Lech am Arlberg

I hope everyone (who celebrates it) had an excellent Christmas. I'm certainly enjoying Hannukah... my family (parents and sisters) and I are staying in Lech am Arlberg (Austria) where we are doing some intensive skiing - which explains the lack of blogging. At any rate, I have been skiing since I could stand on my feet, so I'm really having fun.

Lech is a great ski resort in the sense that it is high up in the Alps, very snowy and the slopes are almost never too crowded, because there are only a limited number of hotels and houses available. And the Queen of Holland spends her Winters here...

On the first of January I'm taking a train to Zurich, where I'm meeting a friend from my time in Trieste (where I spent my childhood) who I haven't seen in almost a decade, and on the second I'm catching a flight back to London. I should be back in full form then. Enjoy the holidays.

Tigers on patrol

Better luck next time:

A criminal suspect on the run ended up being mauled to death by a caged tiger, South African police say. The man took refuge in the Bengal tiger's cage at the Bloemfontein Zoo. A visitor to the zoo on Sunday noticed a body covered in bite marks in the cage.
"The man was involved in a robbery and was chased by security guards," police spokeswoman Elsa Gerber told the South African Broadcasting Corporation. "He had nowhere else to go, so he jumped over the zoo fence," she added. The police said that the man had tried to escape after he had robbed a couple with a knife.

Though the punishment seems a little disproportionate, the Nemesis aspect of the episode is interesting.

Pas trop tôt!

I'm feeling giddy: yesterday Antonio Fazio finally resigned!

Antonio Fazio resigned on Monday as governor of the Bank of Italy, finally succumbing to the mounting pressure of a banking scandal that has severely damaged the reputation of the country’s business community.
The governor, under judicial investigation for possible abuse of office and insider trading, quit on the eve of an emergency Italian cabinet meeting to discuss new laws aimed at forcing him out of office.
Two senior members of the Bank’s own board met Mr Fazio on Monday afternoon as internal support for the governor crumbled.
Mr Fazio had resisted calls for his resignation since the summer when court documents highlighted the close relationship which he and his wife had with Gianpiero Fiorani, a banker involved in a controversial takeover battle. The calls reached fever pitch last week after Mr Fiorani was arrested on charges of running a criminal network for personal gain and market abuse related to the takeover battle.

It has taken him so long to leave that it almost feels like some incredible goal has been reached, while the truth is that this is only the first step: what really counts is who will replace him.
According to the Italian press there seem to be five leading candidates:

Former European Central Bank Executive Board member Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa is among the frontrunners to head the Bank of Italy after Antonio Fazio's resignation, economists and politicians said.
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's cabinet today will discuss a proposal to give the government the power to appoint and remove the Bank of Italy governor, a day after the departure of Fazio, 69. The government was powerless to force Fazio out even after he became the target of two criminal investigations into bank takeovers in Italy.
"Padoa-Schioppa would be the perfect candidate," said Lorenzo Codogno, co-head of European economics at Bank of America in London, in an interview. "He knows the Bank of Italy very well and has experience at the ECB. It would be a comeback."
The 65-year-old economist, who served seven years on the ECB's six-member executive board, would garner support from both sides of the political spectrum, economists said. Padoa-Schioppa and Fazio worked side by side as deputy director generals, the No. 3 position at the Bank of Italy, until 1993, when Fazio was chosen over Padoa- Schioppa as governor.
Other names mentioned this week by Italian newspapers such as Corriere della Sera and among economists are Mario Draghi, former director general of the finance ministry and now a vice chairman at Goldman Sachs Group Inc.; Vittorio Grilli, the current director general of the ministry; former European Union Competition Commissioner Mario Monti and Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, who took over Padoa-Schioppa's seat on the ECB executive board in June.

They all sound pretty good, and their mandates will probably be limited to five years, which is great. It even seems they intend to reform the governing council of the central bank which could use some transparency. And Fazio might even follow in Fiorani's footsteps an end up in jail.

Italian perspicuity

I usually don't speak to strangers and keep myself to myself. I was tempted to say something, though, when I was recently browsing in Waterstone's flagship book-store in Piccadilly. I overheard two Italian women who were looking at some books and commenting loudly (no surprise there). At one point one said to the other "Che bello questo libro. Eh, ma è tutto scritto in inglese..." which means "This book is very nice. But it's all written in English...". Hmmm, how strange... I wonder why.
To say the least Jacques de la Palisse would have been proud, no doubt.

A new Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

I have always thought Schroeder was a creep, but this takes the cake:

Barely three weeks after his resignation on November 22 it turns out that Herr Schröder’s private pension scheme is a lucrative job on the Kremlin’s payroll. Last Friday the former German chancellor was appointed foreign policy advisor of Gazprom, the Russian state-owned oil and gas company, and chairman of the board of commissioners of NEGP, the Russian-controlled consortium that is building a gas pipeline from Siberia to Germany.
NEGP (North European Gas Pipeline Company) is a joint venture of Gazprom (for 51%) and two German companies, E.ON and BASF (each for 24.5%). The bilateral gas agreements between Germany and Russia were signed by Schröder last September 8, just 10 days before the German general election, which he lost. Schröder’s last visit to Putin dates from October, when he surprised some German journalists by mysteriously declaring: "Who says that this is going to be my last visit here?"

Do read the whole thing: the story, if at all possible, gets even worse!

In a plan reminiscent of the Stalin-Hitler pact to rip off Poland, Putin and Schröder agreed to build the NEGP pipeline on the Baltic seabed rather than through Poland, despite the far greater expense. The plan has infuriated Central European and Baltic countries. They realize that the Baltic Sea route allows Russia to cut off gas to Central and Eastern Europe while still delivering to Germany. The pipeline, which should be ready by 2010, will allow Moscow to demand the same price for oil and gas from its former satellites as from the Germans, thereby putting the squeeze on countries that, according to Putin, are gravitating too much toward the West.

Though I shouldn't be surprised, I still am. Where is the outrage? The agreement needs to be rescinded immediately and Schroeder must be reprimanded unequivocally and officially by the German government (fat chance!).
What I find particularly galling is that Germans, echoing the insufferable condescension they apply to the US, have been giving Italians constant grief for years about Berlusconi's (admittedly awful) antics. Well, two things come to mind:

1. At least Berlusconi is transparent: what you see (an extreme caricature of all the most appalling traits attributed to Italians) is exactly what you get!
2. And, more importantly, Berlusconi could never pull off anything as damaging to the geo-political situation of Eastern Europe as what Schroeder has done.

I wonder what else the esteemed Chancellor was up to while in office.

Fresh faces

Last week David Cameron was elected leader of the British Conservative party. Many people have compared him to Tony Blair for his media savvy. A subtext of this comparison - which is often not meant as a compliment - seems to be that Blair does not have fixed principles and that he has a tendency to adapt his message to public opinion. In my view this is rubbish: Blair is an excellent example of a leader with strong principles and leadership skills (at least in some areas), unlike many governments in continental Europe which cave in at the least hint of a strike. For instance, it was very courageous of Blair to stand firm on Iraq, given the public opinion he faced at the polls.
At any rate, though Cameron seems to be a likeable fellow, it's quite hard to tell what his policies would be if elected. Margaret Thatcher he ain't. Which, though rather unexciting, might not be a bad thing, if not for Britain, at least for the Tory party. As L'Ombre de l'Olivier notes, it does seem that his approach will have more success that that of his predecessors:

I hope this is part of an deliberate Tory strategy because I think it holds considerable promise. Blair has been identified by numerous commentators as the best Conservative PM Britain has never had (or similar) and certainly he has shamelessly stolen the best parts of successive Tory manifestos for himself. If the Tories start publicly taking credit for this and simultaneously damning with faint praise as in "getting the good bits passed into law" this could cause a nasty split within ZANU Labour. Given the existing fractures between Blair and Brown and the fact that Tax'n'Spend is looking like a bit of loser as taxes rise higher but we see little improvement in government services this could well help the Tories regain the perceived centre ground that Blair so cunningly stole from them.

I agree that this is an excellent approach, but only with the gradual unveiling of Cameron's actual program will we get a better idea of how much of it is media savvy and how much is real substance. I'm hoping for the latter.

Long time, no see

Our good friends Fazio and Fiorani are back in the news. The other day, the former CEO of Banca Popolare Italiana was arrested:

Italian authorities on Tuesday night detained Gianpiero Fiorani, the former head of a bank at the centre of a European cross-border takeover controversy that has engulfed Italy’s central bank and Antonio Fazio, its governor.
Mr Fiorani was placed in custody on the same day the European Commission in Brussels announced it would take legal action against Italy for its handling of the takeover affair.
Mr Fiorani, a family friend of Mr Fazio, was already under investigation by Italian magistrates for suspected financial offences in the way that Banca Popolare Italiana, the bank of which he was chairman, tried to acquire Banca Antonveneta, another Italian bank earlier this year.
BPI was eventually forced to give up its bid in favour of ABN Amro, a Dutch bank that had claimed its takeover campaign was being unfairly obstructed.
Mr Fiorani was placed in custody on suspicion of embezzlement, market manipulation and association with criminal intent. However, he has not yet been formally charged with any offence.
Also detained were Gianfranco Boni, BPI’s former financial director, and Silvano Spinelli, another former BPI executive.
The close relationship between Mr Fazio and Mr Fiorani was exposed in July when the Italian media published transcripts of telephone conversations, taped on magistrates’ orders, that showed the two men discussing the Bank of Italy’s approval for BPI’s bid for Antonveneta before the central bank had officially notified financial markets.

Though appalling, I think Fiorani's conduct pales with respect to the behaviour of Antonio Fazio. As central banker, Fazio was (and inexplicably still is) a public figure with virtually absolute and unfettered regulatory power over several important aspects of the Italian market. This privileged position of influence brings with it increased responsibility, and it is Fazio's fault - not Fiorani's - that Italy has the highest banking fees in the world.
At any rate, if the Italian people cannot muster sufficient outrage to get rid of him, then I guess we deserve him. And I'm suffering of "outrage fatigue."

Men and "choice"

GayandRight links to a fascinating editorial that appeared in the LA Times recently:

Describing his own experience with a girlfriend who terminated a pregnancy against his wishes, Conley took some brave steps down the slippery slope of this debate, suggesting that if a father is willing to assume full responsibility for a child not wanted by a mother, he should be able to obtain an injunction stopping her from having an abortion — and he should be able to do so regardless of whether or not he's married to her.
Conley freely acknowledges the many obvious caveats in this position — the most salient being the fact that regardless of how "full" that male responsibility might be, the physical burden of pregnancy and childbirth will always put most of the onus on women. But as much as I shudder at the idea of a man, husband or not, obtaining an injunction telling me what I can or cannot do with my own body, I would argue that it is Conley who has not gone far enough.
Since we're throwing around radical ideas about abortion rights, let me raise this question: If abortion is to remain legal and relatively unrestricted — and I believe it should — why shouldn't men have the right during at least the first trimester of pregnancy to terminate their legal and financial rights and responsibilities to the child?
As Conley laments, the law does not currently allow for men to protect the futures of the fetuses they help create. What he doesn't mention — indeed, no one ever seems to — is the degree to which men also cannot protect their own futures. The way the law is now, a man who gets a woman pregnant is not only powerless to force her to terminate the pregnancy, he also has a complete legal obligation to support that child for at least 18 years.
In other words, although women are able to take control of their futures by choosing from at least a small range of options — abortion, adoption or keeping the child — a man can be forced to be a father to a child he never wanted and cannot financially support. I even know of cases in which the woman absolves the man of responsibility, only to have the courts demand payment anyway. That takes the notion of "choice" very far from anything resembling equality.

Do read the whole thing. I had never really thought about this discrepancy in these terms, but I think it's a compelling question. It would certainly be interesting if these ideas got a wider airing in the general debate about abortion.

Self-righteous as ever

Glenn Greenwald has written a magisterial post (via Instapundit) in which he comments on the European outrage in the face of Arnold Schwarzenegger's refusal to grant clemency to Tookie Williams, who was executed a few days ago. He rightly identifies this as an excellent example of the intellectual dishonesty of many Europeans:

The moral perversion here is breathtaking. Convicted multiple murderer Tookie Williams is now the hero of the European Left in whose honor they want to re-name monuments. And it is Gov. Schwarzenegger who is the criminal and murderer who deserves punishment and public repudiation.
And this is where the odious anti-Americanism is so evident. Say what you will about the death penalty – reasonable people can certainly disagree about it, and it’s one of the issues to which I confess an irresolvable ambivalence, usually leaning against it. But even to ardent death penalty opponents, the execution of the unquestionably guilty mass murderer and violent gang founder Tookie Williams –- after a jury trial and multiple judicial appeals –- ranks very, very low on the list of the world’s human rights outrages and grave injustices.
The countries which the European Left makes a passionate cause of defending – from the Palestinian Authority to Iran and Syria, not to mention Cuba, China and multiple other historic Communist regimes –- routinely imprison and/or execute people without any due process, for reasons ranging from criticism of the Government to adultery and homosexuality. None of that sparks “outrage among Europeans,” because none of that provides an opportunity to depict the United States as the world’s real evil. As a result, the European Left is uninterested in it.
And therein lies the embodiment and definition of “anti-Americanism”: the parmaount desire to find fault and evil with the U.S. and thereby adopting that goal as the first and only real principle, from which everything else follows. That goal is then fulfilled by selectively and endlessly highlighting and exaggerating America’s faults and downplaying, ignoring and even defending far worse flaws in others. In its most virulent (and quite common) form, this extends to making common cause with the most abusive and genuinely evil regimes and movements around the world, whose only virtue –- the only one the European Left needs -- is that they are opposed by the U.S.

Do read the whole thing. I can emphatically confirm, from personal experience, that this is an accurate representation of the European reality. To me, one of the most baffling aspects of this subtle - but entrenched - attitude that many Europeans adopt is how acceptable it seems to be, to the point where being "anti-American" is almost seen as a badge of honor in some circles. Glenn does us an invaluable service by exposing clearly and concisely how perverse, dishonest and revolting this routine anti-Americanism is. Thank you.

No, I haven't dropped off the planet...

In fact I have been very busy moving from Brussels to London, closing bank accounts, opening bank accounts, getting a British SIM card for my mobile phone, frantically looking for a place to live (while crashing at a friend's house) and starting my new job (yesterday was my first day).
At the moment the results are quite pleasing. I now live right behind Russell Square, where the British Museum is, which is a really cool area (Bloomsbury), and the people at work are interesting, very nice and engaging. And, though I am in the "ultra-liberal" UK, I do have six weeks of paid holiday... Sorry, I just had to tell you that. Plus, quite ironically, my commute here is about half as long as what I was used to in Brussels (which is about seven times smaller than London). Well, I'm certainly not complaining about that...
However I do feel very bad about not blogging in such a long time, and I plan on resuming as soon as possible. I think it will be hard to post from work, at least initially, but I seem to be able to pick up several excellent (though unfortunately not completely reliable) wireless networks from home. In the next weeks I'll see if I can get away with those; otherwise I'll get my own connection.

London, here I come!

Lately things have been moving much too fast for my taste. I have mentioned before that I work in the field of corporate governance and proxy voting. I have lived in Brussels for the past year and a half, and I am currently in my last week of work under a temporary contract for a market leader in this domain. A few weeks ago I sent my resume to a smaller London-based competitor and within days I was invited for an interview and offered a permanent job in London. I was there for the past several days (narrowly escaping the snow-induced chaos in much of the rest of Europe), I signed the contract last Friday and I am moving on Sunday. I'm still a little dazed by the speed of it all.
I'm really happy about this, not only for the job - which sounds interesting - but also for the location: London is a lovely, bustling and exciting city where I have several friends and relatives. Not to mention the fact that I feel a close intellectual connection to the Anglo-Saxon world...
However, the technicalities of moving are not as glamorous. I am frantically looking for a place to stay (though I don't lack stopgap solutions) and there are all sorts of annoying administrative things that need to be taken care of.
Nevertheless this morning I am in a buoyant mood: I was finishing this week's The Business on my way to work, and I see that my new, rather obscure, employer is referred to as "highly regarded." Well, that's nice to know!

My home country has its uses

Currently I am in London (that's why there hasn't been any posting) and the news of the day (other than George Best's passing) is the supposedly dastardly attitude of Israel towards East Jerusalem.
The Guardian reports on the front page (also see the Financial Times):

A confidential Foreign Office document accuses Israel of rushing to annex the Arab area of Jerusalem, using illegal Jewish settlement construction and the vast West Bank barrier, in a move to prevent it becoming a Palestinian capital.
In an unusually frank insight into British assessments of Israeli intentions, the document says that Ariel Sharon's government is jeopardising the prospect of a peace agreement by trying to put the future of Arab East Jerusalem beyond negotiation and risks driving Palestinians living in the city into radical groups. The document, obtained by the Guardian, was presented to an EU council of ministers meeting chaired by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, on Monday with recommendations to counter the Israeli policy, including recognition of Palestinian political activities in East Jerusalem.
But the council put the issue on hold until next month under pressure from Italy, according to sources, which Israel considers its most reliable EU ally.

Finally the government of my home country does something I can be proud of. The reason I say this is not because I want the Palestinians disenfranchised, but because I feel that Israel and its current government are going above and beyond the call of duty to try to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians, as this World Tribune story evidences:

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has drafted a plan for Israel's withdrawal from virtually all of the West Bank by 2008.
Political sources said Sharon has begun briefing senior U.S. officials of his intention to withdraw unilaterally from more than 95 percent of the West Bank. They said Sharon, who quit the ruling Likud Party on Nov. 21, would seek a U.S. and international security presence in the area as well as a commitment for the dismantling of Palestinian insurgency groups.
On Wednesday, Haim Ramon, a Cabinet minister who joined Sharon's new party, said the prime minister plans to withdraw unilaterally to what would constitute Israel's final borders, Middle East Newsline reported. Ramon said Sharon does not plan to discuss this before the parliamentary elections, scheduled for March 28.
"His decision [to quit the Likud] stems from his desire to bring the state of Israel to permanent borders during his term of office," Eli Landau, a longtime confidante of Sharon, said. "He knows that this step will be a dramatic one."
The sources said Sharon's plan was based on an assessment that the Palestinian Authority was not prepared to sign a formal peace agreement with Israel. They said that under this scenario Sharon would order a unilateral withdrawal from more than 90 percent of the West Bank, but retain control over air space.
The pullout would be accompanied by a pledge from Sharon of an additional pullout and full Palestinian independence should the PA dismantle insurgency groups and maintain security cooperation with Israel. The sources said a version of the plan has already been drafted by Israel's National Security Council.

I think this is an excellent idea, and I hope Ariel Sharon garners sufficient votes in the next general election to enact it. And, by the way, I wonder why nobody in the MSM noted the story.
To return to the subject of East Jerusalem, it should also be noted that the Muslim claim to Jerusalem may be more tenuous than generally believed, and apparently the Palestinians living there are, at best, ambiguous about PA control over it:

In the Palestinian Authority's (PA) elections that took place in January 2005, a significant percentage of Arab Jerusalemites stayed away from the polls out of concern that voting in them might jeopardize their status as residents of Israel. For example, the Associated Press quoted one Rabi Mimi, a 28-year-old truck driver, who expressed strong support for Mahmoud Abbas but said he had no plans to vote: "I can't vote. I'm afraid I'll get into trouble. I don't want to take any chances." Asked if he would vote, a taxi driver responded with indignation, "Are you kidding? To bring a corrupt [Palestinian] Authority here. This is just what we are missing."
This reluctance—as well as administrative incompetence—helped explain why, in the words of the Jerusalem Post, "at several balloting locations in the city [of Jerusalem], there were more foreign election observers, journalists, and police forces out than voters." It also explains why, in the previous PA election in 1996, a mere 10 percent of Jerusalem's eligible population voted, far lower than the proportions elsewhere.
At first blush surprising, the worry about jeopardizing Israeli residency turns out to be widespread among the Palestinians in Israel. When given a choice of living under Zionist or Palestinian rule, they decidedly prefer the former. More than that, there is a body of pro-Israel sentiments from which to draw. No opinion surveys cover this delicate subject, but a substantial record of statements and actions suggest that, despite their anti-Zionist swagger, Israel's most fervid enemies do perceive its political virtues. Even Palestinian leaders, between their fulminations, sometimes let down their guard and acknowledge Israel's virtues. This undercurrent of Palestinian love of Zion has hopeful and potentially significant implications.

Do read the whole thing, it is very interesting.

Hindsight is always 20:20

As usual, the Los Angeles Times ran a breathtakingly idiotic and dishonest front page story the other day (via Drudge):

The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq.
[...]
The senior BND officer who supervised Curveball's case said he was aghast when he watched Powell misstate Curveball's claims as a justification for war.
"We were shocked," the official said. "Mein Gott! We had always told them it was not proven…. It was not hard intelligence."

Sheesh, the sheer chutzpah of these people is incredible. Where were they before the Iraq war? Have they just woken up from a two-year slumber?
The Man Without Qualities suggests a motivation:

So why now? Why would the German government authorize its intelligence officers to speak up now - in a manner that can scarcely be expected to help relations between Berlin and Washington?
Could it have something to do with the fact that the person these "five senior officers" currently work for, departing Social Democratic Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, despises George Bush and is just about to leave office and the German government entirely? Could it have something to do with the fact that incoming Chancellor Angela Merkel, the leader of the conservative Christian Democratic Party, is known to be quite a bit more sympathetic to Mr. Bush than is Herr Schröder?

Be that as it may, I am appalled by the ease with which history is being rewritten. Why are so many people fawning over this supposed clarity of thought when in actual fact such clarity demonstrably never existed at the time (and still doesn't)? Does what actually happened count for nothing?

The Springer question

The Financial Times reports:

Germany's cartel office has raised the chances of a foreign bidding war for the country's second-largest private broadcaster by warning Axel Springer, the newspaper publisher, that it has grave concerns about the proposed takeover of ProSiebenSat1.
The monopoly watchdog informed Springer late Friday that "the conditions for the prohibition of the merger are given" as it would split the German TV advertising market between it and Bertelsmann, which owns market leader RTL.

What the story doesn't note is that at least part of this "grave concern" stems from political motives, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out (via Davids Medienkritik) when the deal was announced:

German democracy is under attack. At least that is what a flock of the media elite has been claiming since Axel Springer, Germany's largest newspaper publisher, said Friday it would buy ProSiebenSat.1, the country's second-largest broadcasting group. This "cannot be in the interest of democracy," said Michael Konken, the chairman of Germany's journalist association. Frank Werneke, a trade union leader, called for "the containment of media power across sectors."
These concerns would sound more sincere if they also had been voiced four years ago when Bertelsmann, the world's fourth-largest media company, took control of RTL Group, Germany's largest broadcaster. But back then, there were no such warnings about democracy's imminent decline. Bertelsmann's outlets are more to the liking of the German left.
Let's look at some of the facts. Although the acquisition will nearly double Springer's sales to about €4.2 billion, Bertelsmann still dwarfs its competitor, with global sales more than four times higher. Bertelsmann's German business alone still outpaces its rival with about €5 billion in sales. RTL is slightly more popular than ProSiebenSat.1 but neither broadcaster reaches 25% of the German audience -- the ceiling regulators have set for combined print and television companies.
[...]
The principles Springer journalists are expected to support are freedom and democracy in Germany and efforts to bring the peoples of Europe closer together; reconciliation between Jews and Germans, which includes support for Israel's right to exist; the trans-Atlantic alliance and the liberal value community with the U.S.; the rejection of totalitarianism and the defense of Germany's free, social-market economy.
What sounds like a manifesto that any reasonable democrat in Germany should be able to sign is now being called a threat to the country's democracy. Without doubt, the company's commitment to the trans-Atlantic relationship is what irks its opponents the most. Springer publications often criticize U.S. policies but its readers will not find the kind of hysterical anti-Americanism now so prevalent in much of Germany's media.

Meanwhile, Wolfgang Münchau writes in today's Financial Times that it is the disastrous foreign policy of Gerhard Schröder, so strongly (and dishonestly) peddled by Bertelsmann's media outlets, that has put Germany in its worse strategic position of the post-War period:

When Gerhard Schröder became chancellor in 1998, he altered both elements of the doctrine. He was never an instinctive European. During his seven-year term in office he failed to build effective alliances in the EU and picked numerous fights, especially with the European Commission. At the same time, German foreign policy became gradually less transatlantic. Mr Schröder's decision to exploit anti-American sentiments during the 2002 election campaign has done lasting damage to US-German relations.
Mr Schröder has said frequently that under his leadership Germany has turned into an "emancipated" mid-sized political power. I would argue that, on the contrary, Germany is politically less relevant today than at any time since the second world war. This decline in power is to a large extent the result of his catastrophic foreign policy.
[...]
All in all, the style of German foreign policy will probably change for the better. The real question is whether this matters. There are four reasons to think that it might not.
First, during the Schröder years, public opinion in Germany has turned progressively more anti-American. Iraq may have been the trigger for this development but the trend had already set in before September 11. The change in sentiment towards the US was probably more pronounced in Germany than in any other European country. Turning back the clock on transatlantic relations would have to involve more than subtle diplomacy.
Second, there will be just as many substantive disagreements with Washington, if not more, under the new government. Germany will still not be sending troops to Iraq. Ms Merkel and Mr Bush disagree on a whole range of issues, from climate change to Turkish EU membership.
Third, the German political class has become far more inward-looking since unification. Domestic politicians such as Mr Schröder have often portrayed the European Commission as an institution infested with Anglo-Saxon libertarian zealots who are out to destroy German industry.
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, Germany's persistently disappointing economic performance will act as an over-arching constraint on the effectiveness of any foreign policy. An economically feeble Germany is going to be politically feeble. In the long run, the best foreign policy would be to sort out the economy. Yet this is not what the grand coalition will do.
In spite of all this, a new style of foreign policy may still achieve something. But it would be a mistake to expect too much of Germany's new chancellor.

I wish he was wrong, though I doubt he is.
At any rate, returning to the Axel Springer question, the amusing result of blocking the merger is probably going to be even less pleasant for the anti-Americans in the German intelligentsia:

This would open the way for a possible bidding war between foreign rivals. Rupert Murdoch, the media tycoon, in February denied he wanted to take over ProSieben. But German industry observers have said that his company, News Corp, and US rivals Viacom and General Electric, all had a look at the company before Springer made a bid.
Should Mr Döpfner apply for special permission from the government, Angela Merkel, the new chancellor, would have to choose between overruling her regulator and opening the door to foreign media players.

Though I prefer Mr. Döpfner, I'm not going to complain if Mr. Murdoch acquires ProSiebenSat.1 instead. Actually, I think Rupert is more hands-on politically, which can only be a good thing, considering the German media-market's lamentable and mindless anti-American consensus.

A dangerous smoke(r)

The French are priceless:

A French woman has admitted attempting to open an aeroplane door mid-flight so that she could smoke a cigarette. Sandrine Helene Sellies, 34, who has a fear of flying, had drunk alcohol and taken sleeping tablets ahead of the flight from Hong Kong to Brisbane. She was seen on the Cathay Pacific plane walking towards a door with an unlit cigarette and a lighter. She then began tampering with the emergency exit until she was stopped by a flight attendant.

Boy, am I glad I wasn't on that flight!

Lazy or smart?

This is peculiar:

Growing numbers of migratory birds are too lazy to fly all the way to Africa for the winter and are staying in Britain.
Unprecedented numbers of warblers, blackcaps and chiffchaffs shirked the flight to warmer climes last year and even more are expected to stay this winter. Most surprising is the number of species of warblers that can now be found in Britain in the coldest months, according to a survey by the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO).
Greg Conway, who organised the survey for the trust, said: "It's as if they're saying, 'I can't be bothered to go abroad this year, dear — let's stay here'. They're too lazy to migrate to Africa."

Apparently this has little to do with warmer winters in Europe, which are still too cold for them. It seems that the birds migrate from Germany and have discovered that they get the best breeding grounds when they fly back (in the spring) if they spend the winter in the UK instead of flying all the way to Africa: first come, first served.

Quote of the day

From Instapundit reader Jeff Medcalf:

It seems to me that the Left's position is inconsistent: if WP (White Phosphorus) rounds are WMD, then Saddam clearly had massive WMD stockpiles, and the war was justified.

See here and here for background.
Meanwhile the White House is finally back amongst the living, and Tammy Bruce (the "openly gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, voted-for-President Bush progressive feminist" author, activist and radio talk show host) makes an excellent historical comparison (via Instapundit):

Think about it this way--if during World War II the Republicans kept arguing that the war was a "quagmire" and that President Roosevelt "lied" about Pearl Harbor, and that the Germans had done nothing to us, as a result he had "misled" us into the war. Then they would be asking for a "time table" to get out of Europe. Does that sound normal to you? Or reasonable? Or does it sound like a defeatist, Hate-America first attitude?
Here is the time table for all war: it ends when the enemy is vanguished. The time table for Europe was when the Axis Powers all eventually surrendered. It's now obscene what the Dems are doing and has moved far past the "loyal opposition" expected of the minority.
It's about time the White House respond to the absurdity of the Dems. Their attacks are not only absurd, they put this entire nation in increasing danger as our enemies look for more ways to kill our families and destroy civilization. This is not a game, but the Dems are treating it as though it were. Shame on them.

Amen to that. Not to mention the fact that it is still far from clear what actually happened to the WMD programs that we know for certain Saddam Hussein at some point had.

Abysmal literacy levels

The other day a study was released by UNLA (the Italian "National Union for the Fight against Illiteracy") about the level of education and literacy in Italy. It paints a hair-raising picture. The study is an analysis of the latest census data, which dates back to 2001. The key findings:

1. Almost six million people (about 12% of the population) are either totally illiterate or hold no diploma of any kind (i.e. they have not even completed elementary school).
2. Amazingly, just under 36 million people (about 66% of the population) have not obtained a high school diploma, meaning that their level of education does not enable them to fully interact with society.
3. Only about four million people (7.5% of the population) have a college degree.

I could not find the actual report, and it is not clear what portion of the population is included in these figures. The Istat (Italian census bureau) statistics on literacy absurdly start with six-year-olds. According to La Stampa the illiterate population is mostly "old." However Il Giornale specifically says that the study only includes people under 70, while the numbers for older people are significantly worse. In any case it is particularly alarming that the situation is getting better only very slowly: the number of college graduates has increased by only 1.19% in the past decade (and the literacy level of students coming out of junior high school does not bode well for the future).
For all those Italians who for some reason are convinced that Italy has a great system of public education (which is true - to a limited extent - if you go through with it) it will be sobering to know that among the 30 OECD countries we rank third-to-last in literacy and educational attainment, ahead only of Portugal and Mexico.

She's a real old-timer

This is really cool:

A zoo in Australia has held a 175th birthday party for one of the world's oldest known living creatures, a Giant Galapagos tortoise. Australia Zoo, where the tortoise has lived for the last 17 years, marked the day with a pink hibiscus flower cake.

Although the animal's exact date of birth is not known, DNA testing has indicated its approximate age. Some people believe the tortoise, known as Harriet, was studied by British naturalist Charles Darwin. Darwin took several young Giant Galapagos tortoises back to London after his epic voyage on board HMS Beagle. DNA testing has suggested the giant creature was born around 1830, a few years before Darwin visited the Galapagos archipelago in 1835. However, Harriet belongs to a sub-species of tortoise only found on an island that Darwin never visited.

Can you believe this creature was born while Andrew Jackson was President of the United States and almost a decade before Queen Victoria ascended the British throne? All I can say is: a very happy birthday!

Switch on brain, please

It's enough to make you want to tear your hair out. Why can't the EU come up with a good idea for a change?

On top of this, the European Commission is considering environmental regulations that could add £55 to the cost of an airline ticket. These developments will be hailed by ailing national carriers and condemned by the successful budget airlines. That's because British Airways can absorb such a price increase, while the increase would destroy EasyJet's competitive advantage of low costs.
[...]
Environmental rules already require airlines to increase energy use. High-angle landing and takeoff patterns require more power and so increase fuel use. Altitude restrictions -- now being considered as a separate climate change prevention measure -- add miles to the journey and increase fuel use. In fact, we should be looking at ways to reduce journey lengths. Today, government regulates the paths that aircraft must take on any given journey, while air-traffic control prohibits pilots from choosing their own route. Allowing 'free flight' would yield greenhouse-gas emissions reduction of up to 17 per cent.

Read the whole thing for the real reasons behind the measure.
And if by any chance you have been hoaxed into believing that the oceans are about to flood the earth, you should read this excellent article. When will we follow Tony Blair's lead, and admit that the Kyoto Protocol is an embarassingly stupid idea?
And, of course, we need to go nuclear (via GayandRight).