skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Article first published as "Something is rotten in the eurozone" on Blogcritics.org
The French and Greek elections showed faith in far-Left policies to correct the financial crisis. Did the British do the same?
NICE, France—"Hollande est un grand homme. Il vas sauver nous et la nation."
I overhead this little gem, as much as my understanding of French will allow, Friday morning while sipping un café at a seaside establishment in France's fifth-largest city. François Hollande was elected the next President of the French Republic by a margin of 3.4 percent earlier that week. Not an impressive margin by any means. But for Hollande to get through to take on the incumbent Sarkozy and win proves that Socialism is alive and well in the Gallic nation.
According to my eavesdropping, Mssr. Hollande "is a great man. He will save us and the nation." I have only one thought with regard to the word "save," given Europe's zombie-like financial and economic situation. But for French voters, the opposite is true, in which spend equals save.
No doubt Barry O. called Hollande up to congratulate him and ask for pointers. "Let me know how you keep your people in line, François," I can hear Obama saying. "It could come in handy for my second term."
France, however, was far from alone in advocating reckless spending and increased state control. Greek voters rejected austerity measures aimed at curbing Greece's spiralling debt—caused, no doubt, by generations of lavish welfare programs and too-generous public pension plans—during last week's legislative elections. Greece already had a socialist party (PASOK) sharing parliamentary power with the center-right New Democracy party, but both parties had worked on a savings plan and backed the EU bailout agreement. But the Coalition of the Radical left (SYRIZA) party, which now has 52 seats (out of 300) in the Greek parliament, has vowed to block any further coalitions, thus threatening to jettison the bailout agreement based on the "barbaric" austerity measures it will force Greece to live within.
SYRIZA has essentially replaced PASOK as Greece's main left-wing party and they are clawing the ground like agitated roosters, chomping at the bit to play a game called leverage with the national budget.
Britain, too, had "mid-term" parliamentary elections. The classically socialist party, Labour, gained substantial ground. Much like the results in Greece, the two coalition parties in government (the centre-right Conservatives and the left-wing Liberal Democrats) were punished for the cuts they tried to make, and Labour profited from the anger voters felt toward the Conservatives and Lib Dems.
However, what happened here in Britain is not necessarily bad news. Although the breakdown in Parliament after the election stands at Labour 39%, Conservatives 31% and Lib Dems 15%, the Conservatives can make up the 8 percent difference in two years if they are careful. Most voters have not forgotten that "New" Labour got Britain into the financial mess in the first place and a lot of pro-Labour votes were designed to simply send a message.
The Conservative party did achieve one goal: the re-election of Boris Johnson as Mayor of London, which is a politically important position. Johnson beat Labour's Ken Livingstone by 51.5 to 48.5 percent. In fact, three London councils whose votes went to Labour MPs also voted by a majority to retain Mr. Johnson. This fact alone tells me that the Labour vote was a protest vote.
It must be said that the Conservatives and their Liberal Democrat partners have been slashing whatever they can, including police, immigration control and the military. Those three things are the stuff any sane citizen would want the government to pay for and provide. They also need to have a serious look at the future of libraries, post offices, transportation and youth programs. I share with the British the conviction that just because something is public does not always mean it's superfluous, pointless or wasteful. Some public services, like those I mentioned, can be scaled back, but must be kept strong enough to survive. My anger is directed at public unions who demand pensions that private-sector workers can only dream of, not my local library or post office. I am not impressed when any government stipulates that the military needs to be cut to achieve savings in the Budget, but non-working families, many of whom haven't worked for generations, still receive a vast array of benefits.
France is a lost cause once more and Greece remains as messed up as always. But Britain continues to keep its economic head just above water and operates with a political system that is more pro-free market than not. And Germany continues to lead the way in Europe, with "the Decider," Chancellor Angela Merkel, at the helm with a recent 77 percent approval rating among Germans.
An uneasy week for Europe, to be sure. Europe is always uneasy. But only future elections and results will decide the fate of this continent. All's not completely lost—yet.
Another day, another idiot collapsing from gluttony.
A fortysomething woman suffered a heart attack while consuming the Triple Bypass Burger at Las Vegas's Heart Attack Grill.
You've got to hand it to this establishment—they don't flinch from truth in advertising.
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad the woman is expected to recover, and that the man who collapsed from eating the same burger in February did not shed his mortal coil either. I don't believe that anyone deserves to pay the ultimate price for their deviancy as long as it harms no-one else, animal or human. Reports indicate the woman was a smoker as well as an unhealthy eater, and this stupidity is something she is welcome to if she chooses to continue cruising along that course.
And a business like the Heart Attack Grill is entitled to supply whatever they think there is a demand for. That's how the free market works and it is the basis of any sound economy. (Although I think it's highly irresponsible for them to offer free meals to those over the 350 pound mark. I thought the point of a business was to make money, not give freebies to a particular client demographic?)
But let's also stipulate that I am in no way inclined to pay for anyone who requires emergency treatment for their lifestyle. If you drink heavily, smoke like a chimney, can't be bothered to move your butt for any meaningful exercise and/or eat the equivalent of five cows in one sitting, then you may not deserve to die. But I'm not interested in shelling out higher tax monies to make you better either.
That is your responsibility, like having children or making insurance payments on your car. (And I'm not keen on contributing toward those either.)
After all, with regard to this woman, I wrote that she is at liberty to follow the same path in terms of her unhealthy habits "if she chooses." That's what it boils down to: choice. "Choose" is the verb form of choice. Let's conjugate that, shall we, dear reader?
I choose, you choose, he/she chooses, we choose, they choose. I have chosen, you have chosen, etc.
Now let's define choice, according to Dictionary.com: "the right, power, or opportunity to choose".
Geddit?
We all have options and it would seem logical that we know the consquences of such options if we take them. Now I'm not saying that the burger itself caused the heart attack in either person. But it was the tipping point after many years of a sedentary, gluttonous way of living.
There is a white-hot debate going on the UK over whether or not smokers, binge drinkers/heavy drinkers and those who overeat being treated by the National Health Service, which is severely strapped for cash and is the subject of budget cuts, should pay for the treatment of their self-inflicted illnesses. Hospitals are consolidating and nixing programs, including children's heart care units. And yet, there are people out there—and they are very much "out there"—who think absolutely everyone is entitled to care provided by the public health care system, regardless of what they've done to themselves. Regardless of the very poor choices they made.
I'd rather have the money paid in higher healthcare costs for people who have no pride and don't look after themselves to spend on Berocca, tofu and running sneakers, thank you. Guess what? Those are my lifestyle choices and I contend that I have a right to them. But when my "fair share" of taxes goes up to support the wobbling, creaking NHS—Proudly Abused Since 1948!—chances are my choices are going to be limited in terms of my ability to afford them.
Pity us, dear American reader. You have the chance of turning things around with a Mitt Romney presidency, God willing. Who's going to right the ship here? Our Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government is proving just as useless as the previous Labour cabinet. Alas, I digress ...
What do we do with the masses of generously proportioned asses out there? The cost of emergency services gets passed onto the municipalities in which they operate. And Americans pay higher premiums as a result. Under ObamaCare, beauracrats can decide on the future of those with cancer. But the person who eats KFC three times a day, every day, will be supported by the taxpayer.
Amazing, isn't it, that liberals talk a great game about food choices and smoking, yet will happily keep their voting base supplied with as much fast food and cigarettes (as well as booze and lapdances) as it takes to keep them on the plantation? EBT Cards Acceted Here!
That woman doesn't just demonstrate the end result of disgusting lifestyle choices. She is far from alone, but she epitomizes everything that is wrong with advertising, education, public services, waste and an overwhelming lack of personal responsibility.
I should feel confident that any conservative who dares to call him or herself that, or an independent who considers himself a patriotic citizen, possesses an ABO blood type: Anybody But Obama. Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain and Rick Santorum are gone now. Newt Gingrich, bless his heart, is a shadow. Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal: they're not in the race. (Though who's not salivating at the idea of having Rubio as the veep?)
However, I do worry. I hear callers to talk-radio shows nationwide grumble about how Mitt Romney hasn't got a conservative bone in his body, how he's weak-willed, how his RomneyCare led to ObamaCare, and how, as Santorum deliriously asserted, Romney is no better than Obama.
These people pose as conservatives, but in bashing the one-and-only hope against Barry O. and trying to argue against a vote for him, they will indirectly be putting the Messiah back in office. If you, as I did, kissed the memory of the country you grew up in good-bye in November 2008, you may now feel that was a bit premature. All was not completely lost. Obama had to be, in some minute sense, answerable to the electorate. But a second term won't mean a pen stroke here and there; it will be wholesale destruction. Constitution? What Constitution?
You may feel that a Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachman presidency would have been 2,000 times better than Obama. Newt Gingrich or Herman Cain would have been, perhaps, 1,700 to 1,800 times better. Mitt Romney might prove to be 1,000 times better.
Time for you nay-saying reactionaries out there to cut out the horseshit, man up, and give Romney your vote. I don't care if you hold your nose while checking his name on the ballot. Just do it.
In an age when you've been paying and continue to pay more for less week after week, when the price of groceries and fuel is off the chart, when the housing market is stalled, when the work ethic has been devalued and the entitlement culture reigns supreme, and you feel like a foreigner in your own country, who wouldn't settle for an improvement that is 1,000 times better than the current administration?
Wouldn't we all love to see Romney breathe the same fire in deflecting his critics as he did when confronting Massachusetts Turnpike Authority chairman Matt Amorello in the wake of the fatal Big Dig tunnel collapse in 2006? But would that be wise? I don't mind my politicians being cantakerous if I'm inclined to vote for them, but a large part of the electorate doesn't agree with me. Everyone always has to be nice in this politically correct era.
There's always the possibility that Romney will pleasantly surprise us. Remember that, in 1980, Republicans were not exactly enthusiastic about Ronald Reagan. During that year's primary season, he was widely viewed as not strong enough and his debating style was criticized. The Gipper did not prove his credentials until he was in office. Who's to say that Romney cannot follow in Reagan's shoes? We won't know unless we, as conservatives and libertarian independents, put him in the Oval Office.
Is Mitt Romney likeable? I say yes. Maybe I see something in him that scores of others don't, but Romney appears affable and approachable enough. And I have absolute faith that he "gets it." The Romneys once lived in a basement apartment with patchwork carpeting and used a door on a workbench for a desk. Just because he's very wealthy now does not mean he does not know the value of work and to aspire to greater things.
If Romney was so shallow, why would he run for president again? His experience in 2008 would have defeated a man of lesser inner fortitude. In my opinion, Romney has shown true grit by putting himself through another primary season.
Furthermore, any Southern dislike for Romney based on his faith did not prevent John F. Kennedy from being elected in 1960. I would like to think that there are many Southerners with a more open mind than there were 52 years ago. Romney was polling well in South Carolina before Gingrich won the state, so I doubt his eventual loss had much to do with being a Mormon.
Finally, Rubio endorsed Romney before Santorum dropped out, and if none other than Ann Coulter can get so excited over Mitt, then so can I. Coulter said, "[Democrats] are going to run against our candidate, because it is the only way that they run against any Republican: Call them dumb or stupid. And there is one presidential candidate we have right now who frustrates both of those. That is Mitt Romney."
I agree.
This blog endorses Mitt Romney for President. Let's go, Mitt!
It's for very good reasons that Bill Cosby is a treasured American icon. His contribution to my generation alone, via Fat Albert and The Electric Company, is palpable, and his stand-up comedy has always been refreshingly obscenity-free. Cosby received heat from some quarters for The Cosby Show in that it was uplifting the ideals of Reagan—but those of us who have at least half a working brain in our heads know that those are ideals worthy of uplifting and those quarters should be ignored if not mocked. Cosby, in that sitcom and in his own life, showed how blacks are just as capable as any other racial or ethnic group of engineering an upper middle-class or wealthy lifestyle through dedicated study and hard work (as opposed to specious talents).
Cosby has weighed in on the Trayvin Martin-George Zimmerman scenario. The actor-comedian said the issue relates to guns, especially with respect to taking them out in public instead of keeping them in the home. While Cosby supports an individual's right to keep guns in his or her home, he has said that when the same individual carries a gun outside the home, "sometimes their mind clicks that this thing ... will win arguments and straighten people out."
We can argue the merits of carry-and-conceal statutes, and it's little wonder that those who attack police officers often receive a Darwin award for their idiotic efforts. However, I also agree with Cosby that possession of a gun can preternaturally embolden many individuals. Money and power can go to people's heads; so, we must admit, can guns.
Cosby's son Ellis was shot during an attempted robbery in 1997, so we can certainly understand Cosby's attitude toward having guns in public.
With respect to what happened in Sanford, Florida on the night Martin was shot, Cosby questions Zimmerman's logic. He said, "When you tell me that you're going to protect the neighborhood that I live in, I don't want you to have a gun. I want you to be able to see something, report it and get out of the way."
If Zimmerman had done that, and taken the advice of the 911 dispatcher to leave the matter to the police, then Martin, angel or not, would still be alive and Zimmerman would not be facing second-degree murder charges. Charges the prosecutor was forced to make, in my humble opinion, but for the purposes of this piece, that's neither here nor there.
We do not know if Martin was aware that Zimmerman had a gun. We do not yet know why Zimmerman felt the need to pursue Martin. The fact that Martin beat Zimmerman up (as well as his previous use of social media) proves he is not the choir-boy the media insists on portraying him as. It's apparent that Zimmerman shot Martin for the very reason you would have a gun in the first place—self-defense.
Could it be that Cosby is right, though? Did Zimmerman ignore the dispatcher's advice because he felt invincible with a gun at his side?
Hopefully all the facts will surface during Zimmerman's trial. But if Cosby's overall point is that some people, regardless of race, can be prone to being trigger-happy, then that's difficult to argue against.
Like Cosby, I fully support the Second Amendment. Without it, the rest of the rights enshrined in the Constitution are pretty much mooted. And I like having an armed police force. But that doesn't mean I want everything the National Rifle Association wants. Police have guns and, under normal circumstances, any potential need for them should be left to law enforcement. There's got to be a balance when it comes to firearms.
But the issue is such a polarizing cauldron, I wonder if that balance will ever be achieved.
Rep. Anthony Weiner: "I had hoped to be able to continue the work that the citizens of my district elected me to do ... Unfortunately, the distraction that I have created has made that impossible. So today I'm announcing my resignation from Congress."
Hecklers: "Yea! Bye-bye, pervert!"
It may have been a prank engineered by Howard Stern, but that is a classic. One of the most amusing press conferences of all time.
Distraction, Anthony? Distraction? This nogoodnick—last year, I called him a "schmuck extraordinaire"—still can't admit the nature of this scandal. By using that word, Weiner is acting as though this was simply a political inconvenience beyond his ability to control.
It seems pretty straightforward to me: You don't send a photo of your crotch in tight boxer briefs to a young female follower on Twitter when (a) you're a Congressman elected to do the people's work (even if the people in question are moonbats) and (b) You're married.
And if this was a distraction that you created, Mssr. Weiner, then why the bullish attitude over the past couple of weeks, acting as if you did nothing wrong? Why lie about it all, since you surely knew it would eventually backfire?
Instead, as we all know by now, Weiner claimed that his Twitter account was "hacked"—insinuating that it was the work of Andrew Breitbart. He called CNN producer Ted Barrett a "jackass" for insisting on a very direct answer to a very direct question, instead treating him and reporter Dana Bash to a rambling statement about thrown pies or insults that he wouldn't spend the next two hours responding to. It was glaringly obvious why he parried by talking about Clarence Thomas and the debt-limit vote, and never contacted law enforcement with regard to the alleged hacking.
Have you heard about the e-mails that Weiner sent to former porn actress Ginger Lee? Gloria Allred read them out the other day: "I have wardrobe demands too, I need to highlight my package," "Alright, my package and I are not gonna beg," and "You aren't giving my package due credit."
I'm all for male pride, but jeez. This is ridiculous, not to mention gross.
Anthony Weiner spent his entire political life trying to stick it to the middle class that he claimed he stood up for. He used the usual Democratic code-speak to sound friendly to working people. But the dudes who shoved him into lockers at school grew up into responsible, working, contributing members of society, and Weiner couldn't tolerate the thought of them being successful. He was a member of Congress; he had power and a generous pension that those guys, as taxpayers, were funding. His whole demeanor over the past 12 years of his Congressional career screamed, "Look at me now! How's my ass taste?"
He probably spent the last few years asking every female he came across during his on-line activities how their asses tasted, I regret to say.
Unfortunately, there is no shortage of "beautiful people" just like Anthony Weiner out there, in the private sector as well as public "service": Smug, arrogant, and too quick to look down upon everyone around them. People with no reason to be as self-assured as they are. People whom you just ache to kick to the curb.
Would it were that they could all be brought down with such punishing, poetic justice as Anthony Weiner.
Well, I'm sorry, dear reader, but my rating on the city of Vancouver isn't zero. It's well into the negatives. That's where it will remain for a long time to come.
If anyone from Vancouver happens to be reading this right now—and I'd love to hear from you—perhaps you could answer me one question: What is up with the incredibly babyish attitude? You people must be the sorest losers on the globe. Just pathetic.
Hey, it's your city: Tear it up, blow it up, wipe it off the map—whatever. I'll still sleep comfortably at night. But you did yourselves no favors. For once, the world is witnessing just what a lie we've all been sold with respect to the idyllic utopia Vancouver supposedly is or the peaceful, law-abiding orderliness with which Canadian society conducts itself.
Ice hockey is a Canadian invention—and look how thuggish the game is. Just put two and two together. (But at least their skating rink ice isn't stained with Ottawa-sanctioned seal blood.) I'm not saying Canadians are worse than anyone else. I've just had it with the fairytale existence they want us to believe everyone leads up there. The Vancouver Stanley Cup Riot of 2011 should forever dispel that myth—and I honestly hope it does.
You can point the finger south and sneer only so many times before something like what occurred yesterday afternoon in Canada's third-largest city brings a big smile of satisfaction to an American's face.
But I digress, really: Let's stick to just the Canucks' fan base. What does the all-out war that broke out in downtown Vancouver yesterday say about them? First of all, you need to understand that the Canucks have been in the Stanley Cup Finals three times: In 1982, 1994 and this year. Two out of those three times, there were riots.
The 1994 riots, after the New York Rangers defeated the Canucks in seven games, were disgraceful enough, worthy of staining the city for several decades after the fact. But after the Bruins won in seven games Wednesday, the mayhem and violence that occurred was, according to some reports, three times as worse.
So, two large-scale riots after two lost causes in the Cup finals. Pretty bad, eh? It's begun to look like a not-so-healthy trend.
But—and this is really good—the city had already planned a parade route for the Canucks. The positive air of expectation surrounding the Canucks permeated everything. Crowds watching the game outside Rogers Arena were joined by jubliant policemen, who were exchanging high-fives with fans early on in the game. Fans actually expected their team to come back from a 3-goal deficit in the third period. The Cancuks were going to win, damn it all!
Honestly, not even New York Yankees fans are this arrogant. They at least know when they are beaten. It was only after Boston scored goal #4 that things turned ugly.
One fan was heard to shout after the game, "Boston, I hate you!" For what? Daring to compete with your boyfriends and being good enough to win against them, you candy-assed crybaby? Excuse me, but I thought that's what hockey, like any other sport, was about: Playing the game and having a winner and a loser.
No surprise that the Canucks currently have the most hated fan base in all of sports. Even Canadians who aren't from British Columbia hate the Canucks and their fans. The Canucks themselves were notorious for their cheap shots, unnecessary roughness and general dirty play.
If this was the only riot to have occurred after a sporting loss in Vancouver, I'd be willing to chalk it up to the anarchist freaks that magically materialize at any large event to cause trouble. We experienced that ourselves here in London during an anti-budget cuts protest in March. The 1994 riot, combined with this one, makes that excuse less easy to explain. Especially since "true Canucks fans" were not honor-bound to participate in the violence, then or now. But they did.
I'm no hockey fan. However, I congratulate the scrappy, but gentlemanly Boston Bruins for capturing the Stanley Cup for the first time in 39 years. This wasn't just a hometown team done good; the Bruins were an underdog in the truest sense of the word. But it's good for the city, and it's great for the Bruins die-hards who watched as all the other professional Boston teams won fresh championship titles during the past decade and wondered when their time would come. At no point along the way did Bruins fans riot to express their displeasure over how long they were expected to live off the fumes of 1972.
I will tell you something about the city of Boston though: It won't have to spend several years trying to wipe an ugly stain off its complexion—the way Vancouver will.
For a month or two last year, I had a Facebook page. I balked, however, when Facebook executives refused to take down the page dedicated to British gunman/killer Raul Moat. Facebook claimed it was all about free speech. My understanding is that once the public expression of views crosses over into death threats and the encouragement of violent, anarchic activity, defense on the grounds of freedom of expression is no longer relevant.
David Cameron, the Prime Minister of Britain, even got involved and asked the CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, to remove the site; Zuckerberg refused. In the end, the creator of the page removed it herself, though she only did so, she claimed, so things could simmer down a bit, and then she would re-launch it.
In disgust—and also considering that I had gotten into a serious fight with someone over the subject of capital punishment—I de-activated my page and left Facebook. I haven't been back since, nor have I missed it.
Mark Zuckerberg just ensured, beyond any shadow of doubt, why I won't reconsider my decision.
The Facebook chief likes to set little challenges for himself every year, such as learning Chinese or wearing a tie every day. If I had a douchebag face like his, I'd consider it a challenge just stepping out my front door and into the public domain every day. But apparently, that's not enough.
Zuckerberg now wants to eat meat only from animals he kills himself. He says this personal goal of his represents the need for people to be "thankful for what they eat rather than trying to ignore where it came from." I'll admit, this is good advice for carnivores/omnivores and in making this statement, Zuckerberg has a valid point.
Some meat-eaters are uncomfortable with how their food ends up on their plate and they'd rather not think about it. Luckily, the pickings available at the grocery store sanitize the whole sordid business. The supermarket or butcher is the middleman between the slaughterhouse and the consumer.
Using that exact same argument, why should anyone feel guilty about purchasing drugs from a dealer? He will never tell you who he shot dead for stepping onto his turf the night before, so you have no need to worry about it. Let that not interrupt anyone's narcotic-cloaked enjoyment of life.
Rather than finding the slaughter of animals deplorable, and using that as an excuse to set a vegetarian challenge for himself instead, Zuckerberg endorses it.
"I think many people forget that a living being has to die for you to eat meat, so my goal revolves around not letting myself forget that and being thankful for what I have," Zuckerberg proclaimed.
Have I missed something? Who exactly is forcing people to eat meat? Has meat-consumption become the law of the land? As for the inane argument that meat-eating is vital for human nutrition, the last time I checked, humans weren't canines nor felines.
Zuckerberg has all-too-predictably received well-wishes and plaudits from those who pretend that their psychopathic hatred of any life form on Earth that dares not to be human is the very essence of libertarianism.
Well, I'm a libertarian too and my goal for the year is to hope in earnest every waking day that Zuckerberg swiftly becomes the victim of a hunting accident.
Only you won't find me encouraging that on Facebook.
