"Daredevils"

The Ballymoney Times informs us that the latest "daredevil craze" is stripping off and then cruising the north coast. I suppose, given the weather along the north coast, that is the equivalent of extreme ironing.

{I have to admit I suspect this is a ploy by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board.}

Subway series

Three games against the hated pinstripers from the Bronx starting tonight. Too much pressure to consider blogging on much else.

I don't think I've said enough good things about NASN lately. The other morning I woke early and went downstairs with my WiFi enabled laptop and turned on NASN to get the previous night's baseball news, but instead, I caught the 4th quarter of Seattle against San Antonio in the NBA playoffs. What a treat. 5:40am and I'm watching live playoff basketball.

Anyway, the great people at NASN are proving live coverage of two of the three NY vs NY games plus a whole lot more this weekend. NASN is essential viewing for the American abroad.

FA Cup

I read something on an obscure Florida web site that claimed Malcolm Glazer was planning on renaming the FA Cup the Tampa Bay Cup when Manchester United claim it tomorrow afternoon. This is how it starts.

Indefatigable Saddam?

I wonder if George Galloway still considers Saddam indefatigable after seeing a very weary looking Saddam in his underwear in this morning's Sun.

Firefox

I hadn't read or heard that Firefox had some security issues and that a new version is now available. This apparently all happened more than a week ago. I found out thanks to Richard's post on his bad experiences with version 1.0.4, which I've now installed as well.

After 10 minutes all is fine for me.

Galloway vs the Senators

I love this description of the encounter by John Derbyshire:

Galloway came up through the UK parliamentary system, though, where you have to be fierce and clever in debate, and need to be able to think fast on your feet. The US Senate is full of pompous bores, stuffed up to the nose holes with a conviction of their own terrific importance, whose idea of debate is to drone their way through a speech some minimum-wage staffer has written up for them. This was like watching an alley mongrel let loose in a room full of pampered, overfed lap dogs.

Galloway "wins"

The London Times claims today that George Galloway was the winner "on points" in his battle with the US Senate sub-committee the other day according to the US press. The Times could well be right, but what struck me later when I thought about it is that the two Senators who asked the questions, Coleman and Levin, didn't much care. And, for the most part, neither did the press. Galloway was not front page news that I saw and not the subject of acres of news print or any opinion pieces.

Galloway is a nobody in the US. Only the politically obsessed have ever heard of him. The Senators didn't target Galloway in their report because he was clearly not really the focal point of what they were about. For the most part they couldn't have cared less about him.

The Senate found his name on a few documents and published his name along with others. Galloway has never been in government or a position of real authority and the Senators were never really interested in him. I think this explains why the wind seemed to go out of Galloway's sails near the end of the exchange. I think he realized that he just wasn't important enough for the Senators to care whether the report was strictly accurate with reference to him or not.

They humored him for a few minutes and then he was 'dismissed'. He arrived home to a hero's welcome, but let's face it—the average American has no idea who Galloway is and doesn't know anything about his testimony on Tuesday.

Conor Lenihan

As fate would have it, I was in the Dail chamber as a visitor yesterday. I listened to Joe Higgins make his points on Aer Lingus (and I second Richard's views on Higgins). Unfortunately, I had to leave just as Higgins was finished and I missed what happened next.

Should Conor Lenihan have to resign for his remark to Higgins? No, I don't think he should have to. Here's why.

I suspect we all know people like Lenihan. Occasionally witty and, just as frequently, wrong, embarrassing, or hurtful in their attempts to be witty. Such a person is an annoyance and usually not that bright. An attention seeker. This has been my impression of Lenihan since he was first elected.

Yesterday evening on the radio I heard a journalist* who helped break the Gama story say that he has heard Lenihan praising Higgins for his work on this issue. That tells me that Lenihan is favorably disposed towards Higgins's efforts on behalf of the Turkish workers and (probably) not bigoted.

What I think happened yesterday is that Lenihan simply took the bait that Joe Higgins (a much cleverer man, I believe) offered him. Higgins twice referred to the "silence of the lambs" among the Fianna Fail back-benchers over the privatization of Aer Lingus. Lenihan simply combined lamb with Turkish and came up with his kebobs quip. Doesn't seem to have been too funny, although I'm not sure how hurtful it really is. Stupid certainly seems an appropriate description.

So, I won't convict Lenihan of being a racist after one off-the-cuff moment of stupidity. However, he is an idiot and has been for quite a while. As far as I'm concerned this really says much less about Lenihan than it does about the judgment of Bertie Ahern. Why does he have such a man in the government?

Lenihan shouldn't have to resign, but Ahern should have to remove him from the cabinet because Lenihan is clearly not government material and never was.

* I cannot remember his name now, but I know when I heard it that the name was a familiar one. Sorry about that.

Uzbekistan

Best thing I've read on Uzbekistan so far. Stephen Schwartz says that Islamism has nothing to do with the uprising in the east. It's all about commerce and rising expectations.

Galloway TV

You can catch proceedings online here. Starting shortly, I believe.

UPDATE 5:50pm: I suppose from an entertainment perspective this was great. Galloway was certainly feisty. However, after a while it became apparent that neither he nor the Senators were going to say or reveal anything really interesting or worthwhile.

Wrong profit model

I think the NY Times has got their online business model exactly backwards. From September the Times is going to start charging for online access to their op-ed and sports columns. News, features & photos will remain free.

What a bizarre decision. I don't think these people know what part of their operation is actually valuable.

The NY Times still has the best news coverage of any English language news provider. That's what makes the paper great. Their regular columnists are generally predictable and not all that special. Many of them are syndicated anyway. Columns written by Tom Friedman, David Brooks, Maureen Dowd and others will, presumably, still be available elsewhere online. Besides, there are millions of opinions online, many more interesting than those available at nytimes.com, but there are very few good sources for news.

If I was in charge of the Times's online business I would let anyone read Maureen Dowd for free, but charge a lot for the paper's coverage of national and international affairs.

Europe United

A simple survey of Europeans indicates that the French aren't all that well thought of. I would bet if the same survey mentioned in this article were conducted in the US you'd probably find that Americans like the French more the Europeans do.

"Interviewees were simply asked an open question - what five adjectives sum up the French," said Olivier Clodong, one of the study's two authors and a professor of social and political communication at the Ecole Superieur de Commerce, in Paris. "The answers were overwhelmingly negative."

Perhaps if the EU wants to see its constitution ratified across Europe, kicking the French out of the EU should be considered?

Racism at Shea?

NY Times journalists, Lee Jenkins & Ken Belson, imply that Met fans are racist because they boo Kaz Matsui and not Mike Piazza.

Just as American players in Japan are often viewed more critically than natives, Matsui is getting little sympathy in New York. He batted a respectable .272 last season and has a higher batting average than Mike Piazza this year, yet he has become the biggest target for frustrated fans since Roger Cedeño was chased out of New York.

When Matsui says that he does not regret signing with the Mets and believes the jeers have nothing to do with his being Japanese, it is hard to tell if he is being serious or diplomatic.

He may have been "respectable" last year, but Met fans were led to believe they were getting great. This year he's been awful.

Maybe if Matsui had been one of the all time great players for the Mets, had led them to the World Series and was finishing up a great career he'd get the respect and patience that Met fans show Piazza. But, Matsui is young and a flop. He's a failure in New York and nothing is more unforgivable. It has nothing to do with his being Japanese.

Lying to the federal government

Last week I was finally able to get into the Embassy to get my new passport. I was there with my wife and daughter, who also needed a new passport. Anyway, my daughter was reading my renewal form and noticed that I had listed "brown" for my hair color. My daughter said "there's a lot of gray there". My wife piled on with, "Can you be arrested for lying on this form? Salt and pepper is closer to the truth than brown".

Family members can be so cruel.

Murdoch & Glazer

I'm trying to understand Malcolm Glazer's logic in buying Manchester United. I'm going to assume it has nothing to do with him being a big fan.

Reading this article on Glazer's potential bid for the Los Angeles Dodgers in 2003, the writer notes that Glazer "made his fortune buying financially handicapped companies and selling them for profit". Well, United is not financially handicapped – at least not as far as I know.

At the time, the NFL wasn't too happy about Glazer's possible purchase of the Dodgers. The NFL has rules against owning teams in "competing" sports.

Then there's this from 2003 on the Dodger sale:

In a pretty wide-ranging interview with Sports Business Journal last week [Sep '03], [NFL] commissioner Paul Tagliabue acknowledged he hasn't heard much lately about the sale of the Los Angeles Dodgers to Tampa Bay Bucs owner Malcolm Glazer and his family. And this might be a reason why: Unless somebody slaps a pair of defibrillator paddles on the deal, and resuscitates the thing, it's dying. Owners from both entities, but especially those in the NFL, have some pretty strong issues with the whole concept. His NFL peers simply don't believe Glazer has the financial wherewithal to purchase the Dodgers without using some of the Bucs money, or using the NFL franchise as collateral, and Malcolm would have a lot of 'splaining to do before he would get their approval. As the great philosopher Yogi Berra once noted, "It ain't over 'til it's over." In baseball terms, though, Glazer looks to be in the ninth inning, shy a couple runs, and down to his last strike.

So, if he couldn't afford the $400m price tag for the Dodgers in '03, what's changed to allow him to afford Manchester United and its (approx.) $1.5bn price tag?

Is it possible that Glazer is buying Manchester United partially with someone else's money? And, could that someone else be Rupert Murdoch?

Murdoch still owns 10% of the club from his failed bid in 1999. I haven't seen anything about him selling his shares to Glazer.

In today's NY Times Geoffrey Wheatcroft notes the global appeal of Manchester United, particularly in Asia. "The club has one fanzine that sells 35,000 copies a month in Thailand; games from Old Trafford are watched live in China by more people than inhabit the British Isles".

If I were Rupert Murdoch and in charge of the STAR TV satellite systems across Asia, I'd be pretty keen on acquiring Manchester United. In 1999 Murdoch was stopped from doing just that by the British government. Could he have found a partner in Glazer? Someone willing to be the front man for Murdoch's buyout?

When Glazer tried to buy the Dodgers in 2003, they were owned by Murdoch's Fox Sports. So, there's a little history there already. Of course, Glazer would also have had some input into the NFL's t.v. rights negotiations with Fox and the other US networks. There has to be some logic to this deal and I can't see it from Glazer's perspective, but from Murdoch's view this would be a great deal.

Moaning about prices

Listening to Fine Gael Deputy Leader Richard Bruton moaning about "rip-off" Ireland on the radio this morning. Why do radio stations even allow politicians on to talk about this type of thing? He first tried to blame "British multiples" for charging more here than in the UK and then said that people didn't have time to shop around to find lower prices.

Gimme a break. Sure prices here are high. Taxes are exorbitant and wages are high. And, if companies are charging a premium for those who are "too busy" to shop around what about it? It's not the business of government to help those who are "too busy" to shop around. If people can't be bothered saving their money I don't see why my tax money should be used to assist them.

I've never been able to fully explain it, but I've always thought that the basic logic of competition and economics are not grasped in Ireland as they are in the US. Not sure why that is. Complaining about the price of cups of coffee, etc. seems so silly. Just do not have coffee where it's too pricey. It's not that hard to avoid having a cup of expensive coffee when you're out.

Spreading freedom & democracy

It's all well and good for the President to promote freedom and democracy world-wide, but I'm still not convinced its wise. This week he was in Georgia where he got a great welcome. He's got a real soul-mate in the Georgian President, Mikhail Saakashvili:

"It's a new kind of ideology that we have from this president that's kind of crystallized now. It is idealistic. It's a much more moral position. It's also a very winning positive position," Mr. Saakashvili said.

If there is a 'moral' position in foreign affairs, this is one. However, I'm not so sure it's a "winning" position. President Bush is on some form of mission here, but I'm not sure it's right for the US.

If I weren't American I'd only see reason to applause. However, I worry that the President is over-committing the United States. I don't think the American people are willing to see their troops die in wars around the world to keep the Georgians (or Taiwanese or others) free. Yet, that's exactly the position the President might find himself in.

The other day the President's biggest cheer-leader, Mr. Saakashvili upped the ante in his dispute with Russia. Would this have happened if President Bush were more circumspect and less forceful in his promotion of the cause of freedom and democracy in Georgia? From the Washington Times article (link above):

"We didn't ask President Bush for cash here or for some special statement, even on the Russian bases. No. What we asked for was not to be abandoned. That's what matters," he said.

Are we really willing to not "abandon" the Georgians if things get really hot between them and the Russians? Has NATO okayed this or is the US all alone on it? I wish the Georgians well, but I can't see going to wall with the Russians for the sake of Georgia.

Manchester United Buccaneers

Lead story on RTE tonight is that Malcolm Glazer has bought out the shares of the two Irish owners of Manchester United giving Glazer 57% of the club.

I mean, who cares? Lead story? This is hardly a big issue in the scope of things.

I honestly don't understand why Manchester United's fans are in a "rage" about this. I haven't heard that Glazer is planning on moving the club to Tampa.

Galloway

I'd love to believe that George Galloway did receive 20m barrels of oil from Saddam. I'd love to believe it because I've come to really dislike this smarmy, Saddam-loving politician. However, I would have thought that if he had received 20m barrels that there would be some fairly clear evidence of what happened to all that money. For the moment, I'll probably just assume he just liked Saddam for who he was and not for any kick-back he was providing.

Maybe he'll testify before Congress and we'll get an answer one way or the other.

My own copy of the EU Constitution

I received my copy of the EU Constitution today. {Just sent an e-mail to the EU Parliament's office in Dublin asking for a copy and they sent it to me. You can download it in PDF format here.}

Wow, is it long. I didn't really know what to expect, but I somehow doubt I'll ever read the whole thing. I'm no expert on constitutions, but this one is clearly not written with the expectation that the average citizen will read it. I've only read and re-read the preamble and the best I can say about it is that it reads as if it is a mission statement for an organization that really doesn't know what its mission is.

DRAWING inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, democracy, equality, freedom and the rule of law,

BELIEVING that Europe, reunited after bitter experiences, intends to continue along the path of civilisation, progress and prosperity, for the good of all its inhabitants, including the weakest and most deprived; that it wishes to remain a continent open to culture, learning and social progress; and that it wishes to deepen the democratic and transparent nature of its public life, and to strive for peace, justice and solidarity throughout the world,

CONVINCED that, while remaining proud of their own national identities and history, the peoples of Europe are determined to transcend their ancient divisions and, united ever more closely, to forge a common destiny,

CONVINCED that, thus "united in its diversity", Europe offers them the best chance of pursuing, with due regard for the rights of each individual and in awareness of their responsibilities towards future generations and the Earth, the great venture which makes of it a special area of human hope,

DETERMINED to continue the work accomplished within the framework of the Treaties establishing the European Communities and the Treaty on European Union, by ensuring the continuity of the Community acquis,

GRATEFUL to the members of the European Convention for having prepared the draft of this Constitution on behalf of the citizens and States.

The preamble to the US Constitution is much shorter:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The US Constitution was hardly flawless. It contained one almighty compromise (& contradiction) that eventually led to the Civil War and more than a million dead Americans. Still, I love the fact that the first three words are "We the people". There's no sense in this EU Constitution that this document is intended to create a "government of the people, by the people, for the people".

There are plenty of compromises and contradictions here too. I suspect that the provisions of Part III, Title V could cause some problem. How do you square, "The Member States shall support the common foreign and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity" with Irish neutrality, for instance.

Those compromises and the length and excessive amount of detail in this Constitution – Part III, Title III, Chapter V, Section 4 deals with tourism, for example – hardly bode well for the Constitution's longevity. I wonder if it will be voted down for simply being too complex.