Financial Times Journalist v. Me (or someone who has actually been to Ireland!)

For two weeks in a row a gentleman at the Financial Times has been, in my biased estimation, too rough on Ireland. I think he thinks a bit too much of the EU's role in the "Irish Miracle" (a term I hate). Here is my response.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8dc810e6-3ada-11dd-b1a1-0000779fd2ac.html

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2856b69a-40bb-11dd-bd48-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

Mr. Wolfgang Munchau of the Financial Times writes this week that the Irish are in danger of ruining their economic “miracle” based on the recent “NO” vote on the Lisbon Treaty referendum. Well Mr. Munchau, I think you discount the Irish and misunderstand the definition of “miracle”.

Wolfgang Munchau suggests in two recent articles that the Lisbon Treaty is destined to be ratified with or without the Irish, fair enough, but I don’t see how if the convoluted rules of the European Union state otherwise. Sure, as Munchau pointed out, The Republic of Ireland could be kicked out in some back room slick deal by an “unpredictable court,” but how is that good for the EU? What precedent and unintended consequences does that course of action suggest?

As an American who has lived in Ireland I am torn as to the best course for Ireland, I suppose on the one hand the “No” vote has signaled to the EU that it is a loose affiliation of States that has real limits on its ability to encroach on the sovereignty of a member. As well, the “No” vote signaled that the Treaty, even with the concessions to Ireland, was still stained with the lingering stench of Corporate Tax Harmonization… a nasty little phrase that means that France and Germany are tired of watching Free Market Capitalism work for such a small “insignificant” country (or the basic idea/rule/heuristic that lower taxes stimulate economic growth, and an educated labor pool keeps costs low by providing levels of efficiency and productivity). Ireland has had its moment in the sun and now must be taxed into submission like the rest of Europe!

On the other hand the “Yes” vote steers the EU towards a more realistic and streamlined decision making process. Basically, the “Yes” is what is best for the EU and the “No” is what is best for Ireland. And, so far as Ireland is part of the EU what is good for the EU is good for Ireland… right? Maybe not. A utilitarian calculus might suggest that a weaker EU provides more room for aggressive, capitalist, economically principled economies to flourish and not be so easily raided from time to time to pay for broad-based least-common-denominator agendas from Brussels.

Yes the rest of Europe just can’t figure out why this small area historically rife with “troubles” has jumped so far ahead of so many other countries. Pundits and some in Europe, confused as to how this could happen, apparently suggest it was the hand of God or a “miracle” -because basic principles of economics certainly can’t be the reason.

Munchau in an attempt to understand the Irish Miracle has suggested that it is a matter of Corporatism, a Socialist pseudo-egalitarian concept that might be instructive in a classroom setting but looses its meaning when placed into a real world situation. The myriad of interests supposedly represented in a modern so-called Corporatist system can not possibly be satisfied in a complicated real world economy. But, to his credit Mr. Munchau does note that the one interest left out of this “system” is that of the EU. In the American South we would say that Ireland has relegated the EU to the “hind teet”.

Finally, in what can only be termed “grasping” Wolfgang Munchau also suggests that Ireland’s majority Anglophone populace is a chief reason for its success. While I do agree that speaking English is the only way to have a hand in the big game, I would like to introduce to the associate editor at the Financial Times a country called INDIA. Ireland has two official languages and India has over 20! No, Ireland’s tech based economy would still be just fine if Irish were the predominate language rather than English. I can understand Irish taxi drivers just as well as Dell tech-support from Bangalore.

The EU in its rush to be fair to all has seen the consequences of that fool’s errand. Utopian concepts will eventually be shown for what they are, and I believe what the road to Hell is paved with. Ireland does have some reckoning to deal with (like inflation, problems of socialism, the utopian concept of Neutrality and immigration) and the good-ole days of Ireland’s economic up turn are fewer and fewer ahead, but Ireland’s powerhouse performance will continue for now and it is not a fluke, a miracle or a gift from the EU. It is good policy based on economic principles and hard work. “Principles” and “Hard Work” yep… that sounds like the Ireland I know.

One of my few liberal heros gets it wrong on Oil Exploration

Below is my email to Thomas Friedman in response to his recent column in the NY Times. Mr. Friedman is a Liberal with sense... which is to say he rarely lets his heart get in the way of his head as most liberals do. In being this way he is often on the properside, the right side, of an issue. For example, Thomas understands that couching Alternative Energy to Republicans in an end of days/Al Gore rhetorical scenario will never work... but discribe it as Conservation, Innovation and Stewardship and Repubs can get their Conservative heads around the issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/opinion/22friedman.html?ex=1371787200&en=3c18c6b8b5bb4a3e&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
_____________________________________

Mr. Friedman,

Wow, you really missed a big one here. You are all over Bush for asking the congress to open up the oil fields in the gulf and in ANWR when that is the very thing he should have insisted upon post 9/11 and then once again post Katrina. Now he is finally doing it (dubious timing, sure) and you think it is to get another "hit" for our oil addiction. To finish your analogy, what happens when a heroin addict quits cold-turkey? Can the US survive the convultions and shakes? De-tox ain't pretty.

I am sure you agree that there is nothing we can do to bring alternative energy to the masses until the infrastructure is in place? What do we do in the mean time? Suffer needlessly? Using current oil based infrastructure is the only means to effectively stave off short term (but very real) economic hardship.

Sure, not drilling would hasten alt energy infrastructer... but at what price? Inflation? Energy Security?

Respectfully, you missed the point on this one. I support your "Green" efforts not just for the nobility of it but the utility as well. But, you can not get from "A" to "C" without going to "B". Refusing to drill ANWR and the Gulf is trying to skip "B" and go to "C".

Keep up the good work.

Ben

NY Congressman suggest we follow Chavez and Evo Morales

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling

1115

We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.

So Hugo Chavez and Eva Morales (Boliva) are now the example? Nationalizing natural resources???? Communist much?

Redux: Irish Neutrality

The following is from October of 2007. I was placed on an email list that went out to many in Irish academia calling for US troops to leave Shannon airport.

http://arenablog.blogspot.com/2007/10/answer-to-unsolicited-email.html


'Are you straight?"

'I am.'

'How straight?'

'As straight as a rush.'

'Go on, then.'

'In truth, in trust, in unity and liberty.'

'What have you got in your hand?'

'A green bough.'

'Where did it first grow?'

'In America.'

'Where did it first bud?'

'In France.'

'Where are you going to plant it?'

'In the crown of Great Britain.'

- A greeting of the United Irishmen Circa 1791

I am so glad I found my way on whatever list this is. Perhaps some
common sense and a bit of accuracy will help some of us.

First, the idea of Irish neutrality is what is "spurious". Neutrality
or what some like to consider neutrality happens only at the pleasure
of those that are NOT neutral. The same for pacifists. Both concepts
are utopian concepts that can never actually be achieved. Both
concepts survive only at the pleasure of those willing to stand for
something and defend something larger than an unattainable concept
like neutrality. Ireland is full of people willing to stand for these
"larger" concepts and may God bless their efforts.

Ireland the country that welcomed me and that I fell in love with is
not neutral, at least not in deed -though it may strive to be so in
concept.

Ireland is connected to the US and the non neutral West via economics,
among other things. It is the fact that these non "neutral" countries
stand for something concrete and are willing to defend and protect it
that provides the market relationships necessary for Western progress
of which Ireland is a major part.

Chief among these ideas in need of defense is that of energy security.
I am not defending US consumption practices, far from it. I am
merely pointing out how energy and OIL are the life blood of Western
(Irish) economies. To deny this is folly and perhaps the root of our
major differences. You do not touch one thing or travel to one place
or have one interaction that is not facilitated in some way by oil.
This FACT is immutable. Is this situation a "best-practice"? I think
not. Is it optimal? I think not. Is it correctable? I think so
-with conservation, stewardship and innovation. (Noticeably absent
from this list is fear-mongering, like Al Gore's "End of Days"
scenario.)

This "correction" is not forthcoming in a reasonable amount of time.
So, until the arrival of the distant future we must be pragmatic and
even utilitarian in our energy security policy. WE being the West or
developed world that Ireland is a part of. This pragmatic approach
includes having an influential role in the areas that provide the
energy the West (Ireland) needs. (Not to mention emerging economies
like China, India and Eastern Europe.) This influential role is the
crux of my admonition.

What bothers me most with the current Bush administration is the silly
and cowardly way they continue the failed policy of denying that the
war in Iraq was about energy security, ie... "a war for oil." Because
the cause of "energy security" in and of itself is as necessary a
cause as there has ever been. That cause should be explained clearly
not avoided as is the policy of the current administration. That
cause, "energy security," is axiomatic, a maxim, a heuristic. It is a
moral imperative.

Sadly in order for this moral imperative to be seen clearly many
people must step outside their own bias and out of the narrative they
have placed themselves in. A narrative for Ireland that promotes the
concept of neutrality when in fact Ireland is in the thick-of-it by
action and association –far from neutral. A narrative for many of us
that is an investment in both self-loathing and West-loathing.
Investment in this narrative sadly has some suffering from
true-believers syndrome. Or being so invested in your own bias that
even when faced with facts that counter your position you will
construct walls (read: lies) in your narrative that counter the
cognitive dissonance that occurs when confronted with the truth
-thereby, victimizing you. What is more, when you take it upon
yourself to induct others into your false narrative you victimize
them.

Most wretchedly, once you have induced enough people the process
becomes easier. Your responsibility for the false narrative is
diffused over all that you have convinced of your bias. This
"group-think" will now transform the narrative into doctrine and
promote "mind-guards" to police dissent and deflect any attacks… even
those of reason!

Finally, I find the flaunting of death tolls particularly disturbing
because invariably it is done as an appeal to emotion rather than
reason. It is a distraction if the tolls are void of context as they
usually are. It is sad that many of us pick and choose the value we
place on human life so easily. If we were true humanitarians we would
look not at the cost of human life in terms of our comfort and
emotional well-being but rather we would look at it in a utilitarian
way. A way that sought to preserve the largest number of lives over
the longest foreseeable future.

When we extol the context-less body count we ignore history's lessons.
Lessons that have taught us again and again that freedom, liberty and
happiness are functions of hard work over great amounts of time. Hard
work that translates into men and women standing up for freedom and up
to tyranny. If your narrative suggests that energy security is best
provided in the hands of Saddam Hussein or Mahmood Ahmahdinejad rather
than people of liberty participating in a true Lockeian sovereignty
then you my friend are indeed suffering from a narrative rank with
group-think and self-loathing.

It is important to read this with an open mind but it is even more
important to not assume what is not written here. There is nothing
suggested here-in that says the Iraq war was the proper or best way to
provide energy security. There is nothing here that says the war was
and is being prosecuted efficiently. There is nothing here that says
Ireland should take up arms and join the US in Iraq or Afghanistan.
There is nothing here that says Ireland should take any aggressive
position with its own military. There is nothing here that suggests
Ireland's voice not be heard no matter what it is saying or how
difficult it is for the US to hear. What is written here is an
admonition to Ireland that it is neither neutral nor an outsider
looking in on the US and the broader West. It is a fully vested
player with all the rights, privileges and RESPONSIBILITIES that go
along with the progress and prosperity it enjoys.

So, you don't have to have US military planes, transporting the best
and brightest America has to offer to and from combat, on Irish soil
to be a participant in the battle for energy security. You need only
fill up your car with petrol or take the bus to the City Center or
welcome tourists off of jet planes or purchase a pint from the pub or
any item from any establishment in the whole of the Republic of
Ireland. Like it or not your participation in energy security is tied
not to the military planes in Shannon but the economy and progress you
and the rest of the developed world enjoy daily. To deny this is
either ignorance or hypocrisy of the worst and most dangerous kind.

Terrorism Statistics??? Over stating terrorism deaths.

I find myself looking forward to George Bush’s and his Administration’s departure and perhaps a breath of fresh air. Do I hope for too much? Can McCain be that breath? Will he surround himself with wiser council than Bush? Does he see the folly of misreporting terrorism related deaths to the American people? Or, will he continue to talk down to us?


Recently it took a Canadian University’s study of terrorism deaths to wake up a few of us that continue to “drink the kool-aid” of the Liberal Left and from the Bush Administration. This study suggests what was previously obvious in other studies, that you don’t count civilian war deaths as terrorism deaths. Historically this has always been the case. Why the change now? Who does it benefit?


Canada’s Simon Fraser University in an independent study came to the conclusion that death from terrorism is on the decline, and has been since 2001! They attribute this to the Global War on Terrorism and the lack of support from Muslims to terrorist groups because of terrorist tactics (this is not to say that many Muslims don’t support the causes of terrorist organizations). The data used in these studies does not include Iraq civilian war casualties like US government backed studies do. In many of the US backed studies Iraq can account for more than 50% of the total deaths. This makes no sense. Iraq is a war zone, and while the tactics and organizations suggest terrorism, by definition terrorism can’t really happen in a war zone. Now this flies in the face of the Bush Administration’s characterization of the conflict in Iraq. The Administration likes to call insurgents terrorists. But they are not. They are insurgents using terrorist tactics and belonging to terrorist organizations. When these insurgents step foot on a battlefield in a war zone they are no longer terrorists.


This seems like some kind of procedural or scholarly caveat and rather if it walks and quacks like a duck it should be a duck, but this small caveat is massively important in understanding the conflict in Iraq and putting it in proper context. Fighting insurgency the way you fight terrorists is part of the problem. It has taken years and many unnecessary deaths for us to begin to figure this out. US backed studies from the National Counterterrorism Center, the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terror and the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism all suggest that the civilian deaths in Iraq are terrorist related. Why? I can only think that it is to continue to sell the war. It is to continue to scare you into support (you should support the war, but not because of terrorism deaths). The Bush Administration talks down to us and supposes we can not handle the truth, that Energy Security is paramount to the survival of the West and Developing Nations, instead we continue to get these numbers that one has to read-between-the-lines for the truth.


The ever dangerous and under accounted for “un-intended-consequence” is that the Administration has given the Liberal Left ammunition to attack the efforts in Iraq on dubious grounds. Now Liberal Presidential candidates can suggest that we are less safe since the invasion of Iraq. According to a broad reading from the government backed agencies reporting on terrorism statistics we appear to be less safe. But getting into the metrics we actually see that unless you live in Baghdad or Falujah American’s are actually more safe not less.


So who does this benefit, the Republicans, the Administration or the Liberal Left? The answer is all three. Republicans and the Administration get to over-state the security situation of the United States and the Liberal Left gets to suggest that we are “less safe” because of the Bush Administration’s Iraq efforts and the Global War on Terror. It is a win-win for politcians and governments that want more power and a lose-lose for citizens that want accurate information and a real understanding of national security. So to be clear, the efforts in Iraq and the Global War on Terror have not made us less safe but have made us more safe. Despite politicians and statisticians best efforts!

Three reasons to vote for John McCain, even if it hurts.

I am very disappointed with the Republican nominee for President of the United States. John McCain is a fine enough man and a war hero who has my respect and admiration for his years of service in the Navy and as a US Senator. But, he also has a liberal voting record, questionable judgment on taxes and a history of cavorting with the Left under the guise of a Liberal trick called… “bi-partisanship.” Not to get off on a tangent but I send Republicans to Washington to either pass Conservative laws or none at all. Not watered down, least-common denominator laws that are just useless bureaucracy costing us Trillions of Dollars and accomplishing nothing.


No, the senior Senator from Arizona is not a “TRUE” Conservative. But he has an opportunity to be the most Conservative President since Reagan. Possibly even more so if he only keeps three campaign promises. Senator McCain has promised to Veto any bill that has “Pork-Barrel” spending that has not been debated openly on the floors of Congress. Keeping this promise will force into the open all the Billions of Dollars wasted for pet projects that have no real benefit to this Nation.


McCain has also promised not to raise taxes. He hasn’t asked us to “read my lips” yet so at this point I will take him at his word. By keeping this promise he will insure that our economy will continue in the right direction of creating jobs, investing in research, and exploring new markets, i.e.…what we do best!


Finally, the Senator has consistently shown in word and, more importantly, deed that he understands the stakes of letting America’s Liberal left define the War on Terrorism. Or as I call it…The War for Energy Security. McCain knows that if we leave the Middle East all the worst elements will filter in and quickly take over. Just like in Afghanistan. When the Soviets left Afghanistan in the 80’s they left a power vacuum. The US did not foresee the rising danger of the Taliban as it filled the vacuum and instituted a Tyrannical version of Sharia Law. But John McCain, many Conservatives, Republicans and Joe Lieberman see the danger now.


Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine all are on the verge of becoming either democratic allies or safe-havens and training camps for terrorist who have stated aims of destroying our country. That is not over stating. That is not over securitizing the issue. That statement is not hyperbole or sensational. The stated aim of Al-Qaeda is the destruction of the US and the Western world and the institution of a Caliphate where Islam is the world’s religion. John McCain knows this and knows that this kind of enemy ONLY responds to strength. He also knows that carrots work for those that are not yet sending bullets and bombs towards our soldiers and our homeland. He knows that diplomacy has its place and that Smart Power over Hard Power will bring the quickest end to the War for Energy Security.


So, if the Senator can keep these three promises I am willing to look the other way if he wants to have Ted Kennedy over for drinks or John Murtha over to swap war stories or Nancy Pelosi over to discuss immigration. But if he so much as flinches in the face of the Liberal left on these three issues I will work to make sure his Presidency is limited to only four years even if I have to vote for democrat!

Not My Achy-Breaky Heart!

I find myself scraping columns left and right these days for more pressing matters. I have done it again with this column. This column was going to be about the good Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his address to the Detroit chapter of the NAACP and how I, having seen the entire speech in context, still think he is a race-baiting bigot who wants black kids to be powerless victims more than he wants equality.

But, I think Miley Cyrus is more important than the Reverend Doctor.

This week my niece’s and cousin’s favorite performer appeared in Vanity Fair. The photos showed her bare back, holding a blanket in front of her chest. The 15 year old pop star and Disney meal ticket was billed on DrudgeReport as being “semi-nude” and on Entertainment Tonight and ABC as “semi-topless”. When in fact there was LESS skin showing than shows with most modest swimsuits.

Well, is it then implied-nudity? Because she is obviously “nude” under the blanket she holds. Uh? I guess so, but then I guess I am also implying nudity by wearing jeans and a T-shirt, because as horrible an image as it conjures… I am nude under my clothes, as I assume most of you are as well.

So, hyperbolic spin aside does this photo shoot go too far? If there had never been a Brittany Spears or a Madonna, no. But there has been, and therefore it did. Hannah Montana is barreling down the slutty path pioneered by Brittany and Madonna. It is not too late for her. She can pull back the reins and remain one of Hollywood’s good-girls. To do this she needs to require her entourage to surrender their camera phones back-stage so no more tabloid fodder escapes into the irretrievable ether (the internet), fire her stylist that suggested a plunging neckline to the Nickelodeon KIDS Choice Awards show and finally she needs a conservative uncle, cousin or friend to kick Achy-Breaky’s behind for allowing his daughter to continue this kind of behavior!!!

Please do not get me wrong, I am not suggesting we meet in the town square and burn our Miley/Hannah CDs, Movies, Games, Dolls, Clothes, Lunch Boxes or other swag. I am merely suggesting that we keep an eye on the young starlet and hope for the best. Hope that she starts acting like a Rated-G Disney star instead of clamoring to be a R-Rated Lolita.