xawery

I know you said (wrote) that Albert, but I just cannot join you in your conviction that women in those regions do not view their roles in society as passive. Sure, in well-developed urban centres perhaps, but those hardly contain the majority of the population in those regions. Anyway, this gets down to semantics mostly, so let's move on. Here's a rather interesting article by Aleksander Smolar on the issues Europe will be faced with should Kerry be elected. Quite an interesting read, especially as it doesn't appear to be written in the trenches.

Hmm that's not the poll I am referring to - the study I meant looked at the people's stance on Buttiglione's ideas, not on the man himself. I'll try digging it up, kind of hard to make my point without any solid base. Incidentally (and this is directed at Albert's post), do remember that Buttiglione's ideas went further then just homosexuality - they also included women's position in society etc. Also, please note that the results of the study pointed towards the south-eastern belt of the new EU, which (traditionally) has more conservative views on the role of the family than us northern libruhls. Now before someone strikes me down for generalising: I'm consciously simplifing matters somewhat to make my point.

Yes, you can have your opinion and he can have his. The common thing however is that neither of you is representative for Europe and hence not an acceptable choice for the role as a commissioner for justice and human rights. And here lies the rub, I'm afraid. According to a study (which I don't have a link to, saw it on tv) Buttiglione's views are in line with the views of a majority of EU citizens from all over East- and South-Europe. This presents us with a dillemma - should we do what is right (ensuring that there is no gender- or sexual preference-discrimination), or what the majority wants? Of course technically speaking the majority has had its chance to speak out when voting for the Europarliament, but that's beyond the point here. What we have here, is a commissioner in-spe, who has been rejected due the incompatibility of his beliefs with his proposed portfolio, while the majority of the EU citizens appears to hold the same beliefs. What do you think of them apples? I have a clear view on this matter, but I'm asking this question because this issue has sparked some rather heated discussions here in the Netherlands.

Nope, because he wouldn't say he thought homosexuality was a sin, simply because there is no such thing as 'sin' for an atheist. If, under the above scenario, he would say he thought homsexuality was wrong , he certainly wouldn't fit this portfolio either. It's not about religion, but about wrong beliefs. Because yes, condemning homosexuality as a 'sin' is a wrong belief. And if that belief happens to stem from one's religion, well, it says all the more about the religion, doesn't it? And please stop acting like the poor, innocent catholics are being the subject of 'discrimination'... because it smacks of hipocrisy. How can any system of belief that holds discriminatory views at its core even DARE claim that. Back on topic. While I'm no fan of Neelie Croes, the Dutch woman who was supposed to receive the post of competition commissioner, Denoir's statement about her is incorrect. The EP had doubts not about her competence, but about her impartiality - as competition commissioner, she would oversee the activities of the companies she had worked at in the past. It was clear even before the hearings that this would be a cause of concern for the EP, but Croes stood her ground during the hearings quite well. Now that the whole line-up is being withdrawn, all of the 'offending' would-be commissioners might as well be discarded/reshuffled.

Bollocks. How can someone who openly says he believes homosexuality to be a sin be entrusted with the portfolio of, amongst others, anti-discrimination? That doesn't mean Buttiglione isn't a capable politician though. Just give the man another portfolio. It has been said before, but obviously not often enough: KEEP RELIGION OUT OF POLITICS.

Really? Being myopic and refusing to acknowledge facts which may affect you later on in return for short-term comfort is what constitutes being and idiot... at least in my books. I'm sorry, but ignorance is not less grievous if voluntary. Quite the contrary. Anyway, my final post for the time being! I think I'll just wait till a nice heap o' responses piles up and answer them all in bulk

Indeed, seeing as the report which sparked my disgust showed that it was Bush supporters who displayed the most blatant lack of knowledge about their candidate. Also, my dislike of Mr. Bush has never been a matter of secrecy. In this case however, I feel that the problem is much more widespread. I don't think it's 'the Bush supports' who are ignorant, but that part of the electorate as such. Connecting their ignorance to Mr. Bush is giving him too much credit. I feel that this ignorance is the result of a process of disinforming which has been around for longer than just the past four years.

Not really, as I was referring to ignorance in general. As you can see in my edited post, I changed 'Bush' to 'someone' before I saw your reply. Can't be partisan when I'm being cynical, now can I?

Heheh... that's the report I referred (and linked) to earlier. How's that for "passionate, vibrant and dynamic" politics? People are, on the whole, idiots. As long as they are prepared to vote for someone "because he looks like a nice guy", why bother with such details as the candidate's actual program? This really gets to me. Here we have the world's mightiest country: an 'empire in denial', to quote Niall Ferguson. This behemoth is only a week removed from elections, elections which may truly decide the shape of our world. And what does the electorate know? BUGGER ALL. Time to get cynical...

It's kind of ironic how you manage to speak out against stereotypes in one sentence, and claim that by liking a 'nice baptist Kentucky family' you like all Americans in another. I quite agree with you though. While in the short run it might be beneficial for European unity to have a crap US president, these benefits are completely offset by the damage four more years of a re-invigorated TBA will do to the world as a whole. Also, look at it this way: if it takes a moron in DC to forge EU unity, then I'm not certain that's the kind of unity I want. Up until now, the EU's growth has been based on the notion of making something better out of Europe, after centuries of intermittent war, hatred and suffering. I wouldn't like the further growth of our Union to be based on something as flimsy and fleeting as the poor administration of a country which obviously is not our enemy.

Yes, it's quite a nice article, but there is more to this issue. As I said, I originally found this article on the opinion pages of my newspaper. Being one of the last bastions of decent journalism that it is, my paper also published another article on this topic right beneath the one I posted here, where the exact opposite point of view was being argued. To be quite frank I found the second article to be more convincing. Sadly, it is in Dutch and I really can't be arsed to translate it:)

I found this article reprinted on the opinion pages of my newspaper. Quite an interesting read, despite some quirky simplifications. I think especially Denoir might find this article interesting, as its contents coincide with the ideas he has espoused on this forum in the past. Why Europe Needs — And Wants — Bush to Win

Denoir wrote: I certainly agree with you that people taking an active interest in politics is beneficial; it's the fundament of the concept of democracy. The point is however that oversimplifying the issues and deliberately seeking conflict for the sake of controversy and exposure is not the way to do it. By doing so you don't evoke an active interest in politics among the masses; rather, you degrade politics to a soap-opera level which happens to suit the interests of the masses. You achieve the complete opposite of what you set out to bring about. Again, I agree with you, but you appear to assume that there is a positive correlation between "passionate, vibrant, dynamic" politics and a well-informed electorate. I can only find evidence to the contrary (vide the PIPA report). What is more, the example you give of the Swedish EMU vote supports my claim - it was the xenophobic populists who used "exciting, oversimplified" politicking to reach their goals. Aye, and I think we are reaching common ground here - we both agree that what each democracy needs is an active and well-informed electorate. I just don't think that oversimplifying and polarising is going to achieve that. You mention "a healthy dosage of polarisation and debate". This actually made me smile - it's like saying that a country needs "just enough government". What is a "healthy dosage", what is "just enough"? That's the whole purpose of the discussion. It is obvious that neither complete polarisation nor complete apathy of the electorate will do a country good - it's a matter of striking a balance.

I beg to differ on this matter. The fact that politics are fun to watch is caused by factors which have quite a detrimental effect on actual policymaking. I'll highlight the one that annoys me most: Lack of nuance. To make politics 'exciting' and 'easy to consume' for the broader audience politicians resort to sound bites, short slogans and oversimplification. That's a poor substitute for substance. Sure, politicans can say one (oversimplified) thing when on campaign and then do another (perhaps better fitting but more opaque) when actually in office, but this only creates the image of the lying politician, because he "didn't deliver on his promises". Politics and policy making are inherently dull to those who do not happen to be interested in or knowledgeable about the subject of discussion. Simplification and stratification just so as to make it more 'dynamic and entertaining' is NOT a good thing. Example - one would conclude that since the American way of conducting politics is more passionate and dynamic it would get more people involved in politics and the issues at hand. Sadly, this report by PIPA (which might have already been mentioned by someone) clearly shows that people have no idea at all what their preferred candidate's ideas actually are... I've had my share of 'exciting and dynamic' politics here in the Netherlands. Pim Fortuyn's ascent and death caused a paradigm shift in Dutch politics. Suddenly every political party decided that it MUST pamper the whims of the 'common man'. This resulted in the worst bout of populism I have ever witnessed in Dutch politics. Superior politicians were replaced by better looking, younger people. The elections that followed were really embarrassing, at least by my standards - there were moments where the discussion was clearly about the man/woman, not the ideas his/her party stands for. Disgusting. Let politics be boring and the discussion inoffensive, as long as it results in sound policy. Polarisation of views has rarely led to that. 'Exciting' politics sure are 'fun', but they can stay on the other side of the pond. Here at home, I'd much rather have politicians who care about what's good for the country, and not what will catch the attention of joe average. /edit: rephrased sentence to remove ambiguity

Hmm, although this thingy suffers from chronic cuteness and fit-inducing usage of English, I have to say it's pretty damn accurate.

"Reviving mineral water"? Sounds a bit tree-huggish to me:P Incidentally, the Black Label Society have made an album called Hangover Music Vol. 4... I can't say they delivered on that promise, I would rather call it migraine-enhancing. Anyway, isn't it curious how a topic about quitting bad habits has turned into a thread on how to nurtute bad habits & survive?

Obviously, there is no concrete border between tipsy and drunk. However, you will know you're drunk when you're drunk:P Personally, I try to avoid getting drunk as much as possible. It slows down your thinking, seriously impedes your speech, and, well, coordinated movements aren't exactly easy either. It's hard to debate the existence of reality or charm a girl with your bon mots when your tongue feels as if its mass has increased by 200%. Thus, my message to everyone out there is simple: drink moderately! Moderation is the key to everything:) PS: Alcohol combined with 'sad' music can be a perfect source of inspiration. Or suicidal tendencies. Whichever comes first.

Ah, the obligatory addictive substances thread. Whenever it rears its aching head (hungover, obviously;))hot disputes arise:) No extreme is beneficial. Binging and abstinence are equally as harmful. The former makes you a bungling moron and the latter a moralistic tightass who feels obliged to express his disdain for those who drink at every occasion. I know because I've been both Until my 15th, 16th year I was extremely wary of alcohol and sneered at my peers who got slaughtered drinking apple wine and similar 'economic' drinks. After my sixteenth birthday I discovered the fun part of alcohol and started drinking fairly excessively, to the point of not remembering what exactly had transpired the previous evening (this has resulted in quite humorous situations, I can tell you;)). Alcohol certainly lifts some barriers and I doubt the mini-orgies I have participated in would have come about had we all been completely sober At a certain moment (18, 19) I grew weary of this pattern. My income also improved and I was able to afford better alcohol. I now only drink and smoke for the taste. Drinking hectolitres of whisky and smoking one cigar after another is simply a waste of good products and doesn't do them justice at all. Getting tipsy or drunk is only a byproduct, albeit quite a pleasant one. That's the way it's supposed to be. Oh, and to all you holier-than-thou abstinents out there: do you actually think that pertinently refusing alcohol is discipline? It's not. It's fear, fear of what have you, god, parents, society, pleasure... True discipline is having these potentially dangerous substances at your disposal, within your reach, and not abusing them. That's exactly what Bernadotte was talking about: if you remove all cigarattes within a 1 km radius (so to speak;) it's an 'easy' victory. True discipline is to refuse something when accepting is actually an option. Just to pre-emptively undermine the obvious accusation: I am not encouraging anyone to smoke, drink or whatever. I do however believe that bereaving oneself of an experience and consequently claiming the right to speak of this experience with authority reeks of arrogance. edit: tenses and typo's

Then why did they get a bigger tax cut then all the other brackets? Because they pay more than other families. This is illogical. First you say that 'the rich' pay more tax, implicitly according to the concept of 'stronger shoulders bearing more burden'. Then you throw that concept out of the window by saying that we should give them more money back because they paid more in the first place. Let's look facts in the face: it's the rich getting richer, the middle class getting poorer, and the poor... well, hell, they're poor, so just screw them, right? Probably their own fault, damn lay-abouts... I would really like to see how Bush would fare in 'real life', i.e. without a family fortune to rely on.

Godwin's Law, anyone?

On the contrary. Most EU countries have governments that are quite well-disposed towards the US. But this is changing. The general population of Europe was against the war in Iraq. The governments that pushed on with the war are/will be punished in the next election. Just look at Spain. Aznar cum suis would have been deposed even without the Madrid attacks. As it happens, the new government is much more well-disposed towards increased EU cooperation. You say that over the past decades, some parties consistently disliked the (republican) US while other parties had close ties with them. This is also changing. Just take a look at the relationship between the British Tories and the Republicans. Historically the closest of allies, Thatcher and Reagan serve as the best example. But now? Iraq has driven these allias apart, and Karl Rove even angrily told the Tories that Michael Howard wouldn't be welcome in the White House. This naturally prompted an angry response from the Tories. In other words: the status quo is being shaken up. I don't doubt that these plans have existed for decades, but it is the cooler relationship with the US and thus with NATO that has enabled the EU to actually put these plans into motion. I'm not saying that if Bush remains in the presidential seat the EU will magically put aside all differences and, as if at the touch of a magic wand, will turn into a warm 'n' cosy federation. I do however feel that a prolongation of Bush's irresponsible and ostensibly damaging policies will nudge the EU towards closer cooperation. They may seem 'wired' to you, but they are based on fact, not opinion. US recovery has mostly been a jobless one, and it rides on the back of immense fiscal and monetary stimuli, as well as rate cuts. This in turn has resulted in a structural budget deficit of 5% of GDP, almost three times as high as the whole euro area. The US also 'enjoys' a current-account deficit of 5%, while the euro area has a surplus. That's why the expensive euro is in fact harmful for the euro area: we export more than we import. Similarly, the US growth figures are greatly exaggerated. For example, it is said that the US GDP grew by 5%, while the GDP of the euro area lagged behind with a mere 2.1%. This measurement, however, is unfair, simply because the US population is growing at a much higher rate. The only truly fair measurement of performance, GDP per capita, has increased at a rate of 2.1% and 1.8%, respectively. Quite a difference, I would say. Also, US statisticians calculate GDP differently. For example, money spent on software is counted as an investment, and thus contributes to GDP. In the euro area, this is seen as a current expense and is thus excluded from the calculations of final output. There are many more examples of such statistical differences which, when aggregated, inflate the growth of the US. There are other similar issues that escape the eye of the casual on-looker. I suggest reading the Economist's report on EU and US figures. It can be found in the june 17th edition.

Hmm, the Boston Globe doesn't look like the bullhorn of right-wing propaganda to me, and an article in the Boston Globe of states It is also mentioned in the wikipedia article on John Kerry, and so far, wikipedia political entries have been rather levelheaded.

You know that thing inside your head that keeps banging around? Thats your brain. Use it. Kerry volunteered for river boats that were indeed on the front line. Last time I checked there weren't too many river boats in Fallujah and Najaf. I have to add a small remark to this statement: Kerry volunteered for the river boats because up until then, they were merely used for patrolling, not aggressive action. He stated himself that he did not want to get involved in actual fighting. Entirely normal when one considers the fact that Kerry opposed the war from the start; I wouldn't want to get involved in something I didn't believe in either. But, as it happened, by the time Kerry became commander of the two swiftboats, Operation SEALORD had been launched by admiral Elmo Zumwalt. This operation included an aggressive presence of patrol boats in VC-dominated territory, hence Kerry's combat experience. On a different note, I agree with Denoir: four more years of Bush would be disastrous for the US, but quite beneficial for the EU. First of all, it would loosen the already shoddy atlantic ties, thus allowing for more bold European-centered action. Take, for example, the creation of the European Gendarmerie Force or the EU-battlegroups. A sign of European-level cooperation that would have been rather unlikely until recently. Of course, the majority of the politicians involved are shitting their trousers in fear of upsetting the NATO, but it's a first step. Until recently, any supra-national military units outside the NATO would have been unthinkable. Second, the economy. The EU is obviously becoming a better place to invest in at the expense of the US. The strengthening Euro isn't that much of a blessing though: it makes our exports more expensive and thus makes the EU less competitive. Also, do not forget that the US is a major market and a source of income of many EU companies. A weaker dollar means worse results. Still, a more robust banking system and a population that does not believe in spending money before actually having earned it (have you ever seen a SINGLE debit card in the US?) are things to be satisified with. In other words, I am not too worried about the continents drifting further apart. That's also why Bush getting elected in the first place didn't worry me much: not the sharpest tool in the shed, but at least he's planning on adopting an introvert policy. Sadly, things didn't work out...

I think you may be confusing two concepts, Apollo: ideologies and ideals. Ideologies are paradigms, frames of thinking one imposes onto each problem one is faced with. The doctrine of ideologies assumes that ideologies (to generalise: left- and right-wing ideologies) both have solutions for all possible problems. It also assumes that the solutions of both ideologies (to continue with our simplification) are equally as viable, and only differ in whose interests they champion (left: the working class, right: the middle and upper class). As my usage of 19th/20th century class-terminology clearly shows, this mode of thinking is completely outdated. Yet, it still characterises most political systems. Parties still think in terms of a one-dimensional political spectrum. Needless to say, this does not work. This way of thinking results in impragmatic solutions, guided by pre-established beliefs. It disregards the simple fact that real-life situations are far more complex and require a pragmatic, contingent approach. That's why ideals are better guidelines than ideologies. Ideals simply dictate what one wants to achieve. How does one achieve it? That depends on the situation. In my eyes, this is the only way to govern in a sensible way. Naturally, this approach to politics is unappealing to the masses. Let's be quite frank: masses do not appreciate nuance. They do not appreciate complexity. They want clear-cut, black-and-white thinking. They believe it to be a sign of resolve, of powerful leadership, while in fact it is nothing more than the inability to see the world for the complex entity that it is. Oversimplification is not a sign of strength, it's a sign of limited cognitive capacity. But that's what the masses prefer. There are studies showing that intelligence is not a trait appreciated by the electorate. The average voter wants to be able to relate to his president, and the average voter isn't that intelligent. To quote the NRC: as long as "who would you like to have a beer with?" is the prime criterion of the people, Bush is going to win. The sad thing is, it is.

This kind of logic would eliminate Gore as a candidate also. The man was positively a textbook example of a person who has had "leadership courses". You know what I mean, those horrible 'workshops' management consultants make such disgusting large sums of money with;)