That's OK though, he really wanted to be the EU Foreign Minister which we all know is much more important, anyway. That's the Blair-spin, at least. If he is as successful with the EU Foreign Minister position as he is as the Middle East whatever-he's-supposed-to-be, the EU better brace for a step backwards. The bigger question though is whether he will quit his 'consulting' jobs where he makes millions or will he downgrade to £200,000 (roughly $400,000) per year?
Interesting strategy...food for people instead of the gas tank. What a bunch of strange people in Europe with really crazy ideas. Shouldn't food be kept for corporate profits and those who can afford it? Let the poor eat, well, something else. That's what Bush the GOP are suggesting and since when have they ever been wrong?
Merkel joins Poland and Czech Republic leaders who will not attend the opening ceremonies. These leaders are all people who grew up under Soviet domination so they all have first hand experience with a bully regime maintaining power over another country. Will this tip the balance for other EU leaders to boycott? The more important question is whether China will stick to its old ways or join the modern world in terms of both business and respect for human rights. They can do as they like but it's their choice. It is also everyone else's choice not condone China's actions.
When Republicans talk about "free market" they hope that those listening believe in the Easter Bunny, because it's completely false. What they really mean is a jury-rigged system where their friends get to avoid competition but in public, they talk about competition and the benefits of competition. (Think ATT and it's re-consolidation in recent years.) More proof that Republicans have trashed our system, driving up costs compared to increased competition in Europe, where costs have gone down. Broadband internet has taken off across Europe, leaving the US in its wake. All the Republicans can offer is snide remarks about "Old Europe" but it's their own policies that are old and stuffy.
“We have four countries that are world leaders — Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and Finland,” said Viviane Reding, the European telecommunications commissioner. “We have eight countries which have higher penetration rates than the U.S. and Japan. We are not doing badly at all.”
In addition to the three Nordic countries and the Netherlands, four others — Britain, Belgium, Luxembourg and France — had surpassed the United States by July 2007. By January 2008, Germany had also done so.
Bush has no issue with asking for even more details on passengers coming from Europe - soon pushing for advanced notifications before even buying a ticket - yet in the US anyone can buy a gun with less information. Last time I checked, many more people die from guns in the US than from terrorism, but no, we would never want to disrupt the god-given right to buy an AK-47. Bush even wants to know who pushed granny or a sick child to the gate in a wheelchair. If only this administration showed as much interest in monitoring business activity that is costing American jobs and retirements.
The demand to put armed air marshals on to the flights is part of a travel clampdown by the Bush administration that officials in Brussels described as "blackmail" and "troublesome", and could see west Europeans and Britons required to have US visas if their governments balk at Washington's requirements.
According to a US document being circulated for signature in European capitals, EU states would also need to supply personal data on all air passengers overflying but not landing in the US in order to gain or retain visa-free travel to America, senior EU officials said.
And within months the US department of homeland security is to impose a new permit system for Europeans flying to the US, compelling all travellers to apply online for permission to enter the country before booking or buying a ticket, a procedure that will take several days.
Meanwhile Bush still thinks it's a marvelous idea. At least, that's what the corporate farmers all tell him. I believe in competition but deciding between food or car fuel is downright ridiculous.
The cost-benefit study looks at whether using biofuels reduces greenhouse gas emissions, improves security of supply and creates jobs and delivers an unenthusiastic opinion on all three counts.
"What the cost-benefit analysis shows is that there are better ways to achieve greenhouse gas savings and security of supply enhancements than to produce biofuels," says the report.
"The costs of EU biofuels outweigh the benefits," the researchers state.
Hence the alarmed reaction of M. Giscard and M. Balladur. M. Giscard, 81, told a committee of the French National Assembly he would not be a candidate but added that the job must go only to a politician from a country which "respected all Europe's commitments" and whose public opinion was whole-heartedly European. In other words, no Tony Blair and no Brits.
M. Balladur, who was prime minister from 2003 to 2005, said in the newspaper Le Monde: "To be accepted by all, the president of the Union must come from a country... determined to build European independence, especially in defence and foreign affairs.
"How could Mr Blair embody this ambition when, in the disastrous episode in Iraq, he always clung zealously to the views of the US or even incited them? Mr Blair is, for sure, a remarkable person but he cannot be the symbol of a Europe which wants to exist."
Maybe they're not the answer, or at least not the only answer. Deciding between fuel or food is ridiculous.
Supporters argue that biofuels can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, because the plants they are made from absorb carbon dioxide from the air. But a number of studies have raised doubts about the green credentials of many of the leading candidates, such as palm oil and ethanol made from corn. Critics say biofuels compete for land with staple food crops, and vast areas of rainforest are cleared to grow them.
Dimas told the BBC: "We have seen that the environmental problems caused by biofuels and also the social problems are bigger than we thought they were." He said the EU would "move carefully" on the issue. "We have to have criteria for sustainability, including social and environmental issues, because there are some benefits from biofuels."
The December election was a blowout, with the opposition party somehow being blocked out with nothing more than promises of power sharing, just as on previous occasions. The US government has promoted reconciliation and asked both parties to work it out though this again runs contrary to the big talk about democracy. Power-sharing has never gone beyond talk and the US and EU have not taken any action to further the promises. Probably they just assumed that Kenya would remain peaceful without following rumblings on the ground. Nothing excuses the horrible acts that have been reported from Kenya though this poll adds more context to the story.
For years Kenya has been a peaceful, functional country but the recent events are pushing the country to the edge. The US and EU need to step up political intervention now before a bad situation becomes worse. Let's quit talking about democracy and do something real and constructive to promote democracy.
Now that the EU is joining the US with moving towards allowing franken-food, let's be sure to have everything properly marked. Penalties for not marking or incorrectly marking should be extremely painful to business. If the government scientists want to let this happen - despite massively high numbers not in favor - let them clearly mark the franken-food and see how the market responds. Besides marking, there should be no option to buy a market with below profit margins.
Go ahead and put it out there and allow consumers to make this call. Something tells me it will go the way of Olestra if consumers are warned. Let the governments who are allowing this serve it to themselves and be guinea pigs for thirty years. Afterwards we can have a nice study and see the results, but don't ask consumers to be testers for the Big Food industry, yet again. Isn't it time that our governments start thinking about people instead of business?
Obviously conflict of interest has no meaning in Brussels either. Blair has a new friend in Sarkozy, who will have considerable leverage in choosing the new EU president later this year. With his own share of problems at home (lack of direction, circus-like atmosphere, cabinet re-shuffle talk, soap opera/magazine cover personal lifestyle) Sarkozy may not even care if it helps distract people from domestic issues, which remain without direction. Anything that can take the political spotlight away would suit him just fine. As long as the magazine covers remain, it's fine.
Blair ought to be thrilled with the idea, since the position is questionable in terms of actual power, yet it provides him with a microphone and TV cameras to help promote himself even more. Perhaps he can even whip up a new $1m consulting gig while he's at it. Whether he will be as successful in this mission as he was with bringing peace to the Middle East doesn't even matter, because who really cares what the EU president or parliament does? No one even knows who they are, which is precisely the kind of system that the European ruling class prefers, Blair included. No questions asked, no democracy, no matter.
Since when has Bush ever really reached out to others who do not share his Stone Age views? He hardly has a track record of compromise so ignoring this summit is not such a bad idea. It would be nice to have countries discussing global warming, but unfortunately Bush never wants to take action that might hurt his special interest supporters. Global warming programs are a dead issue with the US until the next government comes to town.
It's not for oil. This interesting new plan could generate up to one sixth of the needed power for Europe. Should the program benefit a sliver at the top like in the oil industry, to hell with it. If the intention is to provide improvements to all levels of society, a rarity in the region today, then this could be a model for the future.
Europe is considering plans to spend more than £5bn on a string of giant solar power stations along the Mediterranean desert shores of northern Africa and the Middle East.
More than a hundred of the generators, each fitted with thousands of huge mirrors, would generate electricity to be transmitted by undersea cable to Europe and then distributed across the continent to European Union member nations, including Britain.
Billions of watts of power could be generated this way, enough to provide Europe with a sixth of its electricity needs and to allow it to make significant cuts in its carbon emissions. At the same time, the stations would be used as desalination plants to provide desert countries with desperately needed supplies of fresh water.
Last week Prince Hassan bin Talal of Jordan presented details of the scheme - named Desertec - to the European Parliament. 'Countries with deserts, countries with high energy demand, and countries with technology competence must co-operate,' he told MEPs.
The project has been developed by the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Corporation and is supported by engineers and politicians in Europe as well as Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Jordan and other nations in the Middle East and Africa.
Here in Europe, there has been a steady migration of factory jobs moved to the eastern European EU states who have successfully groaned about the need to pollute. In their infinite wisdom the traditional EU states have accepted this and looked the other way while previously good jobs have moved out of the west. The manufacturing jobs are disappearing in the West and moving to the East where environmental regulations are minimal and the pay is a fraction of the total charges. This new UN study is a good wakeup call as we keep moving manufacturing "over there" and ignore the problems.
It blamed continued growth in Western economies and a revival of growth in former East Bloc nations, with pollution from transport the biggest culprit by sector.
"Industrialised countries' overall greenhouse-gas emissions rose to a near all-time high in 2005," UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said in a press conference telecast from Bonn.
"Greenhouse-gas emissions between 1990 and 2000 went down, but then between 2000 and 2005 they increased again, by 2.6 percent."
Big business is happy that not only can pay much less but they can also ignore the environment. Out of sight, out of mind. If these companies are going to continue moving jobs to the East, the executives ought to also enjoy the fine living conditions and local salaries that they think are so good for everyone else. Let them breath in the pollution. Let their kids live with the full quality of life that sounds so attractive to them. Let them earn centimes on the euro in salary and benefits. Think of the money it would save.
Over the years I watched the Chesapeake Bay decline and have heard numerous stories about the once-plentiful Delaware Bay becoming a graveyard for sea life. The Chesapeake has witnessed an increase in fish populations (less so crabs and oysters) and another example of recovery has been the previously polluted and almost dead Lake Erie. It's possible to bounce back though to do so requires money for policing, organization and determination. It also means dedication to change.
Looking at the sorry state of affairs in the Mediterranean, pulling back from the brink of disaster is unlikely. In France, people will take anything they can find from the sea and if there are any regulations on fishing, I've yet to see them enforced. It's shocking to see the level of disrespect for marine life and without radical change, there's little reason to be optimistic. Worse still, Italy finds it impossible to protect it's magnificent Roman history so policing it's seas will surely not be much better.
Europe, at least southern Europe, needs to step back and rethink what is left of it's natural environment, both on land and in the sea. Whether we're talking about a few remaining bears in the wild or the graveyard of the Mediterranean, radical environmental change is needed quickly. Killing everything that moves on land and in the sea is not much of a long term strategy.
Always eager to provide more reasons why the new EU is a joke, Gordon Brown's UK government is planning to limit the number of workers (read: poor) from Bulgaria and Romania. All of this happens just a week after Brown decided to scrap a democratic vote by the British electorate on the EU and just leave democracy to the same old ruling class, Parliament. They always seem to know better, don't they?
What strikes me as absurd is that the UK and other countries are only too happy to allow big employers move previously good paying jobs from their home countries to Eastern Europe for a few cents on the euro but heavens no, don't let those eastern Europeans come to the west. Absolutely not. Big business would much rather pay workers chump change in the east than pay even modest salaries in the west and they've done a brilliant job of convincing the EU governments to go along with this unfair plan. The double standard is really wearing thin but this explains why the ruling class of Europe is terrified of giving any more voters an opportunity to actually vote on what they think about the new EU.
So this is the leadership that the European Union so desperately wants to invite for a summit? Pathetic.
Zimbabwean security forces routinely torture and sexually abuse women opposed to President Robert Mugabe's government, a human rights group said on Wednesday.
"The women endured various forms of torture, including beatings with a variety of instruments ... baton sticks, booted feet, wooden planks, being slapped, and falanga (beatings on the bottom of the feet," Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA) said in a report.
"Some violations occurred in the street during arrest, whilst others took place in police vehicles and/or in police custody."
Why is Gordon Brown the only European leader who is taking a stand against this?
Pathetic. You would think that someone who grew up in communist East Germany might show more interest in the plight of the people of Zimbabwe who live under a brutal dictatorship but human rights are apparently only for others. Gordon Brown is right to dig in and ask for European "leaders" to choose between Brown or Mugabe at the upcoming Europe-Africa summit. It sounds as though Merkel is hiding behind the failed "quiet diplomacy" program that has shown no results despite all of the talk from Thabo Mbeki.
Unfortunately this won't be the first time the EU has folded and given in to Mugabe, allowing him to visit Europe despite legislation that forbids his travels to Europe. Perhaps torture, starvation and political prisoners are OK in the new Germany and the new Europe.
The Republicans would like Americans to think that everything in Europe is falling apart, but too bad the truth doesn't quite match up to their stories. Compared to other regions in the world, including the US, Europe is looking pretty good.
Conservatives will assert that the EU anti-trust ruling against Microsoft is hurting competition, because somehow, big companies are the only companies that understand how to compete. This argument might make a little more sense if Microsoft understood innovation or actually produced something innovative, but the Microsoft of today is so much different from the Microsoft of yesteryear. With halls full of people that are former big company consultants, the kind that used to be at IBM during their decline, Microsoft is decent at protecting their market position but dreadful at producing innovation and delivering it to the market.
Unlike the US who in recent years has been much more interested in coddling big industry and helping them maintain their position instead of thinking of consumers or small companies that truly are innovative, the EU is showing an interest in fairness as well as innovation. The EU court system is still young with many competing states in the mix whereas in the US, it is a much more mature system with only one country involved. More important is the fact that lobbying is not a force in Europe the way it is in the US.
There's no need to punish big companies just because they are big and successful, but there is also no need to protect them from competition either. This EU court ruling and the signal that it sends to industry is a positive development for small business as well as for consumers. We can see what happens with industry consolidation (think telecoms or banks in the US, for example) and the lack of benefits it provides to consumers, not to mention innovation. A balance in legal systems is not such a bad idea since the US courts are so uninterested in considering competition or consumers.
