Good Luck President Obama

It's only few minutes to the inauguration and still it's dark and miserable here. I was sure His Obamaness was going to change all that so that Ireland could be the new Santa Barbara. Did not the people of Ireland prove worthy supplicants? Oh the anguish that we should not find favor.

And the young Americans too. Are they cold today? From what I understand every kid who ever owned a cabbage patch doll is on the streets of Washington at this moment. {There was something mind-controlling about that toy and it's evident today more than ever.} Did they too prove unworthy of him?

Okay, okay. I know that there are a lot of people whose views are similar to mine who are mocking the hype surrounding the new President. I can't say I'm excited, but this is always an interesting day. Maybe not as interesting as when Jefferson took over from Adams - peaceful transfer of power from one party to the other - or when Lincoln took over just 5 weeks before the Confederates opened up on Fort Sumter, but nonetheless the ceremony is good viewing and the change today is worthy of a large audience.

I wish him well, especially as long as he does what I want done! Good luck President Obama.

Should the Boss retire?

If a tree falls in the woods and you're a middle-aged man wearing ear muffs inside a large house, will you hear the noise?

You can listen to Bruce Springsteen's new album here.

I listened to Bruce's new album and my oh my is it boring. I know I was down on Magic, but this one's worse. There are at least 5 very dull songs on the album: My Lucky Day, What Love Can Do, Tomorrow Never Knows, Kingdom Of Days, & Surprise Surprise. This Life Is is worse than bland. I think it's supposed to be meaningful, but it's vaguely nothing.

No song on this album is as good Devil's Arcade from the last. The Wrestler is the best offering here, but I sort of didn't mind: Outlaw Pete, Working on a Dream, Queen of the Supermarket, Life Itself (got the free download) & The Last Carnival.

America's still involved in wars in the Middle East & central Asia, but that doesn't seem to have inspired Bruce. The world's economy is falling apart, but that doesn't seem to have inspired Bruce. There's a young man taking over in Washington (for whom Bruce campaigned) and that doesn't seem to have inspired Bruce. It's as if he's just too married, too middle-aged, too contented to write great songs these days.

What would you do if you're on a plane that's about to crash?

I like how this NY Times article starts.

Some passengers screamed, others tucked their heads between their knees, and several prayed over and over, "Lord, forgive me for my sins." But a man named Josh who was sitting in the exit row did exactly what everyone is supposed to but few ever do: He pulled out the safety card and read the instructions on how to open the exit door.

… Then Josh stood up. "Someone tried to pull the door in," another passenger recalled, "and he said, 'No, you've got to throw it out.' He twisted it and threw it out.'"

Here's this guy who must have wondered if he was living his last moments, but instead of being pessimistic he grabs the safety card and starts reading. It's a great image.

Closing Guantanamo - within the first Four Years

I wonder how Europeans will interpret this:

In a wide-ranging 70-minute interview with Washington Post reporters and editors, the president-elect pledged quick action on the Middle East once he takes office, promised to support voting rights for D.C. residents, and said he will consider it a failure if he has not closed the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the end of his first term in office.

There are people around these parts who are expecting Guantanamo will be closed by Tuesday evening.

The Mets' new home

I can't stop laughing after reading my favorite Mets blog today. Shea Stadium is gone and the Mets' new home will (still?) be called CitiField. Citi with an 'i' because it's sponsored by Citibank. You know, yeah, that Citibank.

Anyway, Steve over at The Eddie Kranepool Society has been calling the new stadium Bailout Park for a few months. But today, I see he's renamed it Paupers Field, which is an all too realistic acknowledgment of the deterioration in Citibank's position since the fall.

"Social Inclusion Consultant"

The Limerick Southside & Northside Regeneration Agencies are seeking bids (not sure the link will work for everyone) from interested parties to be included on a "Panel for Social Inclusion Consultants". In order to be considered for the panel the potential panelist must (a) have a tax clearance certificate {fair enough} and (b) "provide evidence of turnover of €50,000 in the last financial year".

Pardon? Come again? In order to be a "Social Inclusion Consultant" you have to be grossing €50K? Isn't that a bit, I don't know, exclusive?

We need new leadership

A year ago we still harbored hopes that the economy would come down gradually and not-too-painfully; that we'd get a 'soft landing'. Well, that now seems out of reach. Who do we need to help us now.

Well, someone with a background is this sort of thing. An expert. Perhaps someone who is Visiting Scholar at Berkeley's Center for Catastrophic Risk Management? Someone with a bit of experience of keeping calm, keeping cool and properly managing crashes.

Chesley B. Sullenburger III for Taoiseach.

Crisis of Governance

I was listening to Joe Higgins on Pat Kenny's show this morning. The discussion was about Anglo-Irish Bank and Joe said that this was a Crisis of Capitalism.

Now, Joe's not alone putting this idea about. Yet, the problems at Anglo-Irish and to a lesser extent (so far) at the other banks actually say more about the ability of the state to do its job than it says about the people in charge of the banks. What has the current crisis told us about the people running banks? Well, some of them are incredibly greedy and some of them are incredibly inept and in many cases the two groups overlap.

Okay, maybe it's a bit of a revelation that so many of the people in charge of the banks are inept, but that many are greedy can hardly be an eye-opener for anyone. But, still, the primary revelation is that the state and its agents are incapable of providing the oversight that we as taxpayers, bank customers and investors assumed they were providing. The real crisis is in governance, not in capitalism.

The failure of the state to ensure that our banks were were not taking excessive risks and were operating transparently calls into question the very idea that Ireland can be an independent state with regards to banking and finance. Why this should be so is, I believe, due to the fact that Ireland is just too small.

Ireland is too small to find the people who are willing to get in the faces and ask the hard, searching questions of those who run the banks, to undertake the kind of audit that would uncover both unethical loans to chairmen & directors, but also have the nerve and the authority to lay down the law when they see that a bank is taking excessive risks.

Is Ireland too small to find sufficiently capable people to oversee our banks and financial services industry? Well, maybe it is, but I think there's more to it than that. Ireland is too small in that there are too many links between the people who run the banks and those who are responsible for overseeing the banks.

Some of what I'm getting at was mentioned by Michael Casey before Christmas.

Close relationships between regulators and banks - difficult to avoid in a small country - will have to be ended. It is not being suggested here that the Irish system suffers from "regulatory capture", but the long-standing practice of former governors and senior regulators joining the boards of banks on their retirement should be stopped.

But, it's more than that. This is a small country and seeing as the banks and regulators are all based in Dublin, it's even smaller. The bankers may play golf where the regulators play golf, they may have shared friendships, their spouses may know one another, their children may attend the same schools, play in the same rugby clubs, etc. That makes it more difficult for a regulator to come down hard on a banker if it's going to cause tension in the home life. It's just too small, too cozy here.

So, what's to be done? Well, there are two options to try to get around this problem. One, outsource our regulation. Just give up the very idea that we should have our own banks and our own banking oversight. I've often heard that people from abroad wouldn't understand the Irish market the way the locals do, but based on what we're experiencing now that might not be a bad thing.

But, if we must maintain our own banks and regulations, at the very least the central bank and financial regulator need to be moved. They should be sent to Sligo (or wherever) so that the potential for family life inconvenience is mitigated. The regulators can do their job just as well from outside Dublin as they can from here. Move them all, lock, stock & barrel to Sligo or Tralee or wherever it's distant enough so that there's less chance for an overlap among family and friends. We need regulators who are not afraid to regulate.

I bought a few shares of Anglo last night

No, not on the market, but as a taxpayer. The Brians decided that I (& the rest of you suckers taxpayers) would like to own a piece of Anglo-Irish bank.

I'm pretty sure I heard Joan Burton this morning insist that the government tell us the names of those who owe the bank. That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Now that we own the bank surely we should be told the gory details. I'm assuming that those who executed the transaction on our behalf already know the details, but I see no reason for them to keep it a secret. Let's have the names of those who owe large sums to Anglo-Irish. What harm can it do? And, it's not prurient for us to want to know who owes us money. I would never lend money to someone without at least getting their name first. So, who owes me (all of us)?

More support for Israel?

This article from the Christian Science Monitor is a week old, but even allowing for the passing of 7 days the thrust of this article caused me to do a double take. Basically Europe is less pro-Palestinian now than it was previously.

"There is a general 'Arab fatigue' in Europe," says Denis Bauchard, an adviser to the French Institute for International Relations in Paris. "The Palestine issue continues, the violence continues, the Palestinians are divided, and it just creates a kind of fatigue."

"Europe fears an Islamist threat, whether internal or external, and this has begun to change the overall views on the Israel-Palestine conflict," says Aude Signoles, an expert on Palestinian movements at the University of La Réunion in Madagascar.

The article is more about general trends and cites the Pew polls in France & Germany as evidence. I wonder if what's happening in Gaza will have any long term impact on these trends.

As for Ireland, even prior to the recent military actions in Gaza I hadn't sensed any change in attitudes here with regards to the Israelis & Palestinians. And, based on what I hear and read here I think it's pretty likely that anti-Israel attitudes have hardened here since the end of December.

I guess I have to row back

Today's Irish Times seems to have no anti-Israel column and, in fact, has one that is outright supportive of Israel. A second column by Irshad Manji is not so much pro-Israeli as anti-Hamas.

Then there's Tom Clonan's analysis on the behavior of both the IDF and Hamas. I have to admit that I often find Clonan annoying, but that's because I generally have no answer to some of the the things he writes that make me uncomfortable.

For example:

It appears that the IDF is using the full spectrum of its conventional combat capabilities indiscriminately. Under the terms of the Geneva Conventions, the use of such weapons systems in this manner among civilian population centres is interpreted as "indiscriminate". In other words, the IDF can legitimately be accused of "wanton destruction" and "wilful killing" within Gaza.

Specifically, IDF attacks in recent days are in direct contravention of protocol one, article 51, sections four and 5a of the Geneva Conventions. They prohibit the use of weapons systems, or a "method of attack that cannot be directed at or limited to a specific military objective" or "where there is a concentration of civilians or civilian objects".

The Geneva Conventions proscribe such attacks in urban environments where civilians reside and state that, when an attack "could cause incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects, then the attack must be called off".

Given the ongoing loss of civilian life in Gaza, the IDF and Israeli government would appear to be legally bound to heed immediately the UN Security Council resolution requirement to halt the offensive.

I've often wondered if the Geneva Conventions have any real application against an enemy that will deliberately endanger his own children – "Hamas has also been shown to be launching rockets from the environs of schools, mosques and other civilian locales" – but such actions make me uncomfortable, as I said.

How much easier it is to live in Ireland rather than Israel.

Must take Hamas seriously

Jeffrey Goldberg's column in today's NY Times is tremendous. Goldberg argues that Israel cannot make peace with Hamas.

Periodically, advocates of negotiation suggest that the hostility toward Jews expressed by Hamas is somehow mutable. But in years of listening, I haven't heard much to suggest that its anti-Semitism is insincere. Like Hezbollah, Hamas believes that God is opposed to a Jewish state in Palestine. Both groups are rhetorically pitiless, though, again, Hamas sometimes appears to follow the lead of Hezbollah.

… I asked him the question I always ask of Hamas leaders: Could you agree to anything more than a tactical cease-fire with Israel? I felt slightly ridiculous asking: A man who believes that God every now and again transforms Jews into pigs and apes might not be the most obvious candidate for peace talks at Camp David. Mr. Rayyan answered the question as I thought he would, saying that a long-term cease-fire would be unnecessary, because it will not take long for the forces of Islam to eradicate Israel.

I heard a spokesman for the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign on the radio yesterday dismiss the very notion that Hamas was committed to the destruction of Israel. I was dying to ask him what evidence he had that Hamas is not committed to that goal? Jeffrey Goldberg has at least gone in search of such evidence and not found it.

Goldberg sums up the difficulty of Israel's position.

There is a fixed idea among some Israeli leaders that Hamas can be bombed into moderation. This is a false and dangerous notion. It is true that Hamas can be deterred militarily for a time, but tanks cannot defeat deeply felt belief.

The reverse is also true: Hamas cannot be cajoled into moderation. Neither position credits Hamas with sincerity, or seriousness.

Vincent Browne - channeling Ahmadinejad

This may be an exaggeration, but basically there's a column a day damning Israel in the Irish Times. Today's is by Vincent Browne, who starts out negative but eventually gets to the nub of his problem with Israel: it shouldn't exist in the first place.

The UN's role in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict has been inglorious from the outset.

Indeed, it was the UN that played a large part in igniting the conflict at the outset by calling for the partition of Palestine and the creation of Jewish and Arab states, without any regard to the wishes of the people of Palestine.

At the time, Arabs constituted more than two-thirds of the population of 1.78 million.

The state of Israel was declared on May 14th, 1948. There followed a war, during which 700,000 Arabs were driven or fled from their homes.

More than three-quarters of the territory of Palestine was incorporated into the new state of Israel.

The international community was guilt-ridden by the then recent revelation of the Holocaust and its appreciation of its complicity in the pogroms against Jews over the centuries. The infliction of another historic injustice, this time on the Palestinian Arabs, was the means whereby that guilt was idly assuaged.

That monstrous injustice lies at the heart of the conflict in the Middle East since then.

The refusal of the international community to acknowledge the origins of the state of Israel is the obstacle to a resolution of the conflict.

A large proportion of the 1.7 million people trapped and besieged in Gaza are refugees or descendants of refugees from 1948. Is it any wonder Hamas refuses to recognise the state of Israel? Is it any wonder many Palestinians and others in the Middle East are committed to the destruction of a state that was founded on such wrongs?

If you don't believe Israel has a right to exist in the first place then that's that. No point discussing Israel's 'right' to self defense and how they should exercise that right.

I can't claim to be an expert on the founding of Israel, but I believe Israel has a right to exist. I remember reading this years ago and thought it sounded reasonable on Israel's right to exist. Fr. Flannery makes his case better than Browne makes his.

You want to read something that'll put a chill up your spine?

Read David McWilliams's column this morning.

When this borrowing splurge stopped abruptly last year because the credit markets shut down, the Government was faced with the choice: does it allow the banks to collapse because they were so borrowed that they couldn't finance themselves or does it guarantee the banks, buy time and see whether it can put a plan B in place? Had the Government allowed banks to go bust in October, there would have been a run on the other banks, leading to a collapse of the system and we would have been "Iceland inside the euro".

But amazingly it didn't put plan B into action, it never came up with a plan B and now the banks are again in dire straits. Although the guarantee means that they might not default, their delinquency has contaminated the sovereign debt and now the market thinks that the banks will bring the State down with them.

Consider the position of Anglo. If Anglo goes bust, because people withdraw their deposits, the State will have to write a large cheque. That cheque could be as big as €30bn if the assets in the bank's balance sheet are as bad as many fear. Will Ireland be able to write this cheque? Will we be able, at short notice, to borrow that much cash?

He then looks back to the mid-70s when the Federal Government bailed out New York City (although Ford never did tell the city to "drop dead").

To avoid a similar situation threatening the euro, the Commission imposed the 3pc budget deficit rule on all euro countries so that no country could undermine the currency. What would happen if we were to test this? Would the EU bail us out rather than countenance a sovereign default that might destabilise the euro? Could we renegotiate Lisbon along such lines? Could we go to the ECB and look for a bailout?

I love the way he tosses in Lisbon. Although the situation is very serious, it is kind of amusing to consider that we may need our European partners to bail us out after voting no to the Lisbon Treaty. I think the re-run of Lisbon will be an offer we can't refuse.

Blaming Britain

Britain is one of our partners in the European Union. They opted to remain outside the euro. Why? Precisely because they wanted to remain in control of their currency. Ireland opted to join the euro? Why? Because we were too small to have an independent currency and joining with the Germans & French would provide low interest rates and stability.

Well we've got the stability that we wanted. While the American dollar and British pound have been tanking our currency has been holding fairly steady, which means it's been increasing in value against those other two. So, why exactly is Brian Lenihan berating the British when we've got what we wanted?

The pound's losses came as Brian Lenihan, the Irish finance minister, accused the UK authorities of, in effect, devaluing the pound by expanding the UK money supply, action that was causing "immense difficulties" in the Irish economy. "It is a question for all of us in the EU as to the extent to which a competitive devaluation can be used as any kind of weapon," he said.

I honestly cannot believe that there is someone running the Department for Finance, a member of the party that was in power when Maastricht was approved, who didn't realize that this situation was inevitable from the moment we joined the euro and Britain didn't.

Honestly, it's embarrassing. Please Minister, shut up or go.

Pay cuts

One reason I believed that being part of the euro is such a problem is because I never believed that workers would accept pay cuts. Pay cuts - for both private and public sector employees - are the only real mechanism available to us to try to regain competitiveness, particularly with regards to the UK. If the public and private sector workers - unionized or not - are willing to accept significant pay cuts, say back to 2006 levels, then I think we can survive membership in the euro.

Toll bridge nonsense

I've driven over the M50 bridge late at night a few times recently. If someone isn't already aware that there is a toll bridge there I think it would be pretty easy for them to be unaware that they owed anything for the trip. Sure there are signs, but when it's very late and it's raining who's reading such wordy signs.

There's no flashing light to alert you to the fact that you're about to incur a cost and there's no flash from the equipment when you pass under the camera that records your trip. I bet a lot of visitors to Dublin will be surprised to learn that they've incurred a €3 charge for their journey around the M50. (And, I'm still not clear how the state plans to make visitors from outside this state pay.)

Oh yeah, and I registered with eFlow. What a joke.

They send out a letter saying you must call to activate your account, although you can use your account before it's "active". I have to provide my unique code over the phone - can't do it online - to activate my account.

So, I call. After making me go through the automated answering service, based on my last response to their "If you want to … press button …" there should be no doubt that I want to activate my account. Okay, I can live with this hassle.

But, the guy who answers the phone can't activate my account because "his system is being uploaded". So, why is he answering my call when I've already indicated that I want to activate my account? No good reason. Anyway, someone will call me back "shortly".

Four days and a follow-up e-mail later I call again. Same automated system. Finally a human being. "My account number? Sure, it's ########". "That can't be right, it's too short for one of our account numbers". "I can't help you there - I'm reading it right off your letter".

Eventually we both learn that the account number I've provided is not, in fact, too short, but is correct. Now to activate. "There was no need for you to call, your account was activated a few days ago". "What? What about all this nonsense about me providing my unique code or whatever? Never mind, good-bye".

"Free Palestine"

I was in London on Saturday. My son & I spent a few hours at the Science Museum and found ourselves mingling with a lot of protesters on the train when the day was done. The protesters were returning from an anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian rally near to the Science Museum.

The train was packed and I found myself standing very near to a woman who'd been at the protest. She was about my age and she looked like she was comfortable enough materially. She was fairly well dressed and on her lapel she was wearing two buttons. One said "Stop Israel's War" (or something to that effect) and the other said "Free Palestine".

Now 'Stop the War' is a position I can understand even if I have a less definite opinion as to what's going on. However, I was dying to ask the woman what was the message of the "Free Palestine" button. To me that sounds awfully like something that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would say. I really wanted to ask her if she too believed that Israel should be "wiped off the map", but I didn't want to start something because I had my son with me. It bothered me all the way home, though.

Why God invented Florida

There's a very good reason why Walt Disney decided to open his first big amusement park near Los Angeles and his even bigger second park near Orlando. He didn't choose a flat area just outside Chicago for one very good reason and I learned what that was the past few days.

We were in Disneyland Paris and my Lord was it cold. Let me tell you, wind blown snow can really burn the eyes when you're twirling above the Earth in an open Dumbo. That was Monday's lesson. Yesterday I discovered that waiting in line to see Donald when the temperature is in the mid 20's (-4°C was the high) with a strong breeze can be fairly sobering, although, strangely, not for those under 10.

The magic of Disney is something the Disney people like to emphasize constantly, but there must be something to it based on the fact that somehow human beings under the age of 10 or so are immune to the elements when in the Disney parks. There seemed to be nothing but smiles on the frozen faces while the adults all looked like cartoon characters who'd just stepped out of an ice box.

The only saving grace of the January Disneyland Paris experience was that 20 yards outside the Park gates there was a little hut selling fairly large cups of vin chaud. And, at €4, I considered them excellent value.

Dr. John Pryor

Flags across New York State will fly at half staff on Monday in honor of Major John Pryor. Pryor, who was 42, was killed in Iraq last week.

I didn't know John Pryor, but he grew up in the same town and graduated from the same high school as me.

Major Pryor was a doctor, a trauma/critical-care surgeon at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania; he joined the Army Reserve Medical Corps shortly after September 11, which is how he came to be in Iraq last week.

From everything I've read, Dr. John Pryor was an amazing guy. In addition to his responsibilities at the hospital and with the Army, Pryor was chief medical adviser to the Red Cross in his area and "often had spent hours teaching Red Cross volunteers how to handle traumas".

Quite a loss.

The things you learn ...

I made two interesting discoveries over Christmas.

First. I hadn't heard of Dialwise until New Year's Eve. I have no idea how long they've been around, but that I can call America (or Canada or Taiwan or just about anywhere) for the price of a local call using my house phone was big news to me. I don't understand how Dialwise makes any money out of this and I haven't seen my phone bill yet, but I did try out the service yesterday and it works just fine. Quality and ease of connection were unchanged as far as I could tell.

Second. Now, I would never do this myself because I'm sure it's dodgy from a legal perspective, but the fact that every DVD player has a "secret" menu where you can change your player's region code was unknown to me. I overheard two guys talking about this on the train and (it seems) you can change your DVD player and allow it to play movies bought in America (or anywhere else) as well as those you buy locally. All you have to do (apparently) is google your DVD player and the "secret" menu will be revealed.

Maybe everyone already knows this, but I found it interesting, although merely in academic sort of way.

Time to get back at it

Uhhhh. Sorry. Just shaking off the cobwebs. I've hardly read a newspaper in a week, barely even saw 20 minutes of televised news. So, not much to offer on the big doings of the day (or week) - yet.

Losing our competitive edge

Economists Anthony Leddin and Brendan Walsh explain why being in the Euro is such a problem for us and advise potential applicants - Iceland, Poland, Denmark, etc. - to have a good look at Ireland before making the leap.

Between 2000 and 2003, the Irish economy suffered a 30 per cent loss in price competitiveness relative to all our trading partners taking both exchange rates and relative inflation into account. This loss of price competitiveness hurt domestic export and import-competing firms, leading to a fall in the growth rate and inflation but placing the economy closer to a sustainable trajectory.

An independent Central Bank of Ireland would undoubtedly have started the adjustment process earlier - raising interest rates as inflation rose and unemployment fell. But, as a member of the European System of Central Banks, the Irish authorities were limited to sounding unheeded warnings in the Quarterly Bulletin.

… Contrary to what was required under Irish conditions, the ECB cut interest rates from 4.75 per cent to 2 per cent between 2001 and 2003. Given the high Irish inflation, the result was negative real interest rates which added fuel to the already unsustainable boom.

… Following two years at a sustainable growth rate in 2001/02, the economy again picked up and the real growth rate averaged 5.3 per cent per annum between 2003 and 2007. Unemployment averaged 4.5 per cent and another 290,000 net new jobs were created. But inflation remained well above the EMU average and price competitiveness continued to deteriorate.

They don't argue that we should leave the Euro, but an obvious sub-text here is that we probably shouldn't have joined in the first place.

Adestes Fideles

May not be about what you think it's about.

Thanks Dave

A friend of mine sent me a present. A hat. Not just a hat, but a hat with the symbol of the #7 subway line on it. The 7 train is the Flushing line, the train to Shea Stadium Citi Field (sigh). It's also the first line I was ever on - we lived along the 7 line when I was a little kid.

And, unfortunately, I've recently been noticing the cold on my head a bit more than in years past. The once-thick-thatch on the top of my head is not providing the warmth it did in years past. So my new hat is perfect.

Where were you in 1500?

The Irish sure have scattered. Of the descendants of people living in Ireland in 1500 only 12% are in Ireland today. 76% are in America.

Using the McEvedy and Jones (1976) estimates of populations in 1500, the Penn World Tables 6.2 population estimates for 2000, and the matrix’s estimates of origins, we find that there were 31.6 million descendants of the Irish population of 1500 alive in 2000, with less than 12% of these living in Ireland, 76% in the US, 5% in Australia, and so on. In contrast, the vast majority, although not all, of the descendants of China’s year 1500 inhabitants live today in China.

Not earth-shattering, but kind of interesting.

Can we take the euro-pain?

It seems like a lifetime ago, but it was only in January when Matt Cooper was asking the question: 'Is it time to leave the euro'?

I've always thought the decision to join the euro was wrong. Why? Well, it was all due to an economics lecture I attended in 1992. The topic was the currency. According to the lecturer (can't remember his name right now) being part of the single currency or not was not a major issue, but it would be catastrophic if we joined and Britain didn't. Well, looks like he knew what he was talking about.

I was reminded of all this last night watching George Lee's report on the news last night. He never mentioned the possibility of leaving the euro, but anyone listening to him had to have that question somewhere in their head? Can we endure the pain that being part of the euro is causing?

I've mentioned this to a couple of people and they all come back with references to Iceland. And, yes, Iceland is a scary example. Okay. How 'bout this? It makes more sense for us to have a single currency with the UK than with the rest of the Eurozone? That's almost heresy, I know, and bordering on a topic I never touch here, but really we'd better off with Sterling than with the Euro. Our economy more closely matches Britain's than Germany's, France's or Italy's. We can rejoin the euro when (if) the UK joins.

We should rerun two EU Treaty referendums next year: Lisbon & Maastricht. A 'Yes' to Lisbon and 'No' to Maastricht might set things right.

We're too small ...

That's the gist of Ivan Yates's column this morning. Too small for anyone in the EU to really take our complaints with Lisbon seriously. Just too small.

While they respect our sovereignty and right to self-determination, this has not extended to allowing one of the smallest and most peripheral states to dictate to the rest of Europe how EU procedures should be reformed.

They are not prepared to reopen the ratification process of the treaty within their own respective states. They are unwilling to revisit their parliaments or electorates with an additional protocol — let alone alter the treaty. Some may argue that our Government didn't try hard enough. Whether this is true or not, it is wholly irrelevant because we now have to face the collective reality of "no renegotiation".

I admire that honesty and believe there's a lot of truth in it. Look, the pro-EU forces in Brussels and in the various EU capitals were more than happy to engage in a bit of trickery - basically changing the title on the EU Constitution - to override the French & Dutch 'No' votes in 2005. That they'd have little patience with us is hardly news.

At least Yates is willing to admit the full truth; many on the 'Yes' side are not. We have no say. Not really. Not in how the rules are made. All we get to decide is whether we agree with the new rules whenever they're changed or we can leave. That's it.

Yates continues his pro-Lison argument saying that these treaty referendums are not the place to take out your frustrations on the government. That's true.

A constant characteristic in the vox pops of no voters was a "whatever you're having yourself" disenchantment. If you were fed up due to the smoking ban, drink driving rules, economic recession, Dustin's Eurovision defeat, fishing and farming woes, taxation system, health cuts or tribunal revelations — you found the referendum a suitable repository for your angst.

However, he's wrong about fishing & farming woes. Those two industries can obviously point to EU rules and regulations as having an impact on their profitability. That means those who are interested in farming and/or fishing are right to take an interest in the Lisbon Treaty and to make a case for or against.

I also believe that someone who is opposed to taxation laws being changed to mirror those in France or Germany can be at least concerned about the increasing centralization of power in Brussels. It defies belief that we can keep integrating - not just our economies, but almost all aspects of governing - without some equalization* in the tax laws. And, as Yates notes, when the big boys decide the time has come for forcing the tax laws to be essentially consistent throughout the EU, again, we'll have little say in how those new rules are written. We can agree or we can leave.

* Equalization is not the word I was looking for, but it didn't come to me.

Highest turnout since 1968? Maybe.

Today's NY Times says that with all districts reporting "61.6 percent of Americans eligible to vote went to the polls this year, the highest since Richard M. Nixon beat Hubert H. Humphrey in the close 1968 race". This year's turnout was a bit better than in 2004, when turnout was 60.1%. Okay, but ...

In 2004 the total ballot was around 122.3m and this year it was 125.2m. What I find interesting is that with those vote totals that means the base population was the same in both instances - 203m. That means that turnout is (probably) based on the census of 2000. That makes no sense to me seeing as the population changes over the years after the census. That means you can only really compare turnout between elections in years ending with the same digit. {E.g. 2008 with 1988 and 1968, 2004 with 1984, 1964, etc.}

I stand by my belief that turnout was not really greater this year than in 2004.

RTE & the Irish Times on Ganley

I finally watched the Primetime report on Declan Ganley* last night. I was actually expecting it to be much worse. Maybe an Irish viewer would have been more alarmed by Ganley's American colleagues? I don't know, but I found them to be likable guys. I thought they were straight shooters too.

Sure, some of Ganley's 1990s dealings in E. Europe might be a bit shady (maybe), but I wonder how many businesses dealing in the former Soviet states just after the fall of The Wall were any different? Even big companies operating there were probably engaging in 'local customs' when it came to some business dealings. Overall, despite the sinister music and tone I actually thought the criticisms were mostly pretty thin and those who defended Ganley were credible.

Funny enough, after I watched the interview I picked up last Saturday's Irish Times where I found this column by Noel Whelan. Whelan has a go at Ganley too and, to be honest, I think his criticisms may be closer to the truth. Whelan's argument is that Ganley is simply on an ego trip and the "he's sinister" stuff is a distraction. Could be right that Ganley's on an ego trip. But what harm?

* I'm not sure if the videolink to the report will work outside Ireland.

Mets in peace

For that special Met fan in your life, the gift of a (after)lifetime.

The "Best" has come and gone

Marc Coleman writes for the Sunday Independent and is the Economics Editor (I think) at Newstalk. Anyway, for reasons I can't explain I have something of a soft spot for Coleman. Maybe it's pity? I don't know, but if I didn't have this 'soft spot' I'm sure I'd make sport of him frequently. Recently he's been saying the economy's in bad shape, etc., but he was pretty late to that game. When other economists - George Lee & David McWilliams to name two - were warning us that things were starting to unravel, Coleman was still talking things up regularly. He released his book - The Best Is Yet To Come - at the end of 2007.

Why do I bring this up? Only because I read this article from The Spectator and the essence of what it says seems frighteningly possible to me. Jonathan Ruffer's column could have been titled, "The Worst Is Yet To Come".

The Americans allowed a depression to develop in the 1930s because they were afraid of the consequences of losing the principles of sound money. In an effort to avoid a re-run of the 1930s, the Western world is imposing the opposite, equally unbalanced and intemperate solution. We might thereby avoid a depression — but the bad stuff which follows currency compromise will crash down upon us with great vigour. This is the one and only one, and probably last, shock that the credit crunch has yet to impose on a still unsuspecting world.

Roy Keane — "Enraged by the jejune"

Only the New York Times. Even its blog wants to sound a cut above. I'll admit I enjoyed John Doyle's blog/column from the Times's web site, but really? Jejune?

The gist of what Doyle had to say is that Keane's rise and fall exactly mirrored the Irish nation's fortunes.

Uncannily, just as Ireland lurched from Tiger economy to stark recession, seemingly with nothing saved, nothing learned, Keane spent too much and gazed at a shambles of his own making, before he just resigned and walked away. Now, the economic bubble has burst in Ireland and Keane seems fallible.

At that, every Irish person is unnerved. Everyone projects dreams and meaning into the celebrities and sports stars we admire. But with Keane it was even more profound - an entire country obsessed about him and a nation’s psyche, all its pride and enterprise, seemed to reside in him. He is us. We are him. As he goes, so do we. The Celtic Tiger is tamed.

The Land of Lincoln

Illinois is a place apart when it comes to politics. According to Kathleen Parker, "[t]hree of the past eight governors have spent time in jail or prison". Current Governor Blagojevich is bidding to make it 50%.

Still, I kind of find it reassuring. The charges against Blago are so old-school. And, although the language might be a bit salty, I doubt his words would have been out of place coming out of the mouths of many of the old Tammany Hall Mayors. Yes, reassuring.

Why did I throw away my ham?

We hit the panic button yesterday. And, by we, I mean everyone living in Ireland. We were told to throw away all our Irish pork products and we did. We did this even though we were reassured that there was no real health scare risk in having eaten potentially contaminated pork/ham/etc. We were advised to throw away all such products bought since September 1.

When I first heard this I almost thought it was a joke. I mean, how much pig meat have I already eaten since September 1? Loads, but don't worry because there's little health risk. So, why do I have to throw away the ham and pork chops that are still in my fridge? Surely if there's little to worry about after 3 months of eating the stuff, one or two more portions are hardly going to matter. Right? Or not?

This has been bothering me for the past 24 hours. Finally, I think I understand. This drastic measure has virtually nothing to do with the consumers' health and all to do with the pig meat industry. The dire warnings to convince us to dispose of (almost) perfectly good meat - unless we're being lied to about the risks - were to reassure us that when we return to the supermarket or butcher that the pork or ham we buy is 100% top of the line, nothing to be concerned about.

I didn't come to this revelation by myself. I had to be practically hit over the head by Dr. Patrick Wall, formerly of the Irish Food Safety Authority and former Chairman of the European Food Safety Authority. Dr. Wall was on Liveline and he first laid out the case for how low the risk to consumers is and then explained why the meat had to be recalled.

The government basically was afraid repeating Belgium's 1999 chicken problem. In that case the Belgian government played the whole thing down and waited a long time to reveal what it knew, feeding the fear when the story first broke. Their poultry industry was badly hit.

The Irish government was determined not to duplicate that experience. Ireland is a big exporter of food, which makes this sort of scare even more damaging potentially. So, they hit the nuclear button. I don't know why they couldn't explain that the food was contaminated, but could be safely eaten if you really wanted to. Instead, we were all encouraged to throw €10, €20, €30 worth of food away. And, throwing food away drives me nuts. I could have eaten those last few slices of ham.

The Barmaid and the Minister

Hmm. These are different times. A barmaid and the Belgian Minister for Defense, Pieter De Crem, are caught up in a scandal, but it's not what you might think. No, the scandal is that the barmaid was fired for blogging about the Minister's boisterous behavior in the New York restaurant where she worked.

Look, the restaurant owner is perfectly within his rights to fire this woman. And, if I owned a restaurant or bar I'd like to think that my customers would at least be safe from the employees blabbling about what went on. Other patrons? Well, that can't be helped.

At the same time, I can't read Flemish, but her post seems innocent enough. Considering the Minister was in New York he should be happy enough that the Cindy Adams wasn't in the same place or it would have been a much bigger deal for him. So, although I can understand (maybe) why the restaurant owner fired this woman, Mr. de Crem (the crumb?) has gotta get real.

Mr de Crem went on threaten legal action against bloggers and warned Belgian MPs "every one of you is a potential victim".

"I want to take this opportunity and use this non-event to signal a dangerous phenomenon in our society," said during a debate last Friday.

"We live in a time where everybody is free to publish whatever he or she wants on blogs at will without taking any responsibility. This exceeds mud-slinging. I find that it's nearly impossible to defend yourself against this."

Come on! How precious is he? He's a government minister for God's sake and he's moaning because he was caught having too much fun (a problem for the Flemish?). What he did was hardly a big issue, but he turned it into a big issue. Why he couldn't have just said that he might have let his hair down a little too much while in New York is beyond me. He's an uptight so and so who doesn't like the fact he was spotted behaving this way.

And blogging has nothing to do with it, really. In the past the barmaid might have passed this tidbit onto a gossip columnist, but nowadays everyone does their own reporting.

Fly Pottersville Air

It's Christmas time and Michael O'Leary is making another bid for Aer Lingus. Ever notice how much O'Leary's portrayal in the press makes him seem like Mr. Potter from It's A Wonderful Life? Aer Lingus is the Bailey Building & Loan. Only the truth is it's O'Leary who's serving the "rabble", flying people around for next to nothing, which is something the press seems incapable of accepting.

I suspect Angela Merkel is correct

"Cheap money" is the source of our economic problems, according to Angela Merkel.

"Excessively cheap money in the US was a driver of today's crisis," the chancellor told the German parliament. "I am deeply concerned about whether we are now reinforcing this trend through measures being adopted in the US and elsewhere and whether we could find ourselves in five years facing the exact same crisis."

It does seem to me that there is a strong resistance in America to admitting that you can't go on spending more than you earn. You can't go on buying things on credit.

RTE - DAB hands at (mis)using my money

I heard on Morning Ireland today that RTE is going live with a new digital audio broadcast service. During the report the reporter admitted that commercial providers were not leaping at the chance to provide digital radio services and that Britain's Channel 4 had recently abandoned plans to launch a digital radio service because advertisers weren't interested. The reporter also all but admitted that pretty much the only people who will be able to listen to the new stations are people with access to broadband.

Okay, this begs two obvious questions. One, why is RTE going ahead with a new technology that no commercial provider wants to touch at the moment? And, two, why is my license money going to fund a new service that is for all intents and purposes aimed at those who have the unlimited choice of online radio?

I actually tried a few of the stations today and, well, the sound quality wasn't great (that could get ironed out over time). But, more importantly, the question "Why bother" leaps to mind after a few minutes. Dance music? Indie/Progressive rock? Golden Oldies? I think those audiences can find their needs are already met sufficiently well online. RTE Choice was the only one that might be interesting, but the 20 minutes I gave it this morning had me thinking otherwise.

If RTE has the resources to fund a new unwanted service why not simply give us a refund on our license?

"Setting apart one Day of publick Thanksgiving"

Despite the origins of Thanksgiving that we all know today, Thanksgiving was not celebrated throughout the colonies in pre-Revolution America. The first time it was celebrated 'nationally' was in 1777 and the breaking of bread between Pilgrims and Indians had nothing to do with it. The occasion was the defeat of the British at Saratoga.

After the victory, the Continental Congress established a Thanksgiving committee to make a recommendation for some form of national celebration of the victory.

In CONGRESS, NOVEMBER 1, 1777, Forasmuch as it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligations to HIM for benefits received. . . . And it having pleased him in his abundant mercy, not only to continue to us the innumerable bounties of his common providence; but also to smile upon us, in the prosecution of a just and necessary war for the defence and establishment of our unalienable rights and liberties: Particularly in that he hath been pleased in so great a measure, to prosper the means used for the support of our troops, and to crown our arms with most signal success: It is therefore recommended to the legislative or executive powers of these United States, to set apart THURSDAY, the eighteenth day of December next for SOLEMN THANKSGIVING and PRAISE: That at one time and with one voice, the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their DIVINE BENEFACTOR.. . . That it may please him graciously to afford his blessing on the Governments of these States respectively, and prosper the PUBLIC COUNCIL of the whole. To inspire our commanders both by land and sea, and all under them. . . under the providence of Almighty God, to secure for these United States, the greatest of all human blessings, INDEPENDENCE and PEACE. That it may please him, to prosper the trade and manufactures of the people, and the labour of the husbandman. . . To take schools and seminaries of education, so necessary for cultivating the principles of true liberty, virtue and piety, under his nurturing hand: and to prosper the means of religion, for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth "IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, PEACE AND JOY IN THE HOLY GHOST. And it is further recommended, that service, labour, and such recreation as, though at other times innocent . . . may be omitted on so solemn an occasion.

I hope they didn't mean football, when they asked that "such recreation as, though at other times innocent . . . may be omitted". That wouldn't do at all. Nope, not at all.

It was the first national Thanksgiving, but it didn't become an annual affair until Lincoln issued his famous proclamation in 1863.

Happy Thanksgiving.

It's time for Citi to take a nap

"Citi never sleeps". That's Citibank's slogan. Or at least it used to be. Today, the banks' managers are the poster children for a driver fatigue campaign.

Yet as the bank’s C.D.O. machine accelerated, its risk controls fell further behind, according to former Citigroup traders, and risk managers lacked clear lines of reporting. At one point, for instance, risk managers in the fixed-income division reported to both Mr. Maheras and Mr. Bushnell — setting up a potential conflict because that gave Mr. Maheras influence over employees who were supposed to keep an eye on his traders.

C.D.O.’s were complex, and even experienced managers like Mr. Maheras and Mr. Barker underestimated the risks they posed, according to people with direct knowledge of Citigroup’s business. Because of that, they put blind faith in the passing grades that major credit-rating agencies bestowed on the debt.

… To make matters worse, Citigroup’s risk models never accounted for the possibility of a national housing downturn, this person said, and the prospect that millions of homeowners could default on their mortgages. Such a downturn did come, of course, with disastrous consequences for Citigroup and its rivals on Wall Street.

… In fact, when examiners from the Securities and Exchange Commission began scrutinizing Citigroup’s subprime mortgage holdings after Bear Stearns’s problems surfaced, the bank told them that the probability of those mortgages defaulting was so tiny that they excluded them from their risk analysis ...

This is the root of the whole mess. They were making tons of money and they didn't have a clue what they were doing, what they were selling or the risks involved. They really were like sleep-deprived drivers trying to keep on a straight line and not seeing the "Bridge Out" signs along the road.

“We have a simple thesis. There is going to be a calamity, and whenever there is a calamity, Merrill is there.”

This is a long and not always easy-to-understand article on the subprime mortgage debacle, but there are enough entertaining moments to make it worthwhile.

By then, Eisman was so certain that the world had been turned upside down that he just assumed this guy must know it too. “But we’re sitting there,” Daniel recalls, “and he says to us, like he actually means it, ‘I truly believe that our rating will prove accurate.’ And Steve shoots up in his chair and asks, ‘What did you just say?’ as if the guy had just uttered the most preposterous statement in the history of finance. He repeated it. And Eisman just laughed at him.”

“With all due respect, sir,” Daniel told the C.E.O. deferentially as they left the meeting, “you’re delusional.”
This wasn’t Fitch or even S&P. This was Moody’s, the aristocrats of the rating business, 20 percent owned by Warren Buffett. And the company’s C.E.O. was being told he was either a fool or a crook by one Vincent Daniel, from Queens.

Does Barack Obama think I'm a fool?

Fools fall in love in a hurry
Fools give their hearts much too soon

Okay, maybe I'm not in love with Obama, but sheesh he's sure trying hard to win my heart. Today the NY Times says that the President-elect will keep Robert Gates on at Secretary of Defense. Then I read that once the economy starts humming again he's going to cut, cut, cut!!!

“We can’t sustain a system that bleeds billions of taxpayer dollars on programs that have outlived their usefulness or exist solely because of the power of politicians, lobbyists or interest groups,” Mr. Obama said. “We simply can’t afford it.”

Again, I may be reading way too much into this, but these don't sound like the words of a man who's about to authorize a massive increase in the size of the federal government in order to implement a national health care plan.

Just put in two bars of stardust
Just hang out one silly moon
Oh! They've got their love torches burning
When they should be playing it cool
I used to laugh but now I'm the same
Take a look at a brand new fool

I missed a chance to be offended

According to today's Irish Independent "RTE has received a "significant number" of complaints after an appearance by the dance troupe, the Satanic Sluts, on Friday's 'Late Late Show'". Now, maybe I would have been offended if I'd watched the Late Late on Friday, but I gave up on that program many, many years ago. I can't believe people still watch it.

Friday & Saturday nights are dead time on RTE as far as I'm concerned. Between the Late Late and Tubridy Tonight, RTE 1 might just as well not exist. I really can't believe anyone enjoys the toe-curling, stomach-churning, cringe-making embarrassment that those two programs serve up on a weekly basis.

What offends me is that I have to hand over €160 a year to keep this stuff on the air.

I used to work for Citibank

In fact, I did two different stints at Citibank, which may explain why I found this so funny. Oh, and in case you don't know Citibank's been in the news lately because, well, let's just say that a Big Mac now costs more than a share of Citi's stock.

I have tears in my eyes. I love the Weekly World News.

"Change has come to America"

This is probably more of a stretch than my other posts on Obama, but when I heard him utter those words in his acceptance speech I thought to myself: "So, he's the change. It's come. From here on in it will be a change to better management rather than significant new policies".

Now, two things. First, when I had those thoughts I was - again - projecting on to him what I wanted to believe. However, the choice of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State and Timothy Geithner at Treasury is pretty darn reassuring to me. I'm not sure how those who voted for Obama in the primaries feel about these selections but I'm breathing easier after today. If he opts to keep Robert Gates on at Defense then I'm definitely going to relax.

Second, I don't want to want to sound flippant. The choice of Barack Obama as President does actually represent a massive change in America even if that's a change that's been underway for quite some time. Change has indeed come to America.

"Now somewhere in the black mountain hills of dakota ..."

I was too young for Beatlemania, which when I was young I thought was merely the name of a Broadway musical. When I got a little older I acquired a lot of Beatles albums, but I don't really love most of them. My favorite, however, is the White Album, which - according to what I heard on the radio last night - was released 40 years ago. Rocky Raccoon is 40 years old.

Speaking of music from days of yore, I used to make noises about how good Roy Orbison was when I was a student. I knew he was someone I should like because everybody said so. But I never really did. It wasn't that I didn't like Orbison I simply made no effort to discover whether I would or not.

Well, recently I've been listening to some of his albums and he really was great. It seems some of those excessively earnest music lovers from my college days knew what they were talking about. In this case anyway. His last album, Mystery Girl, which was released after I'd graduated from college, is incredible. I have to admit that I'm not sure I'd have appreciated it as much then as I do today.

To the Irish Examiner?

Dear Irish Examiner,

You might want to check your distance charts to see how many British airports are within 300km of Dublin.

FLIGHTS to most British destinations will escape the full force of the new air travel tax after Finance Minister Brian Lenihan bowed to pressure from regional airports to exempt them from the top rate.

Under amended arrangements confirmed yesterday, the €10 per passenger rate, due to come into force at the end of next March, will only apply where the destination is more than 300km from Dublin Airport. Flights to nearer destinations will be taxed at the rate of €2 per passenger.

"Most British destinations"? Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow squeaks it at exactly 300km from Dublin. That's it. I really believe that the Irish Examiner has confused its kilometers with miles.

Could politicians sit out Lisbon II?

Bill Cullen says he'd join the 'Yes' campaign if a new referendum was held. This reminds me of something I've been wondering for the past couple of months. What would happen if the government and political parties simply stayed out of the (second) campaign? What if others who favored the treaty put themselves forward as its advocates?

I would imagine that if you're a 'Yes' advocate you might figure such a strategy might be worth a try, right? Look there's been a lot of complaining about Declan Ganley, his money, etc. and the 'No' campaign. I would bet that those who want a 'Yes' could find equally deep pockets and passion among its ranks to provide the fuel and backbone the 'Yes' campaign needs.

Truthfully I don't think the talkaholics in the government/Dáil could resist. Yet if they did, I think it would be a plus for the 'Yes' side. The public has very little respect for politicians these days. Their faces on posters and the television are not a plus for the 'Yes' campaign.

No, and only No to Lisbon

Sarah Carey says we shouldn't let Rupert Murdoch decide Ireland's future. I guess I agree, if Murdoch is deciding Ireland's future. I'm not sure I believe he is, however.

What bothers me about Carey's headline grabbing thesis is that it distracts from what I think is a decent thesis in her column: that the Sunday Times should have published a pro-Lisbon column by her or by someone, but they had a policy of 'no pro-Lisbon comment' in the paper. Carey assumes that Murdoch is anti-Lisbon thanks to his "well known pro-US-hawkish views" and this is why the paper pursued such a policy.

Again, why does being pro-US mean being anti-Lisbon? Truth is, the American in me feels that the Lisbon Treaty is just what the EU deserves, but the fact that I'm an Irish citizen too and a resident of Ireland makes me more skeptical about the merits of the Lisbon Treaty.

Here's another theory on why the Sunday Times may have adopted the policy it did: it might have sold more papers. When others were selling confusion, the Sunday Times was selling clarity. And, given the level of confusion about Lisbon maybe customers were happy to get a steady diet of negative comment (propaganda?).

Other Sunday papers were providing a basically pro-Lisbon agenda, but with varying degrees of anti-Lisbon comment sprinkled in. The Sunday Times may have thought there was an opening in the market for a simpler message. I don't know, but it's possible.

Carey's column is pretty damning of the Sunday Times and Irish editor Frank Fitzgibbon, but she distracts from this by pointing the finger at every leftist's favorite media boogie man - Rupert Murdoch.

{I want to add that I don't know enough of Carey's views to know if she's a leftist or not. She should just have written the column without bringing Murdoch into it.}

UPDATE: Nov 21, 9am: Roy Greenslide agrees that Murdoch was probably not personally involved in the Sunday Times's Lisbon policy.

Felon-free Senate

Ted Stevens has lost. Hard to shed a tear when the guy's recently been convicted of lying on his financial disclosure forms. Still, the Republicans' grip on a sliver of power is now even more tenuous. All that stands between them and political insignificance is a Minnesota recount and a Georgia run-off for Senate seats.

What's good for GM is good for ...?

What's good for GM is good for America. We all learned that as kids. Now GM along with the "competition" - Ford & Chrysler - are asking for Congress to do what's good for GM. But is what they ask good for America?

No, says Mitt Romney. Romney was not my favorite Republican presidential candidate, but if any of them knows anything about the car industry and what this bailout will mean, he's the one.

Romney says that the current management must go and the unions must be brought to heel. The costs of cars produced by the big three are simply too high.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota's Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

I wonder if Romney would have written those words if he was still courting Michigan's voters, but it does seem to make sense that the big three cannot keep producing cars that are too expensive.

So, what should be done if not the bailout. Again, Romney serves up a succinct plan for the Federal Government.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

And what of GM? Micheal Levine writes in the Wall Street Journal that a managed bankruptcy is the best option for GM.

The social and political costs would be very large, but if GM fails after getting $50 billion or $100 billion in bailout money, it'll be just as large and there will be less money to soften the blow and even more blame to go around. The PBGC will probably need money to guarantee GM's pensions for its white- and blue-collar workers (pension support is capped at around $40,000 per year, so that won't help executives much). Unemployment insurance will have to be extended and offered to many people, perhaps millions if you include dealers, suppliers and communities dependent on GM as it exists now. A GM bankruptcy will make addressing health-care coverage more urgent, which is probably a good thing. It would require job-retraining money and community assistance to affected localities.

Okay then. Deep breaths everyone. Now pull the plug.

Bedsits

I see the government is going to ban the 'traditional' bedsit. Shame. Horror stories about the places where one has lived as a student are the kind of thing you dine out on here, particularly as the years pass.

I know I told you a little about my flat-mate, but did I ever mention the bed-sit we shared during the 1986/87 academic year? It was in Ranelagh (where else?) and was a two 'room' bedsit. One room had a kitchenette (and emphasis on the ette!) two chairs and a sort of coffee table. We had a t.v. on the table. The room was about 6' by 9'. Th other 'room' was an addition to the house and it had two single beds and about two feet of space between them The walls were nothing more than plasterboard insulated by wallpaper! It was COLD in there.

One particularly vicious night I opened the door to the bedroom and was sure my flat-mate was dead. I woke him up to make sure he wasn't dead. He was so cold he was glad to be awoken so he could go into the other room to warm up. He'd been sleeping with his toes in hands.

Anyway, I know there are few former students here who don't have similar tales. Sad to think the government is trying to eliminate this grand source of reunion chat.

Jonestown

I think it was last year, but maybe it was the year before that I stumbled onto a documentary on Jonestown. I'd forgotten all about it.

I know crazy suicidal religious cults seem a dime a dozen these days, but Jonestown was my first experience of this particular lunacy. I remember the following days in school the whole thing was as much a source of humor as horror to us teenage boys. Just the shout of "Hey, Kool Aid" was enough to start you off laughing.

Anyway, as I watched that documentary on Jonestown I remember how surprised I was that over 900 people had died that day, November 18, 1978. I guess I thought the number was in the 150 or so range. It seemed a lot more horrific to me as an adult than it had when I was 14.

Tim Reiterman's eye-witness account is worth reading.

Caution is advised

Another reason I'm not that upset by Obama's win is that I have this sense that deep down he's a naturally cautious man. And, after 16 years of guys who like to gamble and throw caution to the wind (whether sexually or politically), I'm happy to have a guy who'll think first, think again and then act.

Am I right about Obama? I don't know, but since everyone else is seeing in him what they want to see, I may as well join the crowd. Right?

Obama's win

I've been trying to write a post on Barak Obama since election day, but it just gets too long and involved. I decided to just throw out a few short posts and see how that goes.

First, as I said, I wasn't that unhappy about Obama's win. Why? I don't know, but I think it's because I couldn't help but feel happy for all those black people on the streets singing and dancing. It was their moment. How could you not be happy watching those scenes?

Don't get me wrong. I still hate losing and my happy feelings for black people did not (and do not) extend to Democrats generally and certainly not to smug, sanctimonious Europeans. Each time I hear one of them on the radio I get all tied up in knots again. I'm really, really hoping Obama disappoints them. I don't even know if I care how he does it.

It's April 15 in Ireland

That's how I always think about it, anyway. April 15 is the deadline for filing taxes in America and that deadline is just ingrained in the American psyche. That's not quite true here because apparently many (most?) people who work and pay taxes don't bother to file a return, although I'm not sure why. Regardless, today is the deadline for filing the return and paying off your tax bill for 2007.

I suspect that a lot more filers will be reporting smaller incomes/profits for 2007 than the government wants to believe and that the revenues will be lower (& refunds greater) than expected. And, additionally, the payments for preliminary taxes due on 2008 income/profits will be a lot lower. I think the recent budget forecasts will prove to have been too optimistic.

Heard on the bus the other day

I found a seat up top of a double decker one day last week. It was early and quiet, except for one guy. He was talking to another fellow (who I couldn't hear) and letting us all know that (a) he was good with numbers and (b) he was sure the public sector had to be cut back. It must have gone on for 30 minutes, 'teachers ...' followed by 'nurses/doctors ...' followed by 'civil servants ... & ...'.

Anyway, just as I'm getting off I hear him say where he works: AIG! I wanted to turn around and roar at him that he was a member of the public service himself these days (although part of the American government, not the Irish) and that you'd imagine that he'd be just a tad more reluctant to damn government employees. Sheesh.

Is it time to legalize drugs?

If you don't know who Shane Geoghegan was that's simply because you're not in Ireland. Geoghegan's death is the biggest news story and, from what I've noticed, talking point in the country.

For those of you outside Ireland, Geoghegan was shot and killed just a few yards from his house in a case of mistaken identity. Apparently Geoghegan looked somewhat like a local thug, drug dealer and gang member. The gang member bit is important because it was a gang in competition with this local thug who murdered Geoghegan.

By all accounts, Geoghegan was a nice guy, popular member of his rugby club, a loving boyfriend, brother, son. And now he's dead at 28 for no other reason than some dirtbag couldn't be bothered to make the effort to establish the identity of the man he was about to kill because killing, even in error, meant little to him.

I don't really have a whole lot to offer on this. I mean what can be said? I feel shocked, sick, helpless and enraged all at once just like everybody else, but I also believe we'll continue to mollycoddle thugs/gangsters/murderers and that not much will change.

Just because I don't think anything will change doesn't mean I'm opposed to change. I know it's not a 'conservative' position, but the more I hear journalists say that the gardaí admit that the war on drugs is lost the more I'm open to other suggestions, including legalizing narcotics, cocaine, whatever.

I just heard solicitor Gerald Kean (I think that's who it was) talk about this on Newstalk. I've thought about this myself and just can't help wondering if legalizing drugs would make things much worse than they are now. I don't know, but I'd love to hear the pros and cons to such a move.

Open up on Lisbon

The Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin says that remarks by Czech President Vaclav Klaus on the Lisbon treaty were "an inappropriate intervention".

Mr Klaus held a joint press conference with the founder of the anti-Lisbon Treaty group Libertas Declan Ganley, ahead of a private dinner in honour of Mr Klaus in the Shelbourne hotel.

He warned of a shift towards "supranationalism" in Europe, and that the Lisbon Treaty would not enhance freedom and democracy.

He also said he was "not happy" with what he saw as attempts by Europe to "forget the Irish referendum and to change the result".

The Minister probably has a point, but you know what? The old ways didn't work so why not just keep quiet and let people like Klaus come and have their say. By all means invite those who can make the pro-Lisbon case too. I think if the Irish government was more open to the debate it might help get the people to accept it.

Besides, it's not like Sarkozy & Barroso haven't been here making similarly "inappropriate interventions".

Suspension bridges

I'd heard of John Roebling and Isambard Kingdom Brunel, but I never heard of James Finley before. There are probably others who contributed to the development of the modern suspension bridge, but still I find it interesting that Finley is credited with being the 'father of the modern suspension bridge'.

This Friday Finley will be honored by the state of Pennsylvania, where he lived and worked. And, although Wikipedia claims Finley was born in Maryland, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Structure magazine both assert that Finley was born in Ireland in 1756.

Judge Finley has been cited as Father of the Modern Suspension Bridge, a well-deserved accolade based on his efforts to introduce this style of structure in the form now used all over the world. In June 1810, he presented his theories and methods in an elegant essay appearing in a Philadelphia magazine, The Port Folio. The essay was later expanded into an instructional booklet published at Uniontown the following year.

Irish born and the "Father of the Modern Suspension Bridge". Is Finley part of the curriculum here? I hope so, but I doubt it. None of my children mentioned Finley to me even when I was waxing lyrical on Roebling or Brunel's bridges.

I'm pretty sure this is not in the AP stylebook

Maybe I'm the only person who cares about this stuff these days, but I'm really annoyed that today's Sunday Independent has a front page headline that includes a word (s**t) that I'd rather my children never use.

The headline is right next to a big ad (not cheap, I'm sure) for the Halifax Bank. If I was the guy at the bank who okays the money for the bank's ads in the paper I'd ask for a refund for today.

Emmanuel & the Irish media

I haven't seen this in the Irish Times nor heard it on RTE yet, but I wonder if Obama's choice of Rahm Emmanuel for Chief of Staff will play well with the Irish media down the road.

From YNetNews.com

Israel may earn more White House representation than it bargained for, in the event that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama emerges victorious from the November 4 elections.

Congressman Rahm Emanuel, who has served in the Israel Defense Forces and even speaks a little Hebrew, could be appointed the White House's next chief of staff.

… When Bill Clinton began his campaign for presidency, he appointed Rahm Emanuel to direct the campaign's finance committee. But Emanuel left when the Gulf War broke out, in order to volunteer in the IDF.

He served in one of Israel's northern bases until the war ended, and upon his return to the US became Clinton's advisor in the White House for almost eight years.

Smokin' in the White House

I wonder if the Councillors on the Redbridge council felt any twinge of regret at their decision to ban smokers as they watched the scenes of the Obama family at the celebration on Tuesday night. Why should they feel any twinge? Because Barack Obama is a smoker, which would mean that if the Obamas relocated to Redbridge they would not be allowed to foster children.

I was trying to figure out last night who was the last smoker President. I know the current President doesn't smoke and I don't think Clinton did either. Going further back, I can't remember seeing Bush or Reagan smoke, although I'm sure Reagan smoked as a young man. Carter? I don't know. I have this idea that Ford & Nixon smoked a pipe, but again I'm not sure. Anyway, Obama's a smoker and it's all part of the "change".

I presume Obama will not be allowed to smoke in the Oval Office. He was careful not to be photographed smoking during the campaign, it's such a social negative these days. I remember reading something about Hillary having suggested that Obama would be constantly heading to the White House doorways to satisfy his nicotine cravings, but that seems a long time ago now.

Smokers need not apply

A local council in Britain has banned smokers from acting as foster parents. This strikes me as ridiculous. The report in the Guardian admits that it may "become harder to find loving homes for vulnerable children". I bet.

I always thought that those who were good foster parents were truly special people, not always easy to find. Now, thanks to the council's decision, some children in Redbridge will be denied the chance to live with some of those truly special people because one or both parents happens to smoke. I'd love to know what other behaviors are ruled out (& what's ruled in).

"Wasilla hillbillies"

So McCain's team is putting it about that Sarah Palin didn't know Africa was a continent, "barely understood the structure of US government", etc. This is, I guess, supposed to convince us that Palin was the reason McCain lost. I guess. Strange because, unless I'm mistaken, IT WAS JOHN McCAIN WHO CHOSE HER!

For what it's worth, I don't believe much of this stuff. Sounds like the bitter, twisted rantings of people looking for excuses for their loss. There's a word for people like that: LOSERS.

No longer embarrassed to be American

Having just read Hadley Freeman's column in today's Guardian all I can say is, "Hadley, get over yourself and grow up".

Freeman is relieved because she's no longer embarrassed to be an American living in Britain. Ah, the poor dear. It must have been so hard for her.

But all Americans who live or even travel abroad have, for the past eight years, become used to living with a glaze of protective, self-defensive and at times chippy armour. The American accent lost its aura of modernity and glamour, which it still had when I moved to Europe 20 years ago. Instead, the hint of a twangy vowel carried connotations of ignorance and arrogance: Hicksville instead of Hollywood. No matter that many expats hadn't voted for Bush: for eight years we have been represented by him.

First of all, the American accent denoted a "colonial" when I first went to Britain in the mid 1980s. I never had the sense that it was glamorous.

And there were plenty of Europeans who didn't like President Reagan and were not shy about telling me. There were many Americans I met then who were "embarrassed". And, I find it nearly impossible to accept that Freeman wasn't a bit "embarrassed" during the Lewinsky scandal (and I count this as different because it wasn't a government policy, but something ugly, dirty and unnecessary).

There's no reason to be embarrassed to be American because Europeans don't like American policy. You too might disagree with American policy, but all countries make mistakes, end up with elected officials who fail them. These things happen.

Of course she's not just embarrassed by the Bush Administration. She's also embarrassed by American culture.

Some might see Thanksgiving as awkward - marking the time when the pilgrims stole land from the Native Americans and imposed a tradition of supersized feasts.

Thanksgiving is "awkward"? Shaddup. Thanksgiving is a fantastic holiday, in fact I don't know of any other nation that has a holiday that is so perfect.

Turnout

The Irish Times editorial starts with "WHAT A marvellous day it was - the first black president of the United States, the hugely increased turnout and public engagement ...". What if the turnout wasn't all that "hugely increased", would the day have been any less "marvellous"? I only ask because I can't make sense of the turnout figures.

This page claims that turnout was 64.1% or 148m voters. But, if that's true then where are all the other votes? As of right now, with 98% of the precincts reporting Obama has 64m votes and McCain has 56.5m. That only adds up to 120.5m votes and when all the precincts have reported that will still only be around 123m. We can throw in another 2m for the minor candidates (I'm in a generous mood), which would make total vote around 125m. In 2004 the total vote was 122m, which - given the fact that the voting age population was about 10m smaller in 2004 - would mean that turnout was down this year. Not quite as "marvellous", I guess.

Electing a felon?

No, not Obama. I wish I was gloomier about Obama's win, but I'm not really. I really could have been quite happy with an Obama win if the Republicans could have had control over even one house in Congress. Didn't happen, of course.

Anyway, I'm referring to the Alaska Senate race. Right now Republican Ted Stevens is ahead by 3,600 votes with 96% of the votes counted. It's just over a week since Stevens was convicted "on seven felony counts of failing to disclose more than $250,000 in gifts and home renovations".

Forget about the "Bradley Effect" and welcome to the "Felon Effect". The last poll indicated that Stevens's opponent, Democrat Mark Begich, was ahead by 22% and yet Stevens may pull it out after all. I guess a lot of voters were a little uneasy telling pollsters that they were going to vote for the convict.

I'm not sure what happens next if Stevens wins. It's possible the Senate will expel Stevens, which would, I think, mean that who replaces him is in the gift of the Governor - Sarah Palin. I wonder if she could/would send herself to Washington?

Elections Americaines

I was switching around looking for a bit of late night election news and stumbled on to TV5, the French channel. The French really do things differently, don't they? First I saw a couple of reporters talking about the election from inside an aquarium. I was only guessing, but I presumed it was the Shedd in Chicago. Of course, for all I know it could have been a seafood restaurant in Paris.

Then they went to their panel discussion. On the panel was the coolest looking guy I've ever seen on a political discussion program. Behind the panelists there are women (mostly) walking around drinking wine.

You can watch the coverage here, but unfortunately, they've changed panelists now so the cool guy is gone. Still, it's worth it just for the difference in images, etc.

Ambassador Foley doesn't love me (sniff sniff)

I heard on the radio that there's a big bash at the American Embassy today. I guess Ambassador Foley's the host? (I tuned in too late.) Anyway, he's snubbed me two Thanksgivings in a row and now an Election Day bash. That's IT! I'll, I'll, I'll … I'll think of something.

Hennessy & Staunton

Over the weekend I spent a lot of time catching up on my newspaper reading. A lot of what I read was the Irish Times's coverage of the American election. I can't point to anything definite, but after reading many articles by both Mark Hennessy and Denis Staunton I noticed that there was a difference in the style of the two reporters.

I think the difference is that Hennessy's reports struck me as his attempts to report what he was hearing and seeing as he traveled around with the two campaigns. Staunton's reports have a more editorialized tone. Obviously I can't say for certain, but I wonder if it's down to the difference between being one Irish reporter being temporarily in America to report on an event and the other being the full-time Washington correspondent.

Hennessy normally reports on Irish politics and only turned up in America in September (August?). Staunton, meanwhile, sounds like he's spent too much time having drinks with correspondents from the NY Times and Washington Post (& their wannabes).

Anyway, after an hour or so I stopped reading Staunton's articles and stuck with Hennessy's.

Talk about infomercials

Last night TV3 showed United 93. I hadn't seen it before and I guess I wasn't really expecting the emotional impact that it had. I've watched so many documentaries about September 11 that I thought I was inured to the images of what happened that day. I was wrong because I wasn't ready for United 93. The movie is something else and so much better than Oliver Stone's gobbledygook.

I wonder if that had been on ABC rather than TV3 if it would have had the effect of being an infomercial for McCain. Maybe, maybe not, but it sure gets you angry again.

Fifteen miles on the Erie Canal

This cheered me up this morning. The Erie Canal is getting more business these days thanks to the rise in fuel costs. If it doesn't 'absolutely, positively have to be there overnight' then the canal can, apparently, be pretty cost effective.

I grew up near the canal and even though I knew there'd been some increase in pleasure boats using the canal I didn't realize there was any commercial traffic still using it.

We've hauled some barges in our day,
Filled with lum-ber coal and hay,
And ev'ry inch of the way we know
From Al-ba-ny to Buff-a-lo OH