"Most paranoid"

I was reading a summary of the recently concluded trial of "lyingeyes". This had completely passed me by until this weekend, but I caught up yesterday. I came across this from the Irish Times:

In Las Vegas, there was the FBI special agent who raided the home of Eid and Engle and, confronted with a possible find of ricin, the third deadliest poison, etc, in one of the world's most paranoid nations, she does not evacuate the area, have the coffee grinder analysed or advise the hapless Lisa Eid to get the hell out of there - she hands her camera to Lisa and asks her to take pictures for the Irish media.

Is the United States one of "most paranoid nations"? I'm not even sure how paranoia should be measured, but to be among the most paranoid I'd assume you'd have to be among the top twenty.

Are there really fewer than 20 more paranoid nations than America? I don't know, but as I peruse the list of UN members I think I see more than 20 nations that should be classified as more paranoid than America.

Reporters Sans Frontières provides an index of press freedom, which is at least some meausre of how paranoid a nation is. And, although I'm pretty skeptical of the rankings, the fact that the United States is listed 48th of the 169 in the list seems to indicate that there are quire a few more paranoid nations than the United States.

That there are 47 countries where the press is freer than America is doubtful to me, but that America is "one of the world's most paranoid nations" is a ridiculous statement. And, it might have been a throwaway line, but it's also indicative of how America is frequently portrayed here and, more importantly, how America is perceived by those in the media.

Yankees in the news

One of them - Alex Rodriguez - has been making the news over here. A-Rod has been making headlines for all the wrong reasons - and rumors of an extramarital affair with Madonna don't get much more wrong.

I don't usually pay much attention to the sort of news that A-Rod's been making lately, but this one's been impossible to avoid. And I did learn something when I read an article comparing A-Rod with J-Lo and K-Fed. I had to ask who K-Fed was.

It's mostly nonsense as far as I'm concerned, but I've heard a few people describe A-Rod as the "David Beckham of baseball". I don't think that's quite right. A-Rod's not likeable, unlike Beckham and A-Rod really is one of the best players in the world, unlike Beckham.

The other Yankee in the news is Bobby Murcer, who's actually in the news for worse reasons than A-Rod is. Murcer was a Yankee in the 60's and 70's and was the first Yankee I ever liked. He was a star for them when I went to my first game at Yankee Stadium in 1971. I loved watching him play when I was a little kid and I got to like him even more when he returned to the Yankees near the end of his career. There have been very few Yankees I've liked, but Murcer was one of them. Always had a soft spot for him.

Bypassing the referendum

I can't remember where I first came across it, but I remember after the Lisbon vote reading the comments of some Fine Gaeler - Gay Mitchell? - blaming the government for holding a referendum in the first place. His argument was that there was no constitutional imperative to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. I figured that was just some post-game point-scoring by the opposition. I thought so little of what he said that I read it and moved on. Didn't really strike me as important.

Then on July 5 I read a comment by Sarkozy that had me wondering if a non-referendum solution was being seriously considered.

“If the perspective of a second vote in Ireland has been raised it is because it has happened before,” Sarkozy told journalists, referring to Ireland’s second referendum on the Nice treaty in 2002. “We need some kind of vote to get out of the situation – in parliament or in a referendum, I don’t know. But when democratic society says ‘no’, you need a democratic solution.”

Catch that "in parliament"? But, would they? Could they? If all the parties agreed not to make it a difficult issue in the Dáil?

It would be an almighty act of arrogance, but an act of desperation too. And, desperate people will try desperate measures.

I thought to myself this could only be attempted after a prolonged and fairly vigorous softening up campaign. I still think it's unlikely, but today Ruth Barrington, a member of The Irish Times Trust, takes up the theme that the referendum was unnecessary.

Although the conventional wisdom holds that a referendum is required to ratify all EU treaties in Ireland, this is not the case. The treaties enlarging the EU, with the exception of our own in 1972, have been ratified through the Oireachtas. It is ironic that radical treaties that have expanded democracy to formerly totalitarian states can be ratified by the Oireachtas but rules of procedure treaties, such as Nice and Lisbon, which update and regulate our relationships within the union, are ratified by referendum.

The beginning of the softening up?

More on Dillon's column

I don't feel like I did justice to all that John Dillon's column was (or is). The first half was about insulting Americans. The second half of the column was a dig at President Bush (ho hum).

Dillon mixes in poll numbers with some of the more extreme rumors that only those disconnected from reality (that is, working in academia) could believe.

There is a feeling that Bush might even face indictment for some of his more free-wheeling acts. Someone heard a rumour that the Bush family had been engaged in buying a large hacienda in Paraguay, but that the deal fell through when Paraguay signed an extradition treaty with the US. Looks like it may have to be Albania after all for Dubya! They love him there.

Okay, I've seen a version of this Paraguay rumor before. I'll wait until the NY Times or Washington Post treat it seriously before I even consider it. But, again, who cares? If Dillon wants to give credence to "rumors" only even half-believed by those in academia and among the pongy perma-protesters of the far left that's his business.

What annoyed me was how he figured it was all right to mock Albanians. Albanians are still getting used to the light of freedom after enduring decades of grotesque tyranny followed by nearly 15 years of unrest. So they've done their fare share of suffering.

Still, Dillon mocks them because they welcomed Bush warmly when he visited in 2007. From the Washington Post's report on Bush's visit to Albania in June 2007:

"People here understand what evil can do," said Alfred Pllumbi, 28, an airport manager who walked the streets celebrating the visit. "And President Bush has fought evil."

Throughout Bush's eight-hour stay here, he was treated like a star. Crowds stood in the baking heat to catch a glimpse of the president's motorcade. They cheered and chanted when he emerged from his vehicle. At one point, Bush, in shirt sleeves, greeted a throng of exuberant Albanians outside a cafe in Fushe Kruje, a village near Tirana. Bush shook hands and hugged his screaming admirers, one of whom managed to rub his head.

They're free and they're happy, but to Dillon they're simpletons.

Stats & dogs

You just have to read John Dillon's column from Sunday's Sunday Independent. He once (apparently) lived in America, but that doesn't stop him from bashing Americans. He doesn't bash all Americans because he has friends there - "admittedly, of the liberal, academic persuasion, but good Americans all, and lovers of their country".

Those liberal academic types are the good Americans. The rest? Well …

It is a well-known statistic that much more money is expended on pets in the US than on aid to the Third World. Now I personally don't have much of a problem with that. After all, what has the Third World ever done for us? But it does perhaps point up an order of priorities that Americans may have to think about over the next few years.

I didn't know that. It's a "well-known" statistic, though. Or at least "well-known" presumably amongst Dillons friends in academia. It's also false.

In 2006 Americans spent $38bn on their pets whereas public and private sums given to overseas aid added up to $59bn. And how might this compare with Irish or European pet spending or overseas aid? I don't know. Nor does Dillon, I'd wager.

To be honest, I'm not a pet guy. I don't own a pet and I've often marveled at the amount of money some people spend on their pets. But, that's their choice. Other people's pets are hardly a concern of mine.

People choose to spend their money on all sorts of things. Americans seem to like owning pets. Irish people spend a lot of money on alcohol. An awful lot. Which is worse? I don't care, but a comparison in spending is interesting. Although I haven't found great numbers, it does look like Irish people spend a lot more per capita on alcohol than Americans do on cats & dogs or whatever. (In 2005 Americans spent $319 per household on pets whereas in 1999 the average Irish household spent €1,675 on alcohol¹.)

None of this matters even a little other than that Dillon misused of some of this information to smear Americans as a particularly self-absorbed, wasteful people. It's a falsehood born of the prejudice and anti-Americanism commonly found in Europe and in the halls of American academia, where John Dillon finds his American friends.

¹ In 1999 the average American household spent $318 on alcohol.

Solving problems without stress

First I was mad at Microsoft. I installed their recommended security patch and, after the requisite restart, couldn't access the internet. It wasn't Microsoft's fault, however, but the fault of my firewall - ZoneAlarm. Microsoft was fixing a problem that they'd been made aware of a while back, but somehow ZoneAlarm didn't (or couldn't) adapt their product in time for the patch's release. The patch caused ZoneAlarm to basically just shut down internet access.

It took me about 15 minutes to figure out what had happened and reverse what I'd done. That was it and I was back online.

I know that to you most of this is either uninteresting or gibberish or both. Still I'm shaking my head in wonder today. Wondering at how complex the "surfing the internet" still is; wondering at how many different pieces are necessary to be working together to provide security; wondering at how much less stressful I found this problem than I would have if it had happened 4 or 5 years ago (thanks to my greater knowledge and the improvements in Microsoft Windows, which make it much easier to 'undo' these sort of updates if necessary).

If this had happened in 2003 (or so) I'd have had hours of hair-pulling, nail-biting, stomach-churning aggravation before I would have somehow stumbled onto the solution and made all the necessary changes to get back online. Fifteen minutes. That's all it took today.

Blame it on the fees (or lack thereof)

If students had to pay to train to become doctors we probably wouldn't have the problem we have now. According to the Irish Times we're soon going to have too few doctors.

Ireland is facing a future shortage of family doctors involved in full-time clinical practice. The research, conducted by Prof Fergus O’Kelly and his TCD colleagues, surveyed all GP graduates between 1997 and 2003. It found that women GPs are half as likely as their male counterparts to work as full-time doctors at partnership level. Within the next eight years, an increasing number of family doctors will retire – some 40 per cent of GPs will stop working. And most leaving the profession will be men who have been involved in full-time medical practice. How, given the evidence of this survey, will they be replaced?

Forget the male-female thing because that's not the issue. The issue is that there is no cost to becoming a doctor because the state picks up the tab.

If students had to cover the true cost of becoming a doctor there would be far, far fewer giving up or taking time off after taking the taxpayer's dime to acquire an expensive degree. If medical students left college owing €100,000 (or whatever) very few would be able to afford that option.

The abolition of third-level fees has created a number of problems, but this may be the most glaring.

The world's biggest sponge

Sometimes I just marvel at how much water this small island can hold. Okay the sun is shining so far today, but the amount of rain we've had over the past 3 or 4 weeks would sink most larger land masses.

Doom & Gloom

Maybe I just need to read and pass on all of this in order to get it out of my system. Anyway, I thought David McWilliams was excellent in this comparison of the Japanese experience with what may (will?) befall us.

Will Irish house prices fall back to levels seen in 2000/2001 or even to levels seen last century? Will our house prices drop by 70pc before they stabilise? These numbers need to be considered because there are plenty of reasons to be fearful.

The similarities between both Ireland and Japan are striking; the main difference is that the Japanese controlled their own interest rates and thus were able to cut them to soften the blow. As EU inflation topped 4pc this week, it looks likely that we will be facing higher not lower rates for the foreseeable future. Not good.

One similarity is the capacity for self-delusion and failure to face up to the magnitude of our crisis.

… When I read the silly valuations in the 'Irish Times' property section, particularly the "Take 5 at €400,000" section, I am reminded of the Japanese Imperial Palace delusion. Clearly a two up, two down in Rialto is not worth the same as a seven-bedroomed house in the Dordogne. Now that prices are falling rapidly, the idea that pokey Irish houses are worth more than French chateaux will look increasingly daft.

The other problem for Ireland is the sheer extremity of the housing boom. Irish house prices have risen 380pc since 1996, compared with 260pc in the UK -- the next frothiest market. House prices fell in Germany and of course Japan in the same period. While in Switzerland -- Europe's technically most sophisticated economy -- house prices only rose by 5pc in the 12 years since 1996.

As a result of this binge, Ireland is the most indebted nation in Europe. Outstanding residential mortgage debt now amounts to 192pc of our total GNP! This is truly shocking and depressing when you consider that in Germany, outstanding mortgage debt only amounts to 3pc of GNP.

Even in the US -- where many disingenuous Irish commentators are suggesting this crisis originated -- outstanding mortgage debt only accounts for 44pc of GNP.

192% of GNP. How long before one of the banks falls?

This is why the personal debt comparisons with Germany are so instructive. The German has no property-related debt to speak of. This means that the average Gunter doesn't really mind if European interest rates rise, as it will make no difference at all to his budget at the end of the month.

In contrast, the average Paddy, who has seen his personal property indebtedness rise by over 500pc since the late 1990s, will be roasted by a rise in rates.

The Celtic Sabertooth Tiger is extinct.

ESRI Forecasts

The ESRI now says we're in recession. It was only last October that they forecast growth of 2.9% for this year. I remember back in the 90s they were consistently way low on their estimates of growth when the economy was taking off.

So, what to make of their forecast that we'll see growth returning weakly in 2009 and more strongly in 2010. According to Paul Tansey, not much.

Yet, the conventional wisdom now holds that, whatever the economy's current travails, it will rebound to reasonable health in the years from 2010 onwards.

The key text quoted in support of this consoling prognosis is the Economic and Social Research Institute's Medium-Term Review 2008-2015. The ESRI does indeed foresee annual average growth of 3.8 per cent in real Gross National Product between 2010 and 2015 in its central forecast.

… The ESRI notes that "the benchmark forecast assumes that domestic policies will accommodate the objective of maintaining competitiveness over the medium-term".

However, the central problem lies in the fact that it may not be within the capacity of domestic policies to revive Irish price competitiveness. Ireland's arsenal of policy instruments was depleted on entry to the euro. Monetary policy and exchange rate policy were surrendered to Europe.

Thereafter, the use of both policy instruments was dictated by the requirements of the core euro zone economies, not by the needs of the peripheral players such as Ireland.

Our economy is just too small and too far out of synch with the rest of the Eurozone to justify being part of the Euro.

"Pet project"

I absolutely loved this headline from yesterday's Irish Independent: "Greens' pet project to survive cutbacks".

It's a headline from an article by Sam Smyth.

The Government will blow €400,000 on a Green Party pet project, at a time when they are preparing to cut €500m from spending on essential public services.

The cabinet quietly approved purchasing carbon credits for government travel last week. The move was part of deal reached with the Greens during coalition negotiations following last year's general election.

"Blow €400,000", "pet project" - I love it.

Look, I don't care how much you might think carbon emissions are the primary cause of global warming (or whatever) this is a stupid program. If John Gormley wants to plant trees every time he flies that's fine, but he shouldn't be using our money to salve his conscience. He can plant his own trees. Better he cancel one (or more) flight(s) a year and get his fellow ministers to do the same. That would save money and 'the planet'.

You think the government should plant trees in Ireland? Fine. Provide the case that this is a good use of taxpayer's money and do it. Drop the nonsense.

It's time to raise interest rates

That's what Angela Merkel thinks. Mr. Sarkozy doesn't agree nor does anyone in Ireland, but let's face it, the Euro is Germany's baby. Germany is the biggest economy and the Germans as a people have a much greater fear of inflation than do other Europeans. So, even though the ECB is independent, I think Merkel is more likely to be happy this week than is Sarkozy (or Berlusconi or Zapatero or Cowen).

I still wonder how bad things will have to get here before people start demanding that we leave the Euro. Now that would be a drastic move, unlike voting 'No' to the Lisbon Treaty.

Years from now when people look back and ask what led to the "Celtic Tiger" the answer will be obvious to all: cheap oil, cheap credit and an undervalued currency. There'll be no drivel like our "well-educated workforce".

Free! Free! Free!

From today, the Irish Times is free online. This is the another big blow in newspapers' attempts to charge subscriptions for online access. The Irish Times has been charging for many years and obviously couldn't make it work.

I understand the motivation (businesses need to make money), but unless we had the biggest case ever of industrial collusion it was always going to be hard for some papers to charge while others were making their content available for free. I'm sure there are other papers still charging for access, but the only one I can think of right now is the Wall Street Journal (and some parts of the Journal are free online).

Le secrétaire d'Etat aux affaires européennes

No, I can't speak French. I wish I could today. I'd like to know if I'm getting a bad translation of this article from Le Monde. I'll have to live with the translation of what Mr. Jean-Pierre Jouyet, France's "Europe Minister" (Secretary of European Affairs? - see above) had to say about Ireland's vote.

French daily Le Monde reports Mr Jouyet as saying that "Europe has powerful enemies on the other side of the Atlantic, gifted with considerable financial means. The role of American neo-conservatives was very important in the victory of the No."

Ah, Cheney & Rumsfeld again. Lovely. Wrecking "Old Europe's" best laid plans by writing a big check for the 'No' campaign. Ahhh, the satisfaction.

Where did Mr. Jouyet get this nonsense from? Well, apparently it goes back to our friend Lucinda Creighton's attempt at playing the Anti-American card during the campaign.

Sheesh. Talk about paranoid. Europhiles across the continent sure are having trouble remaining connected to reality. A light campaign smear in Ireland and next thing you know French Government Ministers are quoting the Da Vinci Code as an explanation for what went wrong with their grand project.

Miss Creighton, can you please restrain yourself before posting on your web site in future? Your campaign hyperbole is causing members of the French government to make fools of themselves. This is on your head young lady.

The inexplicable 11%

I love reading poll data. You sometimes see things that the reporters ignore when they write a story about the poll.

A Eurobaromoter poll conducted after the Lisbon vote doesn't tell us a lot. I don't think so anyway. It does, however, raise questions either about some of the people who vote or about polls.

Try this. Eleven percent of the 'No' voters believed the Lisbon Treaty was "good for Ireland". What were those 11% (98,000 people) thinking? Why would they vote 'No' if they believed the Treaty was good for the country? I can't come up with any reasonable explanation as to why such a large number of people might have voted this way.

Now before you get too excited, before you start screaming about those numbskulls who make up the 11% and how they cost the 'Yes' side the vote there's this: eleven percent (odd symmetry, no?) of the 'Yes' voters believed the Treaty was "bad for Ireland". Now it's possible that these people could at least have reasonably felt that the Treaty was bad for Ireland, but good for the EU. So maybe there's some explanation for these people. Still, that would mean 80,000 voters were willing to say 'Yes' to something for the sake of the EU at Ireland's expense. Doubtful.

These figures are so strange that I can't help but wonder about the poll itself. How clear were the questions? How representative the sample(s)? 180,000 strange birds voting in the referendum just seems too outlandish. To me this calls the whole poll into question. The media may be running with it, but I would suggest that the government should not be overly dependent on it.

More clarity

Thank you Mr. Joschka Fischer. The former European powerbroker when he was Germany's Foreign Minister has provided further clarification regarding Ireland's position in the EU.

It has happened. After France and the Netherlands rejected the European Constitutional Treaty, Ireland's "No" vote is the second and probably decisive blow against a united and strong Europe. June 12, 2008, will have to be remembered as the day that made European history. No matter what desperate rescue efforts will be undertaken, they cannot hide the fact that the European Union has left the world stage as a serious foreign policy player for at least 10 years (if not for much longer).

… There is still a minuscule chance to avert the debacle if Ireland with its "No" vote remains isolated within the EU.

I don't think anyone ever even imagined France and/or the Netherlands being "isolated within the EU". The votes of the French & Dutch don't matter nor do the rules of the EU nor the pleasant language about Ireland being a partner in the European project.

Again, if we do eventually vote again and approve Lisbon at least there can be no more spin, no more BS, no more naivete, no more denying what the EU is and what our role in the Union is.

April 2009 a good time for Lisbon II

One good thing about the 'No' vote is that we can wait to see how the wind blows in the US election. If we have a second Lisbon Treaty next spring we'll have had enough time to see if President Obama's protectionist policy proposals look like a runner. If they do, then a 'No' vote would be all the more costly as the world's big blocks start throwing up the shutters. It would be foolish to remain outside the EU in such circumstances (unless Ireland is offered some alternative membership in NAFTA). If, however, the protectionist noises fade away after the election then the dangers of being on the outside of the EU would be lessened.

A mid-April re-run of the Lisbon vote should be late enough to know where things are going.

Clarity

Regardless of how this "Lisbon Treaty" ends up, we have clarity now regarding Ireland's real position in the EU. We are not a "partner" in this project. We are expendable and our so-called "veto" was never as firm as the 'Yes' campaign would have us believe.

We didn't have a "veto". We had a "vote" where if we had to we would stand with other countries that shared our concerns on neutrality or taxes or whatever. If any of these issues led to conflict with the 26 other members we were always going to be beaten down. We had no clout and only a minimum of influence. That we had power and influence was the great lie that our politicians peddled (& possibly even believed).

At least the next vote can be more honest. Isolation and possible penury against servility and dependence. It may not be pretty, but at least it's a clear choice.

Two speed Europe

Okay. I'll admit it. I'm slow. Or at least, I'm missing something really, really important with regards to the EU.

Why is a "two-speed" EU (or Europe, as I hear it more often) such a bad thing? From what I understand a "two-speed" Europe is one where some countries plow on with various reforms, etc. while other countries opt out of those reforms (or whatever).

"Nobody wants to see that" is the refrain whenever the possibility of a "two-speed" Europe is brought up. Well, why not?

First of all we already have a multi-speed Europe, dont' we?

The euro is used in only 15 of the EU's 27 countries. Many of the countries not currently using the euro are the new members from E. Europe, most of whom plan to adopt the euro by 2012. However, Britain, Sweden and Denmark are outside the Euro and don't want to join. More than one speed there, no?

Britain and Ireland are outside the Schengen zone. Another change of gears.

So, what exactly is a "two-speed" Europe and why is it so fearful a development for Ireland. Often this fear is expressed in some form of "loss of influence" terms. Well, just how much "influence" does Ireland have exactly? Because, let's face it, our power and strength are hardly likely to sway the Germans, Italians, French, etc. anyway. How much worse off would we be if we were outside the EU's decision-making center, but in a position to negotiate our relationship with the EU? Would we really be that much worse off?

The other day I heard someone gasp at this thought and follow up with (something like) we'd end up like Norway? Norway?

Norway is not a Member State of the EU, and the relationship with the Union is therefore based on other forms and means of close contact and co-operation. This co-operation enables Norway to maintain a very high level of economic integration, and political co-operation, with the EU and its Member States.

Is being outside the EU really costing Norway that much? And, besides, they're not in the EU. Ireland would remain in the EU, but in the slow lane, so to speak, if we had a "two-speed" Europe. Although I'll admit that maybe I'm missing something really, really big here, I wouldn't mind being in the slow lane although I'm sure Irish Eurocrats and politicians would blanche at the very idea.

I'm not even sure where the high speed Europe is heading, but if the fast lane is the highway to hell I'm just as happy to proceed at a leisurely pace.

"Beer-soaked" - an addendum

{I hit the "Go" button on my post last night too quickly.}

Of the 27 countries for which I found 1970 data on alcohol consumption only 5 had a lower per capita consumption than Ireland: Turkey, Japan, Norway, Iceland and Finland. Only one of those nations (Finland) is in the EU today. In other words, when compared with other EU countries Ireland in 1970 was pretty far from "beer-soaked" unless Cohen believes that every EU country was even more "beer-soaked" (or "wine-soaked" or "vodka-soaked") in 1970.

This is why I said that Cohen had fallen back on a stereotype - and an inaccurate one - when he described Ireland in 1970. Stereotype, bigotry, hysteria - I'd like to say that this is a new low for the New York Times, but I doubt it is. Unfortunately.