shooting, which occurred Friday as agents were taking her to the airport in Baghdad, recalled her captors' warning that "the Americans don't want you to return."


Right cunt. IIRC, not so long ago you were begging for your life:


Kidnapped Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena appealed to her government to withdraw troops from Iraq in a video tape released by militants on Wednesday. She was shown by the Dubai-based al-Arabiya TV channel begging her government to put an end to the occupation. Sgrena, whose speech was translated into Arabic by the channel, wore a light green jacket and a shirt, locking her fingers together and shaking her hands as if begging.


Then we were all treated to the joyful news of your release… we even learned that despite the fact that the Iraqi freedom fighters intended to kill you, they nevertheless saw fit to treat you well. How touching. And now this: hours after you have been freed the car in which you travelled to BIAP was riddled with bullets by evil US troops, the security official who freed you killed, and you yourself wounded. Which all gives the dipshit toilet paper you "work" for a hell of a scoop, isn’t it?

Bottom line: Saddam may be in jail, the Iraqi elections may have been a success, Living conditions may have improved dramatically, the Iraqi economy may be booming and in the whole of the Middle East there’s a democratic tsunami in the making…

…but still the US are the bad guys…. Fooking unbelievable. And of course, European MSM, desperately in need to find bad news, have jumped on your "story":





The caption of the clip above reads "Vrij, maar gewond door Amerikaans vuur". Which translates as:

FREE, BUT WOUNDED BY AMERICAN FIRE (The Daily Crap, aka De "Standaard", March 6, 2005)

The one below is all too happy to quote Mr. Pier Scolari, husband to Giulianana Sgrena: "Amerikanen wilden niet dat Giuliana bleef leven". Or:

"AMERICANS DID NOT WANT THAT GIULIANA STAYED ALIVE".(De Zondag, March 6, 2005)


How wonderful. Now to make sure that the message came through, Belgian state-run commie TV on its channel "Eén" (One) happily spread the "news". Now for all those wondering why such a large portion of Europeans are so anti-American, what else do you expect? When I said hello to my folks at noon, the first thing I heard from my dad was that the Americans "had made a grave error" again, "that the news was everywhere", "they had killed an Italian" etc. etc. Now mind you, although my dad is not the guy to know the finesses of Iraqi news, he is PRO-AMERICAN!!! Yours truly immediately had to rebuke the drivel and free daddy’s mind from the bias, telling him that at least according to the US account, the car had been warned with flashlights, warning shots had been fired, and finally the US guards had shot in the vehicles engine. Now I don’t know what it is exactly that happened. I suppose that after a series of car bombings with vehicles ramming into crowds and murdering hundreds of civilians, troops have strict orders to stop cars not heeding the warnings, if necessary with lethal force. I assume that is what happened. Commie fossil Giuliana Sgrena herself admitted "that the car was not going particularly fast". Yeah, if you have ever driven through Rome and tried to avoid those the natives "not driving particularly fast" I assure you you will understand that Italians don’t have to take lessons on understatements from nobody.

Bah. I’m so fed up with the whole story. Luckily I’m not ranting alone: "Value for money" from De andere kijk, "Return of the Jawa" from Dog of Flanders and "The coalition of the killing" from Visual Hugo’s Flying Circus all cover the same story in one way or another.

I’m pissed off. I could’ve spent my Sunday afternoon better than to rant on the ravings of a May 68 leftover. Look, normally I’m a pretty decent guy, or so I kid myself, but sometimes… sometimes I can’t restrain myself from a little pottymouthing no more than Eric Bana could restrain himself from turning green. So Mrs. Giuliana Sgrena, SCR*W YOU! And if I could, I’D KICK YOUR BUTT!!!


MFBB, feeling better afterwards.

Wow. Things are moving quickly in Lebanon.

BEIRUT: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is expected to announce on Saturday the pullout of some Syrian troops from Lebanon and the redeployment of the rest close to the border, a Lebanese political source said on Friday.

The blog EU Referendum has a frightening example of EU anti-business legislation that may eventually lead to loss of life.

I just don't see how this thing is supposed to succeed with what seems like almost deliberate efforts to guarantee that it won't.

President Chirac set out yesterday to persuade disgruntled French citizens to put aside their distaste for Europe and his own Government and vote oui to the EU constitution in a referendum.
The President and Jean-Pierre Raffarin, his Prime Minister, used a solemn parliamentary session at the Château de Versailles and a Franco-Polish summit to open a campaign to head off a possible political rout and death for the European treaty.

Interesting. As an ignorant Americano I guess I assumed constitutional (or whatever the hell you call that mess) approval was a slam dunk, especially in France.

WTF???

According to the legend, New York was founded in 1626 by the Dutch in the southern part of Manhattan Island. Some schoolbooks, history books, television broadcasts - and down to cigarettes makers - even say that the founder of New York was named Peter Stuyvesant.

The reality is somewhat different...


"In 1609, an English sailor named Henri Hudson discovered a great bay with a big river flowing into it from the mountains, at a latitude of forty-one degrees north and a longitude of seventy-four degrees west.

Hudson had been entrusted by the Flemings Emmanuel Van Meteren, Judocus Hondius and Petrus Plancius to discover a new passage to the land of Tartars and to China, on behalf of the East-Indies Company."

...

"From 1615, the region between Virginia and New-England was equally named New-Belgium (Novum Belgium, Novo Belgio, Nova Belgica, Novi Belgii)..."





"In 1626, Pierre Minuit, governor of New-Belgium, became famous by the purchase of Manhattan Island. He bought it from the Manhattes Indians in exchange for glittering beads and other trinkets. The total value was about sixty guilders or $24."


Alas, the worst is yet to come...


"Pierre Minuit was a Walloon, born in Wesel (Rheinland). His parents, from Tournai (Hainault), had settled there in 1581 in order to flee the religious persecutions..."

So you guys descend primarily from Walloons huh? Listen, I've been on this blog now for fifteen months and I have yet to encounter the first person who actually believes me. Fine. Like so many times before, I don't expect you to change. Well, check out this book then:

"The Belgians, first settlers in New York and in the Middle States" - by Henry G. Bayer

(Originally published in New York, 1925 by Devin-Adair.)


MFBB (laughing his *rse off)

COME AND SEE: PRO BUSH PROF ON BELGIAN TV!!!

An amazing thing has happened. Some of you may recall that recently in Downeasts comments section a Mr. Marc Cogen , Professor in International Law at Ghent University was mentioned. Fellow Belgian blogger De andere kijk and I said a.o. that Mr. Cogen was last allowed on Belgian TV prior to OIF, where he defended the upcoming liberation of Iraq by US troops. This was really too much for Belgian commie television, and Mr. Cogen was not invited anymore. Ironically, Professor Cogen was then Chairman of the Belgian Association for the United Nations! (current chairman is Professor Dr. Jan Wouters - note by MFBB).

(Prof Marc Cogen. Pic illegally stolen. By MFBB from LVB.)

Since then, the Belgian TV audience has been fed nothing but the continuing anti-American drivel. For academic assistance Mr. Cogen's colleague, Professor Rik Coolsaet, who is virulently anti-American, was so kind to be on permanent standby. While Professor Cogen does not have an own website, Professor Coolsaet has, so you gather that like in the US, in Belgium the loudmouths can all be found on the same side of the political spectrum. FYI, Prof. Coolsaet is the author of the book: AL-QAEDA – THE MYTH. The Root Causes of International Terrorism and how to tackle them. In short, the Prof thinks Al-Qaeda exists only in our imagination and - yawn - we all have to thank it to ourselves. Ok, enough 'bout Ricky.

Anyway, what I wanted to say is that Prof Cogen has made a reappearance on Belgian TV!!! On Saturday night, February 26th, he was a panel member in De Nachtwacht (The Night Watch), a discussion program on Flemish TV.

The Nachtwacht every week puts forward a thesis by some important dude which is then challenged by other important dudes (I have not been called yet). This week Dutch journalist of leading Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad Henk Hofland propounded that:

"American soldiers still have no business in the Middle East. One can never turn 350 million Arabs to democrats by pointing guns at their head. And so the West can only serve as a good example and the people in the Arab World must liberate themselves on their own of dictatorial regimes AND Muslim fundamentalism".

(MFBB would wager that Mr. Hofland thinks Mubaraks U-turn has been brought about by "the good example of the West". But I digress.)

Well, Mr. Cogen replied a.o. the following:


Dialogue alone will not work. Europe is talking with the Arab world for 30 years now, with a lot of diplomats, experts and committees. The result? Very few reforms, and no solutions. I find it amazing how Europe keeps believing in something that yields no results. And they have the same attitude towards Africa, where the problems are even greater. Europe believes that by throwing money and experts at the problems, they will disappear. The hard conclusion should be that with some regimes, talking is useless. Even economic sanctions do not help, as they reinforce the local dictatorship, and make only the people suffer, and not the elites.


Excellent post about the event at LVB, who has more or less become Belgium's top political blogger.


Mr. Cogen is not the only sane person at Ghent University though. Professor Boudewijn Bouckaert is another ardent supporter of US international policy. Bouckaert is also a law professor, and is currently Erasmus lecturer at Harvard University. In 2003, he had this to say about the widening gap between the States and Europe (quote translated by Luc Van Braekel):


Continental Europe is evolving towards a socialist economy where the state absorbs and redistributes the largest part of the national product. The private sector is tolerated as a cow to be milked to the limits of the sustainable. Entrepreneurs are diabolized by the socialist-bureaucratic elites as scrooges, polluters, tax evaders etc.


Got some time, read the whole thing. Furthermore, you may be interested to know that Mr. Bouckaert is also the Chairman of Nova Civitas, a Flemish pro free market think tank.





Nova Civitas's homepage sports a.o. the following statement:

The principles of Nova Civitas are :

• that freedom is linked to responsability;
• that the family must be revalorized as cornerstone of a free society;
• that the economy should be de-feodalized, and the free entrepreneurship should be protected;
• that the rule of law must be upheld.

But what is perhaps more telling about Nova Civitas are the sites they link to. And immediately after the US Presidential elections, Nova Civitas also called for nothing less than a European Republican Party:


In almost all newspapers, magazines and television programs, the [US] elections were a pretext to a true orgy of anti-americanism. The Americans were depicted as dumb, fat, superficial, retarded, reactionary, etc. The president was shown as a moron, completely manipulated by a cabal of oil barons. [...] The leftist political and intellectual elite, that has Europe in a strong grip at this moment, will probably use Bush's victory to make the gap between the US and Europe even larger, and boast about the superiority of the euro-socialist model.

Nova Civitas is asking itself if wat is possible in the US, would also be possible in Europe. With each election, whether in the US or Europe, the same pattern emerges: the bulk of the population thinks more right-wing than the elite of leftist (socialist, green and left-liberal) politicians, subsidized artists and journalists that think they know better). The center-right forces in Europe are divided among different factions: christian democrats, liberals and nationalists, they often lack adequate leadership and power, and don't have enough intellectual backing because of the total dominance of the left in the human sciences. [...]

Everyone that rejects the perspective of a islamo-leftist dictatorship, must engage in the construction of a center-right European republican front. Therefore, we must take distance from differences that are unimportant but have grown historically, like between christians and atheists, between nationalists and globalists. We must have the courage to build a consistent center-right program, thereby facing the curses of the leftist intellectual elite. The historic reelection of president Bush can become the new start for a center-right Europe.


MFBB keeps thinking that in an age where distances have shrunk by cheap air transport and chatting with pals on the other side of the world, there is no more excuse for American and European conservatives to go their own ways. If you don't like being labeled as "conservative", make that rightwinger or libertarian or whatever, as long as it's right of center. We should cooperate. The Atlantic has become but a psychological barrier.

MFBB

"(The EU is) a customs union. It protects itself from outsiders with walls of tariffs. It is in many ways very reactionary. Those who control everything, the Central European states France, Germany, Spain and Italy, are not the countries of the free market and have never been. Those are countries which have cetralised their economy very much. Their economy is in many ways incomplete with much rigidity in the labour market. They have a very complex and wide-ranging system of subsidies and grants. State interference in the economy is vast. And in many ways the European Union is driven by dreams of past greatness; dreams of keeping Europe as a superpower. The result of all this is that growth in the EU is rather small compared to America and Asia."


Interesting analysis by an Icelandic economics professor who wonders why Iceland, which: "...has more growth than the EU, higher average income and enjoys certain independence and freedom, should want to join this company?"

Hat tip to The Corner.

Some pretty straight talk from the Belgian Foreign Minister on the situation in Iran.

Keep up the good work Michael., you're bringing the Peoples Republic around...

WELCOME TO BELGIUM, MR. PRESIDENT!!!




...and if you got some spare time, MFBB will be more than honoured to show you another Belgium you may not be aware of:






(some Belgian icons: clockwise the Royal Palace, the Atomium, the so-called "Giant's Grave" in the Ardennes' south and the Belfry in Bruges)


On Sunday evening February 20th, 9pm local time, President George W. Bush arrived on Brussels International Airport for a 5-day long journey to Europe. On Monday morning he and the First Lady will be welcomed by the Belgian King Albert II and his spouse Queen Paola in the Royal Palace. Later in the morning PM Verhofstadt will receive the Presidential Couple. On Monday afternoon the President will hold a "key speech" on transatlantic relations in the Concert Noble Hall, and in the evening he will meet French President Jacques Chirac on a working dinner in Brussels.

Tuesday morning he will have breakfast with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the rest of the day a dual summit with European heads of states and prime ministers and with NATO officials is scheduled. For Tuesday evening a dinner with the European Commission is planned.

On Wednesday, President Bush continues his journey to Mainz, Germany, where he will meet German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and visit US troops in the area. In the evening, he flies to the Slovak capital Bratislava where on Thursday a meeting with Russian president Putin is planned. Belgian blogger Luc Van Braekel has more (in english).

President Bush’s three-day visit to Brussels has provoked security measures hitherto unknown in Belgium. Apart from the President's own 800 security agents deployed for "close protection", Belgian police has mobilized 2,500 officers to safeguard not only the presidential convoy but also the presence of no less than 34 heads of state and prime ministers. The Crisis Centrum of the Ministry of Interior will be three days long on High Alert. Twenty-five representatives of all concerned offices (Ministry of the Interior, Foreign Ministry, Mixed Group Anti-Terrorism, State Security, Army and Police) are on standby in case anything should go wrong. The operational command of the security operation, under Brussels Corps Chief Roland Vanreusel, is situated in a bunker with undisclosed location.


Needless to say, MFBB wholeheartedly welcomes the President and his charming wife. Over the past four years, Mr. Bush has shown himself a steadfast leader who not only clearly understands the multiple - and very serious - challenges and threats facing the West, but who also took direct and resolute action in implementing measures to quell them. In doing so, he always acted with the greatest level of decency and respect to all those - and how numerous they were and are - who rejected his views and gravely insulted him.

Not so his adversaries, who kept losing themselves in whining along the sidelines. The result is that anno 2005, as we can clearly see the fruits of his policy begin to blossom, these heads of states, premiers, chancellors and presidents, political analysts, academics, "informed commenters", political contenders and the like, find themselves still trodding in the same tracks they have been standing in since 2002, repeating the same old worthless arguments and lies, while the Bush doctrine's implementation is speeding ahead and its vision of unlocking a sixty-year old stalemate in the Middle East is looking more promising day by day. Let us also not forget the large proportion of the public opinion, at home and especially abroad, who stubbornly refused to look for a moment beyond the baseless bias and the hate offensives directed at George W. Bush. They now consequently find themselves still holding positions and opinions as irrelevant as those of an earlier generation, when another Great President who neutralized the horrible threat of a Nuclear Holocaust, was mocked and spit upon.

However, do not think this unrightful distate is universal. Everywhere across the globe President Bush has his fierce supporters, and as always quality will win over quantity. Let me quote Belgian MP Gerolf Annemans of the Vlaams Belang, formerly Vlaams Blok, as he welcomes the President (translation via LVB):



I warmly welcome president Bush. You won't hear me say that I agree on everything with the man, but his policies have given the US an advantage of ten years compared to Europe. With him, the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction, away from all that is left-wing and progressive. That evolution is gradually coming to Europa too. Bush finds conservative values as important as we do, with an emphasis on the family and the own identity. [...] We don't need a new Bush: the old one wasn't bad. I agreed with the intervention in Iraq and I refuse to confirm at this time that it was an error or a failure. If Bush were Flemish, he would be welcome at Vlaams Belang.



Mr. and Mrs. Bush, enjoy your stay in Belgium!!!


MFBB

THE DANES DID THE RIGHT THING...

With all the spotlights on Iraq’s January 30 elections and their aftermath, it was easy to miss Denmark’s some ten days later. Indeed, on February 8 the Danes held Parliamentary elections and since there seem to be some remarkable conclusions to be drawn from them, MFBB thought it worthwile to head cybernorthwards.

a.) Results of the elections

First the results: they were convincingly won by Denmarks sitting PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen and his Center-Right/Conservative coalition.

The CNN article, released on February 8, still estimates that Denmark’s Right, consisting of Rasmussen’s own Liberal Venstre (V) Party (mind you, in Europe, "liberal" means center-right), the nationalist Dansk Folkeparti (DF) and the conservative Konservative Folkeparti (KF), will win 96 seats in the 179-seat Danish Parliament, the Folketing.

This recent table however gives such an alliance, were it to form, 94 seats instead of 96 (V + DF + KF = 52 + 24 + 18 = 94). 94 seats in a 179-strong Parliament constitutes still a majority of course.

On the left side of the political spectrum, we see that the opposition consisting mainly of the socialist Socialistik Folkeparti (SF) and the social democratic Socialdemokratiet i Danmark (SD), will likely win no more than some 80 seats. Indeed, so disappointing were February 8’s results for Denmark’s left, that Mogens Lykketoft, chairman of the Social Democrats (SD), was quoted as saying: (Rasmussen's government) "had a much stronger impact that we have been able to have".




(To the left, winner Anders Fogh Rasmussen. To the right, loser and Trotsky-lookalike Mogens Lykketoft)


b.) Topics which failed to help the left

Well, what has gone wrong for the Left in Denmark? After all, Rasmussen has since the beginning been a staunch backer of the US-led war in Iraq, with its DANCON/IRAQ Mission, sending (and keeping) a small but valuable 500-odd strong Battalion to Iraq, which operates south of Basra under British command (see annex 2). Moreover, Danish officers help train Iraqi soldiers under NATO aegis.

Then there is the fact that Rasmussens minority government (12 Liberals and six Conservatives, again notice "liberal" means centre-right over here) during its tenure leaned heavily on the parlementarian support of the nationalist Dansk Folkeparti – an outfit which, with its emphasis on honouring Danish traditions and a fierce anti-immigration stance is not done for Denmark’s PC crowd. Alas for them, Niels Q in the street didn’t mind Venstre and KF buddying up with DF’s nationalists.

There is another aspect seemingly in favour of the left, one that too often gets overlooked and one which my fellow Flemish blogger (from Norway!) Hoegin made me aware of: it seems that Rasmussens first measures upon entering office in 2001 was dismantling a gazillion public commissions whose main purposes seem to have been offering "progressives" a "job" while they performed "culture and education-related work" and drafted society-critical analyses while sitting on their warm asses in cozy airconditioned offices and eating Danish butter cookies. As could be expected Rasmussen caused a leftist uproar sending the tree huggers home, but again Niels Q did not seem to care.


c.) What made Rasmussen tick?

So, what made Rasmussen tick? Like Slick Willy, one could point to the economy, as indeed the Rasmussen crew has been a reliable steward to Denmark’s economy, which is expected to grow 2.4% this year (a really good result in Euroland). But then again, this fact is somewhat overshadowed by the unemployment figure which has risen to 6.2% from a 25-year low of 5% in 2002 (mind you, this is all still quite low for a European country!).

Personally, I think that Rasmussen has been cleverly able to walk the thin line between winning the Danes over to the viewpoint that at least some unpleasant adjustments in cradle-to-grave state care WILL have to be made and at the same time convincing them his government is NOT bent on demolishing the welfare state tout court. In a country with a declining birth rate and with care for the elderly a no.1 topic, as a poll showed, he can’t do that. Keep in mind too that, after all, Rasmussens Venstre Party is a "Liberal" Party, which in Europe means Centre-Right (often with leftist ethics). So while Venstre is pro-business and pro-free market and all that, it is also pro-welfare and, to some degree, even environmentalist.

However, in my opinion the principal reason for Rasmussens victory is his tough handling of the Immigration issue, which like everywhere else in Europe is causing great trouble. I am not going to elaborate on the problems caused by immigrants. You know about some of my earlier posts, and possibly you read LGF. I’m not a hatemonger but I guess the most honest contribution to the immigrant issue is calling a spade a spade and acknowledge that the immigrant influx and its no-questions-asked poor handling by authorities is causing a lot of problems. To cut a long story short, Rasmussen understood from the start full well the issue surpassed the capabilities of the existing Ministry of Interior and created a whole new Ministry of Refugees, Immigrants and Integration under Liberal MEP Bertel Haarder. Haarder’s Office took, it must be said, a very tough approach, causing even an EU Commissioner to liken it to Human Rights violations. For instance, in Europe one of the reasons for the seemingly unstoppable flow of immigrants is the so-called Family Reunification. In short it means that if as an immigrant you’ve been staying here for quite some time and are naturalized, you can let family members from the land of origion come over, who can then become citizens much more easily.

No more in Denmark. Here are some of the tough measures taken to limit family reunification:

* higher minimum age for marriages with foreign partners (24 years)
* higher bail (50,000 Danish Kronen – FYI, the Danes did NOT enter the Eurozone)
* the requirement that the ties of a pair with Denmark, taken together, must be greater than with another land. This requirement essentially excludes naturalised Danes from marriage with a partner from the country of origin or another country. If you think this is harsh, then ask yourself why such a harsh policy was adopted in a country which until recently was almost as ultraliberal as The Netherlands.
* lowerment of the maximum age of children to apply for family reunification (from 18 years to 14 years)

These measures have led to a sharp decline of family reunifications in Denmark. Where in 2001 the number was still 10,950, by 2003 it had dropped to 4791, a decrease of 56%.

As for the Integration chapter:

* newcomers get an introduction programme language and culture
* those who refuse to follow the programme get their benefit slashed
* results of the integration lessons are transferred to the Danish Immigration Service and play a role in granting permanent residence papers (it lasts 7 years before you get these)

I could also cite the passing of a law forbidding Radical Imams entrance to Denmark. Indeed, too often (almost always?) imported Imams, not inclined to learn Danish, tend to preach anti-western hate sermons. Again, this law would not have been put into effect had there been no need for it.

As an afterthought, there’s no gloves-on approach either in the issue of the headscarf in working places. Unfortunately, the headscarf is all over Europe becoming a sign not only of being different but also of being superior. That’s why a Denmark court ruled that a supermarket employee was not allowed to wear a headscarf at work. (Personally, I think that in public and in private enterprises the choice should be free, but in state buildings and institutions headscarves should be banned)


d.) Final thoughts and conclusions on the Danish Right Wing victory

* It is a sign that, where Europe has been overwhelmingly leftist over the past decades, an undeniable shift to the right is taking place
* The shift to the right is until now carried mostly by tough anti-immigration policies as advocated by the right, not yet by a desire for more conservative ethics
* Most European politicians (even leftists, see Germany’s Schroeder) begin to understand that the welfare state is not tenable. The population does not yet. So the measures taken are still more streamlining than slashing exercises.

Personally, I’d rather like to see the shift to the right carried by a renewed appeal of conservative values. That is not yet the case. Still, any issue that draws support away from the Left – even if it is basically a negative issue, in this case problems caused by immigration – is a welcome development for Europe. What I would call a positive incitement towards a "Righter" Europe is, say, a realization among Europeans that they are able to take matters, personal matters, in their own hand (vs. the humiliation of having to live off state benefits, which ultimately leads to depressed unproud citizens, the French being good examples). See also this nice related TechCentralStation column Allowing Familes vs. Family Allowances by Kamila Pajer.


MFBB


ANNEX 1. Denmark 101

Goss sent me some basic info: with its roughly 43,000 square kloms, Denmark is the smallest of the four Scandinavian countries. Its mainland, called Jutland, juts out like a peninsula from te north of Germany, with which it has a land border of only 68 kloms. But its two main islands Sjaelland and Fyn plus a crazy smorgasbord of numerous smaller ones ultimately give it a coastline of some 7,400 kloms! Denmarks population is 5,413,392 (as of July 2004), its capital is Copenhagen with its famous mermaid landmark. Denmark is a constitutional monarchy and has a unicameral Parliament. A modern agricultural industry is the mainstay of Denmarks economy, although there’s also state-of-the-art food processing, machinery and equipment, electronics and chemical industry. And the Danes are real aces in generating electricity through windpower. One of the best known Danish companies in this field is Vestas.

Denmark has a GDP of some 170 billion US$ and a remarkably low debt (for a European country), only 45% of GDP. Although it did meet the criteria for joining the Eurozone, its citizens in a referendum chose not to, which is why the Danes still use their Krone instead of the euro.

General info here, a good and brief overview of Denmark’s history here.


ANNEX 2. DANCON/IRAQ

Possibly very few know that Denmark too was militarily involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom – although I wonder what good use the sole submarine the Danish Navy sent may have had. It was not until June 2nd, 2003, before, within the framework of the DANCON (Danish Contingent) Mission, actual foot soldiers arrived in Iraq, although they were the first of those who did not fight alongside US and UK troops. The DANCON Mission comprises one 460-strong battalion plus a Lithuanian (!) 50-strong platoon. (I’m not sure if the Lithuanians are still included in the current total of 500). The battalion consists of a HQ and Support Company, a Recce Company and a Mechanized Infantry Company. The HQ and Support Coy, which draws most of its personnel of the Prinsens Livregiment, consists of Battalion HQ, a logistics platoon, an engineers platoon, an MP platoon, a medical platoon, an EOD Section and a signals detachment.

The Reconnaissance Company has a HQ and three recce platoons, each of which has 7 MOWAG Eagle I armoured Humvee-like vehicles. As the 7.62mm MG3 machinegun on top of it is not even protected by a shield they are rather patrol vehicles. The recce company’s parent unit is the Guard Hussars Regiment.




(MOWAG Eagle I recce vehicles. Note that the MG3 on top is basically still a WWII-era weapon, in casu the German MG42/45!)


The Mechanized Infantry Company consist of company HQ with two M133G3 APC’s and three platoons of mechanized infantry equipped each with three M113’s and six Merceds Benz scout cars. The M113’s are armed with a 12.7mm M2 HB machinegun each. In addition there’s the Lithuanian platoon, which also has M113’s and Mercedes scout cars.




(M113G3 APC's. Note the passive add-on armor, which, at least on photo, looks like the Rafael armour added to Marine Amtraks.

(Info from Combat & Survival, April 2004)

Attack of the Belgians Part I

"There's nothing better than a game of golf, is there, Agent Smith?"

"I wouldn't know, President Bush," Secret Service Agent Smith answered, "I've never played. I just stand here in the sun and watch you. Rather asinine, if you ask me."

"Yep, nothing better than a good game of golf," Bush said as he adjusted his cowboy hat, and then prepared for a swing.

"President Bush!" yelled out a voice.

Startled, Bush screwed up his swing, sending his ball into the brush. "Grrr!" Bush yelled, "Agent Smith, whoever just messed up my shot I want you to inject him in the neck with that stuff that makes it look like he had a heart attack."

"That stuff ain't cheap, sir," Agent Smith reminded him.

"It was I who called out your name," said a sinister figure, "Chief Floopergibble of the Belgian international police force." More men in black uniforms emerged from the brush. "I, under the authority of Belgium, am placing you under arrest for lying about WMD's and having an illegal war with Iraq."

MR. SCHNABEL ON US/EU RELATIONS.

Belgium has three US Ambassadors. Indeed, both NATO HQ and the EU Commission – say, Europes government – have their premises in Brussels, and maintaining diplomatic contacts with and the Belgian state and these entities has been considered from the beginning as too daunting a task to be entrusted to one ambassador. That is why there are:


a.) a US Ambassador to Belgium



This is Mr. Tom C. Korologos, who was sworn in as Ambassador to the Kingdom of Belgium on June 30, 2004 by the Chief Justice of the United States, Mr. Rehnquist. He is the 29th Ambassador of the United States to Belgium.

Mr. Korologos has ample experience as a senior staff member in the White House and as an assistant to two US Presidents, besides being an accomplished businessman. Iraq keeps coming back to us, since his most recent assignment was in that country, where he served under L. Paul Bremer as a senior counsellor to the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority).


b.) a US Ambassador to NATO.



Mr. Nicholas Burns is the United States Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a post he holds since August 8, 2001. As such, he heads the combined State-Defense Department U.S. Mission to NATO, which promotes U.S. interests on the full range of Alliance issues, including NATO’s peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo, counter-terrorism, missile defense, relations with Russia and Partners, and NATO’s relations with the European Union.

Under President George H.W. Bush, he was Director for Soviet Affairs and specialized on economic issues. Under President Clinton, he also served for five years (1990-1995) on the National Security Staff at the White House. In 1997 he became Ambassador to Greece, a post he held until 2001.


c.) a US Ambassador to the European Union.



The US’s Third Ambassador in Belgium is, imho, the most important one, and his function will only gain importance in the years ahead. We are talking about Mr. Rockwell Schnabel, a successful former businessman who supported Ronald Reagan to become governor of California and who subsequently served Reagan as President as well as his successor George H.W. Bush. In 2000 the current President asked Mr. Schnabel to become US Ambassador to the EU, on which he agreed.

I intend to give you now the gist of an interview with Mr. Schnabel as it was published in a Belgian newspaper. The Ambassador being of Dutch descent, this interview took place in that language, but knowing how proficient you all are in the Talk of the Land of Wooden Shoes I preferred to present the summary in English. Here goes:

Currently, Mr. Schnabels Office is frantically preparing President Bush’s visit to Brussels on February 21-23. As Mr. Schnabel stated, the emphasis will be on Europe, on the European Union. "Naturally" the President will also go to NATO because that is the Transatlantic Organization America is part of. And he will also meet the Belgian authorities. But the focal point of the visit will be the European institutions: the Council, the Commission, the Presidency currently under Luxemburgs aegis.

Mr. Schnabel said that the EU gains importance with every passing day or hour. A lot of issues once considered improbable have over the past decades been realised: the internal market and a unified currency e.g., furthermore there is the upcoming Constitution for which President Bush, according to the Ambassador, has shown intense interest. He also asserts that, whereas earlier (American) generations doubted the European project, now they realize that the Europe of 25 nations is a fact, and that decisionmaking once considered the realm of national authorities is shifting towards Brussels.

When Mr. Schnabel then asserts that the US thinks this is considered in the US a positive development, I guess he’s trying to soothe the interviewer and the readers. Asked to back up this claim, he arguments that if the US understands well how Europe functions and if it can work with the EU in a partnership, it will be easier to cooperate with one entitiy instead of with 25 countries. "Together we account for 60% of the world economy. This means we can address global problems like poverty and trade issues together (e.g. in the Doha talks, MFBB), and we can let ourselves be heard toether in the WTO."

The ambassador then reflects on a number of what I would call – in the context of a powerful US/EU alliance – details. Contemporary details, such as the role of American and European industry in stabilizing political tensions. I certainly don’t follow Mr. Schabel when he says that what the EU has done to avoid armed conlflicts (is he talking about he Balkan?) is "fabulous". When confronted with the interviewers' assertion "that George W. Bush is seen in Europe as the first American president who worked actively against European integration", the Ambassador responded that this perception is based on several decisions on which the Europeans disagreed: Iraq, Kyoto, steeel tariffs etc…

I found the most interesting quote from the interview the one with which it ended: upon asked whether an evermore stronger and unified Europe will not lead to a more competitive and antagonistic relationship, Mr. Schabel answered that if Europe is strong and powerful, that automatically bodes well for the US. "There will be competition, but the US have never been afraid of that". He then goes on saying that American companies are used to a merciless competition, and that they are not scared they couldn’t handle European companies. But they ask a level playing field. They want to be able to compete in Europe on the same basis as their European counterparts. Americans think that a strong competition is good, because it is an incentive to do better still. "The more prosperous and competitive Europe becomes, the better it is for us". The Ambassador then pointed out that the level playing field works in both directions, citing Airbus’s example which in a contract for the US Air Force is a contender for Boeing. Final words: "And possibly even the President flies soon in a helicopter not built in the US. Bush does not distrust Europe, of good relations with his European allies he as made one of his four priorites for his second term."

I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Schnabel. As those of you who have followed this blog over the past year know, I am very much in favour of a strong Europe as one nation state modelled on the USA. In my view this implies a superstate with key responsibilities shifted away from the national to the supranational level. In other words, Europe becoming one political, economic, monetary entity with own defense capabilities.

But… I'd equally glad like to see it as an ally of the United States. It is easy to discern in today’s world the trends which will lead to tomorrow’s realities. Everywhere on the planet bloc-forming is on the rise. We see it in South America, where key countries are getting geared together in an economic union, the Mercosur, just as happened in Europe fifty years ago with the ECCS. We see it in the Pacific, where Japan has ambitions to lead a union opposing the emerging superpower China, which is a bloc of its own. Taking all these developments together, it simply isn’t logical to assume – and expect – that Europe should stall in its tracks now, somewhere halfway the grand unification project, like an Empire State Building stopped at 250 meters with elevator shafts leading to open air. As it is, I think that in the multipolarized world that is certainly coming, the United States of America and the United States of Europe will automatically gravitate towards each other, given their unique relationship. Indeed, no other two blocs on this planet are more alike and share a set of common values and a history and culture so entwined: neither a Latin-American blog vs., say, India, nor China vs. an Asian bloc under Japan’s leadership. In tomorrow’s world, so I hope, all the differences of the past can be forgotten and both partners will find themselves in a Grand Transatlantic Alliance.