Stubborn Facts

The Two Faces of Murat Kurnaz

2007-01-27T11:47:00.000-06:00

Everyone has followed the case of Murat Kurnaz, the Hamburg-born Turk who was picked up on the battle-field and turned over to American forces in Afghanistan in 2002. His case has been cause for continued polarization for some, continued befuddlement for others.

Many on the left has used this case to batter the policies of the American administration…perhaps, rightfully so. However, it seems to me that there is still so very much we don’t know about this case. I have waited for “follow-up journalism” by those who gleefully wrote about this case being proof of the evil and lawless nature of the Bush Administration. I’ve seen very little follow-up.

Of course, news that the Bush Administration offered to return Kurnaz to Germany (shortly after he arrived in Guantanamo Bay) has not been highlighted by those who openly criticized the Administration. To be honest, I really don’t know what the deal is with Murat Kurnaz, but I do know that the abuses that he alleges are at best…ill defined. I suppose most of his accusations are a matter of he said – she said. Of course physical beatings are one thing, but some of his other claims are not at clear-cut.

Turning off the air conditioners, in my mind, can hardly qualify as “torture.” Does anyone know for sure how many Cubans have air conditioning? Heck, how many of the elderly in France had air conditioning during the heat wave several years ago?

He also claims lack of food. I’m sorry, but look at the before and after photos of him! He doesn’t look malnourished to me.

There seems to be a fair amount of follow up into this story by the German media, primarily with respect to German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s involvement. This should be perhaps extended to former Foreign Minster Joschka Fischer as well. According to an internal German intelligence report, the US showed willingness to release Kurnaz in November 2002 due to lack of evidence, and as a symbol of goodwill towards Germany. The Germans allegedly refused this offer.

But the left-leaning American blogosphere has failed to provide much in the way of follow up to this situation. Many used the assumption that the renegade Bush Administration holding an innocent man out of arrogant reasons. The fact the US government tried to return Murat Kurnaz to Germany almost immediately after his arrival in Guantanamo does little to elicit any sort of re-assessment.

US vs Germany Friendly

2006-03-20T12:30:00.000-06:00

There is an interesting article in Der Spiegel regarding the status of soccer in the United States. In an interview with US Soccer Federation President, Robert Contiguglia, expectations for this year's team are clearly indicated as being fairly high. Although many stars from both squads will not be able to play in this week's game, it should be a very important barometer of the progress of this sport in the States. More information on the US team can be found on its its Fifa World Cup webpage.

The Strike Culture

2006-03-18T07:52:00.000-06:00

News in Europe seems to be dominated by the "Strike of the Day."

The latest is the Doctor's strike that is ongoing this week in Germany. According to the World Socialist Web Site, 22,000 German doctors (98% of them voted to authorize a work-stoppage) were on strike in several cities last Thursday. I saw a recent study that indicated that Germany's doctors in general were the lowest paid in the "West." They currently earn on average something like 70,000 Euro per year, compared to 140,000 per year for their American counterparts. The Germans are currently seeking a 30% pay increase, but are willing to increase their "official" weekly schedule from 38.5 hours to 42.5 hours per week.

I know that unionization is important in Germany, but what are the benefits? Doctors in America are not unionized, so why are they paid so much better? Individualism and Capitalism seems to be treating doctors in America better than Collective Bargaining and Socialism is in Europe.

Coincidentally, a Public Service Worker strike in Germany now enters its sixth week. Again, this strike seems to be about the implementation of longer work weeks. Meanwhile, uncollected garbage continues to pile up on the streets of many cities. Call me stupid, but I would think that in the face of mounting unemployment (around 12%), the natural tendancy would be to roll up your sleeves, work a little bit harder, and make a few sacrifices. Instead of trying to understand the difficult decisions and concessions that have to be made, the unions reserve their energy toward attacking Hartz IV and Agenda 2010 as threats to the social fabric of Germany.

Meanwhile, France Braces For Mass Protests.

"France braced for mass protests on Saturday against a new employment law as unions said more than 1 million people would march to increase pressure on the government to repeal the measure."

The French "way" seems to include violence. This particular uprising is in protest of the government plan to try to alleviate massive unemployment by making it easier and more flexible for employers to hire workers. The proposed law would allow employers it utilize a 2 year trial period for workers under 26 years old.

"I would say 'no' (to a job offered under the law) because I would have no security for two years," Jerome Desprol, 24, told Reuters

Well then, Mr. Desprol will just have to make due with NO JOB. Apparently, the American attitude of "just give me a chance to prove myself" does not translate to the French job market. Rather, the French message seems to be "just guarantee my job so that I don't have to prove myself."

Can Smiling Really Be Hazardous?

2006-03-18T07:37:00.000-06:00

A recent study in Germany suggests that workers whom must maintain a level of "Customer Service" may be more suceptible to illness. Psychologists at Frankfurt University have conducted an analysis of workers who are "forced" to be friendly at their jobs.

"Every time a person is forced to repress his true feelings, there are negative consequences for his health," said Professor Dieter Zapf, a researcher into human emotions.

In the end, the thesis of the study seems to be that we need to get away from the notion that the "customer is king," and treat service employees with more respect.

Not many would say that the problem with the German service industry is too much friendliness! Perhaps the real study should be why do those in this industry need to "fake" friendliness?

A Little Even-handedness Would Be Nice

2006-03-07T12:28:00.000-06:00

The recent news about possible assistance to the US Military planners coming from German BND agents in Baghdad represents a cause for reflection. The uproar about this issue in the German media speaks volumes about the overall attitude of German society. There are several root questions about this story, and about the reaction to it in Germany.

The first and obvious question regarding this issue is what was the motive of the former government in Germany to provide this tactical military information to the US? The likely answer is really quite unfortunate and hypocritical. Could it be that in deference to the it’s public posture toward US policy, the German government was not as inhospitable as its public persona? The Schroeder regime publicly went far beyond disagreements among friends. It used every opportunity to outwardly attempt to diminish the credibility of the Bush Administration. But now we discover the degree to which this public treatment was “political.” The reality in this case may be a bit of realpolitik. Perhaps even the Schroeder government realized that in light of the Marshal Plan, the Berlin Airlift, and the defense in the face of Soviet aggression, there could never be an “up side” to blatant opposition (not to be confused with mild, or subdued opposition) to US policy.

Given the realpolitik agenda (albeit private) of the German government, we Americans should find it even more disconcerting that there was a political benefit for this hypocrisy. What is it about the German public’s mindset that makes it so willing to gleefully cling to anything that “puts America in its place?” Why does opposition to US policies appear to be a winning political platform in Germany? The German media has some real soul searching to do, and is greatly responsible for this shift in attitudes toward the US. David and Ray @ Medienkritik have painstakingly highlighted bias in the German media, and have done a thorough job of outlining this important issue.

The elite in Germany find it so easy and opportunistic to exhibit anything greatly critical of the US. The lack of even-handedness in their coverage of America cannot, and does not have benign effects on the population. Why is it that the only foreign country worthy of ridicule in a Karneval float is… the US? Organizers have declared Islam off limits for float material, but anything critical of America is either so prevalent that it cannot help but be prominently shown in the German news, or the German media truly knows what makes for popular headlines. Both of these possibilities are truly abhorrent.

A recent interview with Beate Wagner, secretary general of the German Society for United Nations, by Deutsche Welle further outlines the overall lack of even-handedness by the German media. Ms. Wagner clearly indicated that “The human rights situation in China is well known. The number of people executed in China equals the amount executed in all other countries of the world put together. You can even be executed for tax crimes. There is no freedom of the press of freedom of expression. The human rights situation has not improved.” On the other hand, if you read Spiegel online, you would have to assume that capital punishment in America is the lone threat to the civilized world. It seems as though negative stories relating to the death penalty in America outnumber those about Chinese executions by a factor of 10:1. The facts just don’t support this imbalance. In the same interview, with DW, Steffen Leidel (DW interviewer) indicated that “Former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was very reserved when it came to criticizing the human rights situation in China and Russia.” Mr. Schroeder was never reserved in his criticism about the Anglo-Saxon economic system, or the American response to Hurricane Katrina; particularly when compared to the “German Social Model.” He even wanted to start selling China weapons. To this day, most in Germany gleefully praise Mikhail Gorachev, and give total credit for the fall of the Berlin Wall and German Unification to him. It should surely occur to many in Germany that there were conditions which made Glasnost and Perestroika the obvious and only choice for Mr. Gorbachev (Ronald Reagan had the Soviets backed into a corner with no viable options). Of course to realize these facts, would mean most of the credit for these events would go to Pope John Paul (who helped to give subjects of Soviet oppression hope for personal freedom) and Ronald Reagan. Instead, the former Communist gets rock star treatment by the German press.

Why is the most compelling reaction in the German media to immediately drum up some nonsensical conspiracy theory? My wife and I even hosted a German exchange student several years ago (on a US government scholarship) who truthfully believed that the American landing on the moon in 1969 was a total hoax. Today, roughly 33% of thirty-something adults in Germany believe that the US government was responsible for the catastrophe at the Pentagon on 9-11. What’s even more astonishing is that this theory was “created” by a blockbuster book written by a government minister. You can also read about grand theories of the BND story being some sort of political payback towards the previous German administration. It’s been suggested that the timing of the story was linked to Frau Merkel’s statements about the need for Gitmo to be dismantled. For the record, most Americans agree that Gitmo should be abandoned, but we think this should only be done after a viable alternative is presented… we’re still waiting for ideas. The trouble with these “theories” is that they don’t make any sense. There can be no doubt that the Bush administration would have been rooting for a new government in Germany with traditional partners CDU and FDP. If this story was political, why would this not have been leaked to the press during the German election season? That surely would have had more impact on the tenor in Berlin. The source of the story has clearly indicated that the timing of the story was designed (by his publisher) to coincide with his recent book about military operations in Iraq. This scenario is infinitely more plausible than the conspiracy theories asserted by much of the German media.

German courts have outlawed the showing of a movie about the German cannibal because it would infringe upon his rights. But the Turkish movie showing American GI’s is cause for a cinematic celebration. We believe that both movies would fall under “free speech.” We just want a fair shake.

Submitted to Carnival of German-American Relations

Economic Stimulus Package... German Style

2006-01-07T19:17:00.000-06:00

Change... doesn't seem to come easily for Germans. Gerhard Schroeder never missed an opportunity to poke a finger into the eye of the "Anglo-Saxon Economic System" by extolling the superiority of the German Social System. Of course all the while he was making these claims, he was failing miserably at convincing the majority of Germans of the virtures of Hartz IV or his 2010 Economic Reforms. What made the former Chancellor so disingenuous is that he fully realized that these reform packages modeled more after the Anglo system than the German one. The reality is that the reforms of Hartz and 2010 are greatly needed in Germany. Most in Germany realize this, but they lack the confidence to make the necessary concessions.

It's a never-ending circle, really. High unemployment leads to low tax rolls (no matter what the tax rate is - even with our "permanent" tax cuts, the US tax rolls, i.e. total tax collected, has risen in each of the last 4 quarters). High unemployment, combined with an excessive social welfare system results in large deficits.

...But here's the punchline. The new German Finance Minister recently unveiled a plan to use US Marshall Fund proceeds to reduce the Federal deficit of Germany. Um... Come again? Why should American taxpayer funds be used to assist a "superior" economic and social model? Apparently, US government approval would be required for such a transfer of funds. Not only should the US swiftly reject such a manuever, but perhaps it's time that balance of the Marshall Fund be returned.

Iran, the EU-3, and the UN

2005-11-20T07:49:00.000-06:00

What in the world is going on with the Iran nuclear situation? It seems like the rhetoric is getting more heated, and no resolution is near. In mid October, it was Iran that was putting a freeze on negotiations with the EU-3 of Britain, France and Germany.

At that time, the EU was expected to take the matter to the UN Security Council. Of course, given the recent history of this particular entity, Iran seemed to be repeating the "Divide and Conquer" strategy that the Iraq situation proved to be quite successful diffusing any UN authority in the matter.

"There is no judicial or legal reason to send the Iranian dossier to the Security Council," Asefi asserted. "Many countries have this view," he said, mentioning China and Russia as examples...

In September, Beijing abstained from voting on an IAEA resolution that found Iran to be in non-compliance with the NPT, and is eager not to see the tensions with Iran escalate. Perhaps this has something to do with the amount of oil China is currently importing from Iran.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also said Saturday that Moscow saw no reason to put the Iranian nuclear issue to the UN Security Council as sought by Washington. Perhaps this has something to do with tha contracts that Russia has to provide nuclear facilities in Iran.

But hopefully, there is reason for optimism in this whole debacle...

Yesterday, the EU rejected calls by Russia for the resumption of talks with Iran (proposed to have taken place in Moscow). Of course the hope is that this message is heard not only by Iran, but also Russia and China. The greater world good, must prevail over the financial concerns of Russia, China, and others for that matter. When the President of Iran indicates that (god willing) it is the hope of Iran for Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth, nuclear weapons in the hands of this regime is not a good thing!

"We seriously applied for continuing negotiations (with the E.U.) as requested by the board of governors (of the International Atomic Energy Agency), if the others rejected, then they should also be held responsible for the consequences," Iranian chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said Friday.

Meanwhile, thousands of Iranians staged anti-U.S. demonstrations at the nuclear enrichment plant in Natanz in central Iran Friday, demanding the start of uranium enrichment in the plant.

Clearly, this situation is getting quite serious, and a unified front is more necessary than at any other time in the process. The US is on the sidelines during these "negotiations," but we are still the target for the Iranian anger. I suppose we will bear that burden, and it's somewhat encouraging that the EU seems to have developed a degree of resolve in this matter.

The Comeback Kid

2005-09-10T07:23:00.000-05:00

Recent polls suggest a tightening of the race in Germany. If nothing else, one must certainly give Gerhard Schroeder an"A" forEffort, and and "A+" for Chutzpah.

How else could you possibly characterize the events of the last several months. The gutsiness of deliberately losing a confidence vote, only to immediately and drastically trail the CDU alliance for weeks, and now seemingly making a surge at the end of the campaign is quite remarkable. Herr Schroeder has a bit of Clinton in him. His has media savvy, and always seems to know what to say to his base... a true politician. Will Germans follow Schroeder one more time?

A recent interview with the left-leaning Süddeutsche Zeitung (reported on Spiegel Online) is an excellent glimpse into the perspective of Gerhard Schroeder:

Süddeutsche Zeitung Despite everything that you have done in the last few years, nothing concrete has actually changed: unemployment figures have risen and there is practically no economic growth.

Schröder That is not true. International observers recognize that without our reforms Germany would be in a much worse position. Our problem is that many of us here in Germany are much more negative in their assessment than commentators from abroad. Major economic publications, such as The Economist, The Wall Street Journal or The Financial Times, recognize that we have made a lot of progress with our program of structural reforms. It is only at home that we talk as if Germany was still the sick man of Europe. This picture just doesn't fit the reality any more.

The Bundeskanzler does not seem to realize that his excuse, which seems to be that Germans see their economy as worse than it might actually be, IS PRECISELY THE PROBLEM. The economy in Germany is certainly not fantastic, but the larger problem is that the outlook in Germany for the citizens is so bleak that their domestic markets are horrible. There simply is not enough consumer confidence for the market to be healthy.

Süddeutsche Zeitung You always quote just the first part of The Economist article. In the second half the writer says that it is now time for the opposition Christian Democrats to take over government.

Schröder That is an assessment which has been formed without proper knowledge of German society. I am obviously going to have a different opinion.

Okay here in successive comments, he says that commentors abroad know more about Germany's economic health than Germany, as a whole, does. The Economist's thesis however according to Schroeder, cannot be supported because a lack of proper knowledge of German society. Wow, this guy is GOOD!!!

Süddeutsche Zeitung But why should people vote for you again when, after seven years in power, you still haven't achieved your most important goal -- the aim, which you announced in 1998, of reducing unemployment significantly?

Schröder That can be explained by the fact that no government has so far been faced with the amount of problems which we have had to deal with: the bursting of the internet bubble five years ago, the effects of September 11, oil prices which have risen from 15 dollars to 70 dollars a barrel. These are massive external shocks which explain why we have not been able to achieve our aim. But we are on the right course. The first signs of success are also being seen on the job market: 1500 new jobs have been created since April.

Um... Come again? No government has had to deal with the amount of problems that his government has in the last seven years? Is he the Chancelor of the US? The economy here seems to have held its own during the last seven years. The massive shocks that he speaks of, should have signalled a more energetic drive towards reforms. The US economy is not particularly worse off since these shocking events. Where I do sympathize with the Chancelor is the issue of reforms. The problem goes hand in hand with the fact that Germans are currently very pessimistic. They simply would not support his difficult, but necessary reforms. However, to boast about 1,500 new jobs since April is astonishly weak, when under the same circumstances, the US economy has been adding jobs at a rate of roughly 10 times that amount each month of late.

In about a week's time the German electorate's courage will be put to the test. The question is really quite simple... Status quo, or change -even just for the sake of change!

Universal Anger of the Left

2005-09-04T10:35:00.000-05:00

I have noticed that the "Left" doesn't like Angela Merkel too much. The way that they treat those with which they have political disagreements is not particular to Germany, or even the U.S., but I notice a definite angry protest movement of the "Left." You can go back to Bush's first visit to Germany when 10,000 police officers were brought to Berlin to deal with massive protests. It was noted that the amount of security for this event was similar to the previous May Day celebrations as well as an Anti-Semitism Conference. The obvious question for me was "where does all of this anger come from?" At the time, I remember thinking that the German Left held Bush, Capitalisim, and Anti-Semitism in equal amounts of contempt.

During our last election cycle, the news was plastered with accounts of massive and angry protests at the Republican National Convention in New York. In contrast, there were no major protests at the Democratic National Convention in Boston. Again, I remember thinking "why don't serious members of the Democratic Party essentially tell these folks to "get off my side"?" In my opinion, the anger and vitriol that these protestors exhibit has the effect of giving their causes infinitesimal credibility.

A recent Expatica article, titled "Far-Left Tries to Shout Down Merkel at Rally" pointed out just the latest version of the same phenomenon.

But Merkel's speech was constantly interrupted by about 50 young men, dressed in black with dark sunglasses who yelled insults, blew whistles and swirled loud rattles.

"Nazis out", "Hypocrite!" and "Go home you slut!" were all part of the repertoire heard by the entire crowd for well over an hour.

Some of the men waved flags of the former East German Communist party, the Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS), which has merged with a western protest group to form the new Left Party which polls show could win up to 10 per cent in Germany's September 18 elections.

Why has the rhetoric of the angry Left become so... well..., ANGRY? Is there a culture in the "West" of attempting to change the system from outside of the system? Most causes in politics are at their very base legitimate, but anarchy is not a legitmate remedy for much of anything.

A Culture of Blame

2005-09-03T08:53:00.000-05:00

The horrific events of the past week in the Southern coastal areas have unfortunatley brought out the "Blame Bush" crowd. This culture of blame resides primarily on the left.

German Minister of Environment Jurgen Tritten's comments earlier this week certainly go to the core of this issue. His blaming of the Bush Administration for... not the government's handling of the crisis, but for the hurricane itself is very telling. Of course German politicians have a recent penchant for beating the Anti-American drum as part of electioneering, but his remarks still beg the question...why? What could he possibly hope to gain by publishing his editorial even as the events in New Orleans were unfolding? The fact that this tactic has somewhat proven results may say something about the current state of mind in Germany.

Look, so many contrasting things about global warming have been written that there is clearly an honest debate to be had about it's effects. But that's not the point. The point is that the first instinct of Herr Tritten was to self-righteously lash out and lecture. To blame GW Bush for these events is pure hyperbole. Everybody knows that the US congress voted something like 97-0 against ratifying Kyoto during the Clinton administration. But that does not stop the chorus of the negative from casting full blame on the current president. Who on the right blames Clinton for that?

America has shown a history of forgiveness that I'm not sure is fully understood in Germany. Forgiveness is part of our culture in a way that just does not exist in today's Germany. The Germans who hold on to a negative view of the US are, in my opinion, hypocritical. Germans have for the last 60 years asked (properly, I believe) not to be judged soley upon the Nazi era. But at the same time, they refuse to judge the United States on the totality of our actions and our history. Like all nations, America has certainly made it's share of mistakes. But who, with a mindful eye towards world history of the last one hundered years, would say that America has not been a force for good in the world? The answer is the "but" crowd of the left. The typical refrain is always "but, look at this negative thing, or that negative thing" about the US. Again that's a perfect example of looking at the world through a microscope, and not seeing the entire landscape.

Here Comes Merkel

2005-08-22T13:01:00.000-05:00

Today’s polling data from Germany indicates that Angela Merkel and her coalition’s lead over the SPD is growing. Many of the German media have hyped the ever so slight dip in the CDU poll numbers of some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy of their own wishes.

Virtually all of the German media seems to have been trumpeting the collapse of the CDU coalition over the last several weeks. It now appears as though none of this wishful thinking, hopes and dreams is at all likely!

The left has been seeking to change the scope of the dialogue for the last month or so. First, it tried to create it’s own fictional bandwagon by creating the sense that the Merkel coalition was slipping in the polls. The attempt seemed quite clear: Lets create the perception, and watch the public jump on! When the facts did not support this assertion, it was on to Plan B, which was to float out the idea of a Grand Coalition. Problem is… both the SPD and the CDU have “publicly” denounced this option, rendering as much as impossible.

With today’s polling data by FORSA, the attempts by the left to camouflage the reality of the situation is becoming quite clear. With the CDU at 43%, SPD at 29%, Left at 9%, FDP at 8% and the Greens at 7%, I know of no natural coalition that the SPD can put together that would garner a majority. Public statements by Joscka Fischer and Herr Shroeder regarding Oskar LaFontaine may even preclude the Left alliance from joining any SPD group.

The scary reality of the present situation in Germany is the depth of the current malaise. The fact that nearly 40% of the German electorate is actually hoping for a grand coalition tends to prove this point. Is the public support for this Germany’s way of “giving up?” Would a grand coalition be able to convince the electorate that they must make huge sacrifices now for the good of their children and grandchildren? Or is it merely a matter that they don’t trust either the SPD or the CDU? And if so, how does it make any sense to put BOTH of the mistrusted parties into power?

Bolton to the UN

2005-08-02T12:22:00.000-05:00

With summer baseball season and work commitments, it has been a while...

Predictably, President Bush has tendered John Bolton a recess appointment to the United Nations. The static coming from Europe is also predictable.

An article in der Spiegel sums up the German response.

Europeans still believe in the idea of the UN as an independent world
player, an institution that can and will act independently from the US, he said.
"For Europeans, the UN is a body that can function as an antagonist to the
United States. What Bush is saying is that is not true. He's saying the UN is
not a real power and cannot replace the power or influence of the US." He's also
showing his disdain for international diplomacy in general, Frank Unger
said.

This is just it; the Europeans see the UN as their stick of sorts to be used mainly for poking into the eye of the United States. Once again, Bush is not saying anything in particular about the UN other than it must be reformed. Who do Germans think should be the US ambassador to the UN? Of course the answer is somebody who is agreeable to the European point of view. I think it is the Europeans in this case that cannot seem to grasp the notion of agreeing to disagree. We just don't see the UN in the same light; plain and simple.

But others disagree, pointing out the UN's many scandals and its inability to
act quickly enough to stop the genocides of the 1990s in the Balkans and Rwanda.
The UN, they say, is in desperate need of serious reforms.

Who is "others?" Is there anyone on the face of the earth who looks at the performance of the UN as an organization in the last 15 years who thinks it is NOT in need of reform? One difference in style between America and Europe is that we are willing to call a spade a spade, and make difficult decisions aimed at fixes; not useless rhetoric.

"The reason why Bolton was nominated is because Bush needs a tough guy at the
UN, and wants bottom up reforms," said Jan-Friedrich Kallmorgen of the German
Council on Foreign Relations. "Bush is committed to reform, that'swhy he put
someone like that in there. I don't agree with some analysts who say it's a
punishment of the Senate or because he's anti-democratic or all that ... He
chose Bolton because he needs someone tough enough to take on the bureaucracy."

One who regularly reads der Spiegel can guess the headline of the story... "Some Europeans Angered by Bush's Summer Surprise." Given the above-referenced quote, would the title "Some Europeans Agree with Bush's Summer Surprise." be worthy of consideration? Of course we know that this is a rhetorical question, and that the latter headline would fail to sell newspapers.

Much of the transatlantic snivelling we hear sounds like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum because his parents did not offer him the proper amount of consultation about hiring a nanny. Well, perhaps daddy knows best!

Germany's Election Season and Platforms

2005-07-17T18:22:00.000-05:00

Gerhard Schroeder is now indicating (through his main “spokesman,” Franz Muentefering) that he will not resign if President Koehler does not authorize new elections for September. The reasons for this are far from clear. Schroeder has said in the past that his logic for proposing the no-confidence process was that he can no longer govern because of his lack of consensus and popularity. This is the same Chancellor who proudly boasted that he would not deserve his position if he could not bring the number of unemployed Germans below the 4 million mark. Well, that figure is now 4.9 million, and the guy still will not go away.

Why would Herr Schroeder now be backing away from this approach? The answer is of course as it always is with the Chancellor…Politics. Seems as though the ever-scheming SPD now believe that President Horst Koehler (a former CDU politician) might be seen as the bogeyman if he rules that the proposed Fall elections are not constitutional. Of course the fact that the SPD remains 15% - 19% behind the conservative opposition CDU Party may also play into this statement.

I have also read many left-leaning articles, which have been critical of the recently issued CDU election platform. No such clamor came as a result of the issuance of the SPD’s similar document a week or so earlier. The SPD manifesto seems to have gone “wobbly” on Germany’s economic reforms. It precludes everything from raising the retirement age, to student fees, to provisions for freeing up of Industry. The new SPD platform is a step back from their own reforms that they have been pushing for two years. Clearly, this is done for electioneering purposes to garner votes from those who seem perfectly content continue with the status quo because of a fear of losing entitlements.

The CDU manifesto, on the other hand, offers a series of economic stimuli in a much more detailed manner than their opponents’. They also indicate dates to go along with each step. This is important because as many are aware, a series of benchmarks without precise dates is merely a list of hopes; not a plan! American conservatives would most likely say that the CDU platform is not radical enough (particularly with the additional Value Added Tax it proposes). But, in the absence of an obvious “Reagan Revolution” in Germany, Merkel is wise as this time to merely “nibble at the edges.”

One need look no further than each party platform with respect to unemployment to understand which party is offering much-needed leadership. The main planks for the SPD include: increasing the fight against illegal employment, maintenance of state-financed training and job creation programs, and an the allowance of higher levels of unemployment for longer periods of time for older job seekers… Huh! More Keynesian protocol that has proven to be an absolute failure since Schroeder took office.

The CDU platform’s plan for unemployment is markedly different. It proposes a cut in income-based social security contributions (funded by the increased VAT), allowances for companies to deviate from sector-wide wage agreements, and it also allows companies to more easily make market-related decisions to improve their market position. The CDU rightly acknowledges that Germany’s high labor costs are crippling the economy in the face of the realities of globalization

The G8 Summit and Aid to Africa

2005-07-07T22:12:00.000-05:00

With the G8 summit going on in Scotland and the Live Aid concerts of last weekend, perhaps it is time to review the issue of aid to Africa. Leaders of the eight richest countries seem to have a genuine interest in helping world poverty, but what is perhaps even more interesting is the “culture” that is responsible for protests in Gleneagles.

A simple Google search yields a virtual plethora of anarchist groups who believe in some sort of cause. These summits have become a sort of worldwide nutbag convention of sorts. For instance, The Deconstuctionist Institute for Surreal Topology (DIST) is one group expressing techniques of blockades and other demonstration practices. This particular group is proud to announce the release and availability (for a mere 20 pounds) of it’s "A Guide to Blockades: The G8 Edition", published by Bad Press. This handy pocket primer is apparently jamb packed with useful tips, maps and other information of general disruption. I thought these anarchists were against capitalism…why don’t they give the book away?

Do these people have any idea what the ramifications of their actions are? What if the successful blockade of a local Gleneagles street were to prevent emergency vehicles from reaching the site of a real emergency (like god-forbid a site of a terrorist bombing)? The absolute idiocy of these fringe of society groups is amazing to me. DIST proudly states it’s cause: “The G8 cannot solve the problems of climate change or poverty they are responsible for the very policies which are causing climate change and poverty. We cannot call on them to solve the world's problems, but must put a stop to their policies and shut down their institutions. Groups within and allied to the Dissent Network have thus called on protesters and the public to blockade the G8 on July 6^th.” Cleary this is pure, unadulterated anarchy, which really should have legal implications.

At least some of the rock stars have the intellectual honesty to understand that the G8 can make a difference, and to give president Bush and the US due credit; something many liberal pundits cannot bring themselves to do. A recent Washington Times articles essentially sums up the genuine efforts of the Bush Administration:

The most prominent example of this disparity (between the Bush and Clinton Administrations) is in the funding of the fight against AIDS. Mr. Bush recently pushed a $15 billion AIDS bill through Congress.

"His $15 billion commitment is unparalleled," said Melvin Foote, executive director of the nonpartisan Constituency for Africa. "Clinton offered $300 million, parking-meter money, even though he knew it was a tremendous challenge."
Even liberals have credited Mr. Bush with doing more than his predecessor to help Africa. In May, Live Aid founder Bob Geldof said Mr. Bush is far more committed than Mr. Clinton to fighting AIDS and famine on the continent.
"Clinton talked the talk and did diddly squat, whereas Bush doesn't talk but does deliver," said Mr. Geldof, an Irish musician and activist who in 1985 staged the world's largest rock concert to combat starvation in Africa.
"You'll think I'm off my trolley when I say this, but the Bush administration is the most radical, in a positive sense, in the approach to Africa since Kennedy," he said

It has certainly become a Euro battle cry of late to "bemoan" the stinginess of US efforts to aid the needy. Geldof, when speaking of the French approach, stated "They refuse to accept, because of their political ideology, that he (Bush) has done more than any other American president in Africa, but it is empirically so."
The fact is that the United States donates more than any other country in Official Development Assistance - $16 billion this year, and $19 billion in 2006. Our contribution in this area has surpassed those of the EU, which has a larger (aggregate) economy.

The fact is that the United State is the single largest donor to international organizations, paying 22% of the UN budget (If you were to total the GDP of all industrialized countries in the world, does the US GDP comprise more than this percentage of the total?).

The fact is that the United State gives more privately than any other country. In 2004, private assistance from the US was $48 billion.

The fact is that the United States donated approximately $700 million in tsunami relief last year. Of course this does not include the cost of US military assistance immediately after the event, when most in Europe were tripping over themselves trying to figure out how to “out do” the Americans.

Taxes In Germany

2005-06-30T22:24:00.000-05:00

One of the first things that the new government in Germany should do is incorporate across the board tax cuts. Consider the following analogy between the United States in 1979, and Germany in 2005: Record unemployment, extremely low consumer confidence, high interest rates, an ideologue left-leaning president/chancellor. The similarities are really quite ironic.

Gerhard Schroeder is the German version of our own Jimmy Carter. It is quite obvious that today’s Germans are feeling their very own version of a “malaise of low expectations.” Angela Merkel will have to be a modern day Ronald Reagan to restore any hope of another German Miracle. Germany’s economy though, is nowhere near as sickly as the US economy in 1979 was. Reagan restored America’s fabled optimism and the innate can-do attitude that many feel is uniquely American.

Merkel must be very careful not to get too political. She cannot simply sit pat on her current poll numbers. Even though the political tendency would surely be to ride it out while trying not to say so much that she might lose support. Reagan campaigned on lowering taxes, and that was indeed his first initiative after becoming president. He reduced the top rate at the time from around 70% to approximately 35%. He proved that his guiding principles meant more to him than his political standing, as this was not a very popular movement at the time. Remember, that the Democrats controlled congress during Reagan’s presidency. President Reagan stuck to his guns, which is exactly what Angela Merkel must also do.

Does the German population have the stomach for this painful dose of medicine? We shall soon find out. As often happens with the type of lack of leadership we now see in Germany, the population is surely extremely confused about its own government.

A year ago, we read about the 2010 reforms and about sweeping reductions in income tax in Germany. And now, the current government has developed an approach which is a 180 degree change from just 12 months ago. The new plan is to incorporate a 3% increase of income taxes on the wealthiest of Germans. This is totally nonsensical. Who does Schroeder believe will be hopefully providing new jobs in Germany? Of course it’s the wealthiest Germans who would have a chance to do this; not labor unions. Three months ago, his plan to reduce unemployment was to increase federal spending on infrastructure projects. No talk of increasing private sector activity, we’ll just build some tax-payer financed sections of the autobahn, and “bang,” new jobs will be created. This is totally ridiculous. The German left just does not get it. We shall soon find out how far to the right the CDU/CSU is from the SPD/Greens. Fiscal conservatives will be watching very interestingly when we see the so-called conservatives running Germany.

Wanted: German Leadership

2005-06-25T10:10:00.000-05:00

The current German government is heading for a similar fate as their American brethren: The Democrats. “I am not convinced” and “We disagree with what you are doing” are not political platforms or substantive foreign policies.

Earlier this week Joschka Fischer lamented over the current EU problems with astoundingly profound leadership. “Either the Europeans come together or we will stay weak,” Fischer told reporters. He also indicated a concern that globalization is fuelling European unemployment. This is like saying that globalization is preventing Coca Cola from realizing profits. Germany is a huge exporter; perhaps one of the worlds largest. In truth, where would Germany be without globalization? A society of entitlements is what is, more than anything else, fuelling Europe’s unemployment!

Fischer also continues to blame Britain and the Netherlands for the failure to agree the EU budget, trumpeting that their inflexibility torpedoed a compromise designed to fund the integration of the union’s new eastern European members. He said Europe needed “creative” solutions to the crisis, but made no concrete suggestions. This is clearly just politics; in other words Fischer is making an effort to pit the Eastern members of the EU against Mr. Blair. Slovenia’s leader already has backed the statements by Blair in his EU address in hopes of achieving long-term reforms (THIS is flexibility).Integration costs are a huge part of why Germany’s economy is in the tank (see previous post). To my friend David, over at Dialog International: even Joseph Joffe is referring to Germany as the “sick man of Europe,” so this is not a fabrication of the NeoCons.

Speaking at a conference on Iraq being co-hosted in Brussels by the U.S. and the European Union, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer warned there would be a "high price to pay" if the democratization process in Iraq fails. What is he willing to contribute to this process to ensure its success? So far…nothing! This is not leadership.

Let’s hope that Frau Merkel has the political guts to lead. Most people know that she stands for an opening of the markets, and a scaling back (albeit, only slightly) of social security. The real question is perhaps, is the German population willing to be led where they don’t want to go, but hopefully realize they must go? Joseph Jaffe was recently quoted in IHT: "Germans are beginning to understand that what Chirac and Schroder have been telling them is wrong - that if we turn Europe into a Maginot Line against globalization, it will somehow protect them." Let’s hope he is right, and that we can look forward to better relations starting in September!

The EU Blame Game

2005-06-19T13:13:00.000-05:00

With the collapse of the EU summit this week, a somewhat predictable and ugly blame-game has erupted. France and Germany have come out to blame the UK and the Netherlands for the breakdown. It is an unfortunate display of what can only called a “lack of unity” for the Union.

Germany should be careful in it’s communications, and should distance itself from the Franco-German alliance of the past several years. By aligning it’s position with the French, the accurate and understandable complaint by the Germans can only be demeaned.

It is generally ridiculous for Mr. Chirac to deplore the "arrogance of several rich countries" in the talks. Seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. According the EU commission, France is a net giver to the union to the tune of 1.9 billion Euros. The Netherlands gives at 2.0 billion Euros and the UK at 2.8 billion Euros. The GDP of France is roughly the same as that of the UK, and roughly 3.5 times larger than that of the Netherlands. You can see the hypocrisy of Mr. Chirac’s perspective.

The problem with Mr. Schroeder’s argument is ONLY that he makes it in concert with his friend from Paris. You see, the GDP of Germany is roughly 1.4 times larger than the GDP of both France and the UK. However, Germany is a net giver to the European Union at a rate of 7.7 billion Euros. Clearly, Germany is getting the shaft with respect to the entire EU budget problem. If Gerhard Schroeder is to make a plea for righting this inequity, and I believe that he should, he should also be making it to Jacques Chirac. He needs to muster enough independence from the Parisian to make his point on his own. As the argument has been made so far, one could not blame the Dutch or British from feeling as though they have been bullied by some sort of pre-planned French-German “cartel.”

Many German newspapers got in line last week to blame the UK for “killing the EU.” Der Spiegel describes the commentary from The Financial Times Deutschland:

"Many people have forgotten that for a long time, Chirac had fought against the idea of holding a referendum in France over the constitution.... Chirac knew that a referendum would not only be a vote on the constitution but also a vote for or against globalization, for or against Poland, for or against the EU and above all: for or against him." The commentator claims that it was only when Blair shocked his own cabinet by announcing that a referendum would be held in Britain that Chirac was forced to follow suit. Blair's aim, the paper says, "was to defuse the Europe issue, always a thorny one in Britain, in the run-up to the election." Although the writer does not explain exactly why Chirac had to copy Blair (after all, Germany didn't), he says that "the (British) Prime Minister cold-heartedly sacrificed the EU constitution project for his own domestic advantage."

As I have indicated, Germany definitely has a valid point when it comes to EU budget discrepancies, but to assess blame in a never-ending outward fashion is unlikely to correct any of it’s ills!

The Cost of Security and Freedom

2005-06-14T23:24:00.000-05:00

Since 9-11, the United States has re-focused its energies toward national security. The Department of Homeland Security was established in part to facilitate greater control and communication amongst various federal agencies. Of course, appropriations for the purposes of national defense have increased sharply in the last several years.

Americans are more than willing to bear the costs of these programs. As John F. Kennedy said during his inauguration speech, “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Europeans in general (and Germans in particular) seem more willing to fight for free university education (see previous post) than for “freedom” itself.

A recent article in Der Spiegel, by Georg Mascolo ridiculed the massive amount of money that America spends on security and defense. He also made a keen connection to the “lucrative business of security.” Clearly this is intended to continue the anti-capitalism focus in Germany.

The business of fear in the United States of America has been booming ever since September 11, 2001 and the price tag for the protective cordon of high-tech gadgetry intended to keep the US safe from more terrorist attacks is enormous. Devices designed to detect nuclear material in shipping containers will cost the US government $300 million. The budget for the American Shield Initiative, a plan that calls for monitoring the country's borders with sensors or drones, comes at the hefty price of $2.5 billion. A further $10 billion is budgeted for a new computer system designed to monitor visitors, while outfitting all 6,800 aircraft in US commercial aviation with anti-missile systems will cost about the same amount. The total 2005 Homeland Security budget weighs in at a whopping $50 billion -- roughly equivalent to the gross national product of New Zealand.

Germany’ defense spending has been at or less than 1.5% of GDP for the last several years, and the Schroeder government has made regular cuts in this area of spending since gaining control of parliament. At one point during the Clinton administration, Germany’s level of spending in this area was less than all other NATO member nations with the exception of Luxembourg. By comparison, defense spending in the US has been in excess of 4% for years.

How can Joschka Fischer seriously expect the American government to be enthusiastic about their plans for a permanent seat on the UN "Security" Council?

The German University System

2005-06-06T22:47:00.000-05:00

Germany’s educational system is being hampered by it’s inability to provide top-notch universities. The Times Higher Education Supplement recently published it’s list of the top 50 universities in the world. The top ranked German institution was Heidelberg University, which was ranked 47^th.

Gerhard Schroeder came out with a program designed to institute the development of elite universities in Germany. He seemed to want various existing universities to compete with each other, to begin the process of developing a competitive edge. Of course this set off many alarms with the media and within Schroeder’s SPD. Per a Deutsche Welle story:

Most point out that many German universities are already in shambles owing to a dire lack of funds, overcrowding in lecture halls and poorly equipped libraries and laboratories and that an elite university would only exacerbate the problems. Others point out there’s no tradition in Germany of foundations and endowments such as those that fund American elite universities. The German Research Foundation (DFG) has calculated that at least a €100 million would be needed every year to bring a part of German universities up to top-notch international standards, an impossible feat considering Germany’s poorly-performing economy.

The various student groups also have predictably set up many protests against the institution of even modest tuition fees at university. Students in Berlin actually went on strike to protest possible tuition fees. This is not something likely to happen when the students are paying for the ability to learn at a university. Why does this seem to only happen when a free studies are threatened?

Are Germans in general not willing to invest in their personal futures? It has long been suggested that the German culture is very reluctant to take on debt. DW also reported:

Judith Graff, a fourth year student at the University of Cologne, sees the loan issue from a practical standpoint. Sure, her studies have been prolonged by the fact that she has to work 20 hours a week to make ends meet -- and that's without having had to pay any tuition fees. But she would rather not finish school in debt.

"Everyone knows right now there are no jobs in Germany. How would you pay the loan back?" Graff asked. "If people come out of school with debt then they would hesitate to start a family ... it's a bad cycle.

Getting back to the overall university rankings…The United States, with all of its capitalistic “abuse” of higher education, and all of its outlandish tuition fees absolutely dominates the Times’ top university list. With the top four institutions of higher learning, and seven out of the top ten, the facts are pretty clear that market-based competition in general produces better results. Weather this is based on higher pay for better professors, or better facilities, or simply attracting the best students, really doesn’t matter because all of these market-driven competitive forces clearly produce results.

The conservatives in Germany, who now control 9 of the 16 state governments are more likely to support fee based tuition at the university level. Hopefully the population will come to understand that anything worthwhile requires sacrifice, and is not merely a “hand-out” to be expected and taken for granted.

Holding Out Hope on Iran

2005-06-04T14:05:00.000-05:00

While the European trio of France, Germany and Great Britain have been apparently continuing negotiations with Iran regarding their nuclear ambitions, the news of progress has been quite limited. After all, the EU3 initially began negotiations with Iran in November of 2003, after what the Atomic Energy Agency referred to as a policy of concealment.

These negotiations have resulted in two agreements thus far. In October of 2003, Iran agreed to suspend fuel-cycle related activities at certain sites. Iran has signed, but not enacted this agreement. The question of why does it take so long for ratification was muted by their activities which the EU3 felt violated the spirit of the agreement. This was followed by more negotiations, which led to the November 2004 agreement. Apparently this later agreement essentially improved the language of the first.

As part of these ongoing negotiations, the EU3 also offered what could be termed a “unilateral” carrot by offering to usher Iran’s reinstatement into the World Trade Organization. Iran eventually declared it would end it’s suspension of activities outlined in the 2004 agreement, before reinstating the suspension…around and around we go. The United States, and the Bush Administration has been on the sidelines during all of this diplomacy.

Fast forward to this February…President Bush met Gerhard Schroeder in Mainz where they advertised a unified front; both proclaiming that Iran must not maintain the potential for developing nuclear weaponry. "It's vital that the Iranians hear the world speak with one voice that they shouldn't have a nuclear weapon," Bush said at a news conference with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. "We absolutely agree that Iran must say no to any kind of nuclear weapon," Schroeder said. This sounded like coordinated diplomacy.

The importance of a carrot and stick attitude toward Iran was also highlighted during Bush’s meetings in Mainz. Yesterday, I saw the following headline on Expatica: “Bush won't compromise on Iran nuclear issue.”

The article continued: "Our policy is to prevent them from having the capacity to develop - enrich - uranium to the point where they are able to make a nuclear weapon," Bush told reporters at a news conference in the White House Rose Garden. He said the US recently agreed to allow Iran to apply for membership in the World Trade Organization "to facilitate the EU-3 discussions with Iran".

Given the fact the official US policy prior to the Mainz visit had been one of only sticks; no carrots, why does President Bush continue to get no credit for this compromise? He has acquiesced regarding the carrot that the EU3 had unilaterally offered Iran in 2004, but he will continue to be painted with a certain brush. Can we stop with the Bush-bashing long enough to acknowledge that he has given the trio exactly what they had indicated was absolutely necessary for their final diplomatic resolution (access to the WTO)?

Of course, we look forward to the successful (and peaceful) resolution of this issue.

Where Does Europe Go Now?

2005-06-02T06:39:00.000-05:00

Is the notion of a “United States of Europe” a fool’s dream? As I have said before, the majority of the parliaments of Europe are run by elitists who try to be populists. The French National Assembly and the German Bundestag do not really represent their respective populations. Of course, this is somewhat true in the US as well, but it doesn’t seem to rise to the same level here.

As reported on Deutsche Welle: "I am convinced that we need the constitution if we want a democratic, social-minded and strong Europe," Gerhard Schröder said recently. Perhaps, for whatever reason, the European population is not convinced. The leadership has definitely done a horrible job of explaining the rationale behind ratification. In some respects they treated their populace like they accused George Bush of treating them…unilaterally. Schröder said the ratification process must continue. "The crisis about the ratification of the European constitution cannot become a general crisis about Europe," he said. There was no sound alternative, he added. Was this explained prior to the votes?

Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker indicated that "Europe no longer makes people dream."

This could be a huge part of Europe’s current problem. Europeans seem to be in the same type of funk that we in the US were in during the 1970’s (ie, the malaise of low expectations). A bit of good ol’ fashioned American “can do” could be in order for Europe.

The EU summit in Brussels on June 16^th and 17^th will be very interesting indeed. We will see if the leadership is willing to “look in the mirror.”

France's EU Rejection

2005-05-30T10:31:00.000-05:00

The French rejection of the EU Constitution could be summed up best as a failure to provide much-needed leadership. Jacques Chirac’s penchant for pomp and bluster has been revealed as a bit of a smokescreen. Perhaps the same lack of leadership that resulted in the fissure regarding Iraq is responsible for the results of this referendum. As you recall, Chirac’s version of diplomacy within the EU has amounted to informing dissenting members of “New Europe” to shut up, or sniping at Tony Blair that he was brought up poorly. Granted, President Bush has certainly made his share of diplomatic blunders, but to my knowledge, he has not stooped to the level of name-calling.

David Ignatius writes in today’s Washington Post:

It was a no that resonated on many levels: a rejection of the document and the wider Europe it came to symbolize, a rejection of a market-driven way of life that's taken for granted in America, and above all a rejection of President Jacques Chirac, who tried to trick and cajole France into embracing the realities of the global economy, rather than forthrightly explaining them.

Of course, the ‘non’ camp has been described as a collection of Communists, Troskyites, Socialists, and Far Rightists. What does this say about the majority of the French electorate? Most Europeans seem to have a very academic view of Marxism. Americans choose a more pragmatic view of this system. A dreamer might look at a system that has generally failed in practice, and wonder how that same system would work in theory. Of course, Capitalism has its flaws as well, but we could always compare North Korea and South Korea to gain some perspective on this

Europeans must come to realize that a Global Economy is a fact. Ignatius writes:

Whatever their class, age or political orientation, French people want to conserve what they've got. They want to maintain inflexible management and labor unions, six-week vacations, a 35-hour workweek -- and also to be a growing, dynamic, entrepreneurial economy. Chirac never had the guts to tell the French they couldn't have it both ways. He never explained that rigid labor rules had led to a high unemployment rate, currently 10.2 percent.

Hopefully, Angela Merkel will have the courage to do what Mr. Chirac could not bring himself to do. She must be straight with the German electorate, and tell them that they must change their way of thinking, and she must have the courage to lead an unwilling population to go where they must go (even though they may not want this). Hopefully, Germany will have the courage to be “led” through this process.

The EU Constitution

2005-05-29T09:00:00.000-05:00

The European Union’s impending Constitution showdown is very interesting indeed. Most agree that the document is bulky, hyper-political, and so complex that it’s meaning will be difficult to precisely interpret. However, most logical reviews of this situation also indicate that ratification of the EU Constitution is necessary for the Union’s continued development and economic improvement. There are two main issues that come to the forefront:

First, as George Will indicates in his recent article, the document itself has serious issues…

The proposed constitution has 448 articles -- 441 more than the U.S. Constitution. It is a jumble of pieties, giving canonical status to sentiments such as "the physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen" should be protected. It establishes, among many other rights, a right to "social and housing assistance" sufficient for a "decent existence." Presumably, supranational courts and bureaucracies will define and enforce those rights, as well as the right of children to "express their views fully." And it stipulates that "preventive action should be taken" to protect the environment.

Do the European elites really believe that their rank-and-file public electorates understand this document? Or does it not really matter because the majority of EU citizens will not be afforded the opportunity of a referendum vote such is occurring in France today? The elites in Germany recently adopted the Constitution at the Bundestag level only. If given the opportunity would the social-minded Germans react any differently than the French Socialists? Will Continues:

The European Union, which has a flag no one salutes and an anthem no one knows, now seeks ratification of a constitution few have read. Surely only its authors have read its turgid earnestness without laughing, which is one reason why the European project is foundering. Today in France, and Wednesday in the Netherlands, Europe's elites -- political, commercial and media -- may learn the limits of their ability to impose their political fetishes on restive and rarely consulted publics.

Of course the other main issue is one of the European public’s inability to administer itself some much-needed medicine. Will correctly notes that the European process has come this far by largely bypassing democracy.

Many French voters will use today's referendum to vent grievances against Jacques Chirac, who has been in power for 10 years, which would be excessive even if he were not overbearing. Some French factions, their normal obstreperousness leavened by paranoia, think the constitution is a conspiracy to use "ultraliberalism" -- free markets -- to destroy their "social model." That is the suffocating web of labor laws and other statism that gives France double-digit unemployment -- a staggering 22 percent of those under age 25.

The far-reaching social entitlements system in Europe is stifling the collective economy, but the general public seems unwilling to make the necessary reductions to this system. Again, this is a difficult pill to swallow if you are accustomed to these full benefits. The Euro-Elites are also paying the price of their very existence right now. The governments of western Europe have not kept up with their ever-changing populations.

Furthermore, with a Muslim presence in France of 8 percent and rising, there is a backlash against Chirac's championing of E.U. membership for Turkey, which would be, by the time it joined, by far the most populous E.U. country. Admission of Turkey would further reduce -- more than did last year's admission of 10 nations, eight in Eastern Europe -- the European Union's output per person, which according to one study already ranks below that of 46 American states.

This is of course in part, the point… With a 8% Muslim population in France, I believe that there are approximately zero Muslim members of the National Assembly. With a 2% Turkish population in Germany, I believe there is approximately one Turkish member of the Bundestag.

The Newsweek Debacle

2005-05-17T22:37:00.000-05:00

<>Newsweek finally retracted their Qu’ran flushing story yesterday afternoon. This came after refusing to retract the story earlier in the day. Of course the entire process of damage control is in high gear. Clearly, Newsweek is treading that fine line of being just remorseful enough, but not totally copping to the realities of their anti-Bush bent.

I understand that Michael Isikoff has even offered up that he would be willing to resign over this issue. Problem is…apparently the parent company would not accept his resignation because they obviously don’t really think that journalistic standards have been abused in this story.

How biased must the overall organization be when the original story famously quoted that “sources tell Newsweek" that "interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qu'ran down a toilet. . . .” How badly must the organization have wanted this story to be true to characterize the so-called story in this way? Newsweek now admits that not only was there only one “source,” but that the anonymous pentagon source essentially “thought” he remembered reading a report that had indicted testimony of the flushing incident. Apparently Newsweek did not bother to request a copy of (or proof of its existence) this pentagon report. How can the parent company deem that this constitutes proper sourcing of the main crux of this story?

It should not be unreasonable for a "free-thinking" journalist to question the obvious logical lapses in the entire premise of this story. It is widely known that the US military in Gauntanamo Bay have reportedly been extremely respectful of the prisoners' religious requirements, from diet to time to pray, etc... Would a college-educated journalist not even bother to wonder about the logistics of actually flushing a book down the toilet - even if in pieces? I'm not sure what the water-saving measures are in Cuba, but here in the US our toiltets use a scant 1.6 gallons per flush. I have personally had great difficulties getting things much smaller than the Qu'ran to actually to down... Not sure if it's even possible, but certainly worth questioning.

The print media is largely responsible for the growth of anti-Americanism in may parts of the world. Luckily, we in the US are now getting a balance of news reporting via cable television and the Internet. Unfortulately, Europe as a whole, largely depends on the print media for its source of news. The bias there is pervasive in all of the media; from Paris to Berlin.

Finally, why does this sort of story seem to constantly end in rioting? Don't know, but it's always something!!!!

Capitalism Debate in Europe

2005-05-15T15:16:00.000-05:00

There is currently a big debate in Europe about the merits of capitalism. In particular, Deutsche Welle has reported that Franz Muntefering, of the Germany’s ruling SDP party, recently made reference to international investors as “locusts.” This of course brings up several questions regarding not only the validity of these statements, but perhaps the timing as well.

Could this be just another case of “Blame America First” by the Germans? We all know that when used in a derogatory tone, the term “capitalist” is code for American companies whom invest in Germany. This is done as some sort of camouflage / smokescreen to the real ills of the German economy. The politicians in Germany know precisely what the real ales are, but they are too gutless to address them. The social entitlements in Germany, combined with poor domestic consumerism and low birthrates are choking out their vaunted entitlements system.

We don’t see an ongoing debate among Germans about the ills of their socialist system. This is because the Herr Schroeder cannot get re-elected by speaking these truths. He has been half-heartedly trying for a couple of years to institute structural reforms. However, an unmotivated electorate that is far too accustomed to social handouts make it impossible for these much-needed changes to be implemented. In my opinion, Germany today is enduring a malaise of low expectations similar to that of America in the late 1970s. What is desperately needed is the adoption of business-friendly tax reforms so that domestic investment can stimulate the overall situation.

Does the timing of this debate have anything to do with lagging poll results for the current coalition government? We all remember how an infusion of good old Anti-American rhetoric drove the current government to re-election in 2002.

Germany…Stop looking for scapegoats and make the necessary reforms that everyone knows are way overdue!