In fact, the biggest gainers in last month's election were the new Left party, made up of SPD dissenters and remnants of the former East Germany's communist party. Its main campaign platform was to vigorously defend a decaying social model that makes growth in Germany nearly impossible. That result had a spillover effect in France, where various factions welcomed the success of Germany's hard left. Indeed, failure of the CDU to win a mandate for economic reform has boosted the standing of all Europeans who did not want to push through similar policies. It makes the task for economic reformers throughout the European Union much harder.

 

 

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who currently holds the rotating EU presidency, hoped that a strong Merkel administration with a sizeable majority could push through unpopular reforms in the Budestag and Bundesrat. Likewise, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, who has staked his reputation on reinvigorating the European economy over the next four years, looks increasingly forlorn when announcing new initiatives. He too must have fervently been wishing for a decisive Merkel victory.

 

 

One sign of the re-invigoration of the opponents of economic growth came when Commissioner Günter Verheugen, who is in charge of industrial policy, proposed ridding the EU books of a significant number of anti-business laws. He was immediately blocked by the European Parliament. MEPs argued that it was up to them to withdraw proposals and not the Commission. Just as under the Louis XIV of France and the last Chinese emperors, a bureaucrat class is in place that more than anything is interested in preserving its privileges.

 

 

Malaise in both Berlin and Brussels can have nothing but an enervating effect on prospects for the European economy. Already suffering from low growth in the 1990s, the central economies of the eurozone have done no better recently than flirt with recession. France is now performing above its recent poor levels, but Germany -- despite being the world's biggest exporter -- lags behind and Italy lurches from crisis to crisis.

 

 

Further adding to the sense of gloom is that 2006 will not be a good year for global growth, as oil price rises take their toll on industrial production and expansion in the US slides. There are even new worries that China's massive economic gains will soon slow, thus affecting demand further. This, too, will have a knock-on effect in hurting those economies in Europe that are still performing relatively well.

 

 

At a time when Europe needs to find ways to reinvigorate itself, its leaders and electorates have retreated into a fearful cavern, not sure which way to tread in the increasing gloom. And it seems that the last few remaining candles are losing their luster.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/1011054.html

September 28, 2005, 8:10 a.m.
World Wide (Web) Takeover
The United Nations wants the Internet.

By Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky & Joseph Barillari

"In my opinion, freedom of speech seems to be a politically sensitive issue. A lot of policy matters are behind it." So observed Houlin Zhao, the man who wants to control the greatest forum for free expression in history.

Zhao, a director of the U.N.'s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and a former senior Chinese-government official, is a leader in the United Nations's effort to supplant the United States government in the supervision of the Internet. At a series of conferences called the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), held under the aegis of the ITU, and set to culminate in Tunis this November, the U.N. has floated a series of proposals for doing exactly that.

The U.N.'s professed goals, which include expanding Internet access in developing countries and fighting spam, are laudable. However, the substance of its proposals — shifting Internet governance from the U.S. to a U.N. body — would produce an Internet in which regulations smother free speech, strangle net-driven economic growth, and threaten America's online security.

A typical U.N. enterprise, in other words.

The Internet is decentralized by design, having grown from the U.S. government's efforts to build a computer network that could survive catastrophic failures. Some elements, however, must be centrally administered to guarantee the Internet's orderly operation. The U.N. has its sights set on the most important of these, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). ICANN, a nonprofit contractor for the U.S. Department of Commerce, ensures that top-level domain names (.com, .edu, .uk), specific domain names (yahoo.com, ebay.com), and IP addresses (64.94.177.98, the numeric address for nationalreview.com), do not conflict. An Internet without ICANN would be like a telephone network in which everyone picked his own telephone number. ICANN delegates much of its work to a mix of regional organizations and commercial registries. This system has served the Internet well.

Nevertheless, a 2003 WSIS meeting asked U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to convene a Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) to develop proposals to internationalize control of the Internet. Composed of representatives from the private sector, NGOs, and governments, including those of Saudi Arabia, Cuba, China, Iran, and a number of supranationally inclined European states, the 41-member body delivered its final report this July. WGIG's proposals include shifting control of ICANN to an "International Internet Council," entrusted with an additional murky mandate over Internet-related "international public policy."

ICANN's critics correctly observe that progress has been lacking. There are too few domain names in non-Roman characters and the number of available Internet addresses has not increased quickly enough. There is much to be gained, and little to be feared, from an international discussion of these and similar technical and policy issues.

Yet even those sympathetic to the idea of an internationally controlled Internet are skeptical of WGIG's proposals: John Palfrey, a Harvard Law School professor and executive director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, observes that creating an organization with so broad a mandate would be a "terrible idea." Indeed, the history of large bureaucracies, particularly large international bureaucracies, provides little confidence that the U.N. can handle any task without kilometers of red tape, let alone continue ICANN's minimalist private-sector approach. Will the registration of a domain name, now a five-minute process for anyone with a credit card, eventually require approval from UNESCO? Will domain-registration fees, currently a few dollars per domain, skyrocket to subsidize websites for countries without electricity? There are many ways that U.N. control could make the Internet slower and more expensive, and few improvements that the private sector cannot supply. For instance, with AOL, Microsoft, Yahoo, Google working on the spam problem, it is doubtful that the U.N. will have much to add. It would also be unwise to entrust the world's largest marketplace to an organization whose top officials are notorious for lining their pockets. Small wonder then, that Senator Norm Coleman (R., Minn.), who has launched repeated investigations into U.N. corruption, describes WGIG's proposals as a "giant and foolhardy step backwards."

Only dictators, and, perhaps, the doctrinaire internationalists who so often abet them, stand to gain from placing the Internet under "international" control. If, for example, the U.N. were to control domain names, its component tyrannies would find it much easier to censor and repress. After all, "internet public policy" is subject to interpretation, and it is hard to imagine international bureaucrats resisting — as ICANN and the U.S. largely have — the temptation to politicize their task. At first, this could even seem reasonable: E.U. officials might seek to eliminate neo-Nazi domains. Inevitably, however, dictatorships would seek to extinguish undesirable foreign web content at the source. Given the U.N.'s penchant for condemning good causes, it is easy to imagine Tehran pushing to suppress "racist" (i.e. "Zionist") websites, or steady pressure from Beijing to eliminate Taiwan's ".tw" domain. (One China, one top-level domain.)

China, a major proponent of a U.N.-administered Internet, already operates the world's largest and most advanced system of online censorship. Thousands of government agents, including some from ITU Director Zhao's former Department of Telecommunications, make sure that websites, e-mails, and even search-engine results deemed threatening to the regime remain inaccessible to a fifth of the world's population. U.S. companies have shamefully participated in this system, as shown by China's recent jailing of dissident journalist Shi Tao based on information revealed by Yahoo!, Inc. Chinese Internet users are unable to access the websites of the Voice of America or, even, the BBC. The regime's filtering is so sophisticated that many sites, such as cnn.com, time.com, and, curiously, yale.edu, are filtered page-by-page, thus maintaining the illusion of openness. Other WGIG participants have similar policies. Like China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia also recognize that control over the Internet brings them closer to control over minds. It is unsurprising, then, that Mr. Zhao and his ilk support the U.N.'s drive to give them more of it.

That the next WSIS summit should take place in Tunisia speaks volumes. The Tunisian government and President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali's relatives control all of the country's internet-service providers. As in China, international news and human-rights websites are routinely blocked. Citizens who post their dissent online face lengthy prison terms. That the U.N. would award a meeting on the fate of the Internet to such a regime betrays the incoherence of an internationalism that insists on treating dictatorships and democracies as equals.

Surrendering the Internet might also increase America's vulnerability to online security threats. It could be difficult to guard against cyber-terrorism or to pursue terrorists online, if the Internet were under the supervision of a body unsure of what terrorism is, but quite sure that it does not like the United States.

Although the Bush administration will not relinquish U.S. oversight of the Internet, a future president may be more willing to make this seemingly small concession to curry favor with internationalist elites or supposed strategic partners. As with the Kyoto Protocol or the International Criminal Court, Washington's refusal to bend to the "international community" over the Internet might be magnified into another gleefully touted example of American arrogance. America's rivals, less constrained by electoral cycles, tend to view foreign policy over the longer term. They are willing to wait. If we are to preserve the Internet as we know it, the Bush administration must take steps to foreclose the possibility of it ever becoming the plaything of dictators.

http://nationalreview.com/comment/ramosmrosovsky_barillari200509280810.asp

 

"Hillary: Net News Needs Scrutiny 

12:46 PM Feb. 11, 1998 PT

"We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this, because there are all these competing values ... Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation?" she said.

http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,10230,00.html

"China sets new rules on Internet news

BEIJING (Reuters) - China set new regulations on Internet news content on Sunday, widening a campaign of controls it has imposed on other Web sites, such as discussion groups.

The news agency did not detail the rules, but said Internet news sites must "be directed toward serving the people and socialism and insist on correct guidance of public opinion for maintaining national and public interests."

Established news media needed permission to run a news Web site, it said. New operators had to register themselves with government information offices.

China has a dedicated band of cyber police who patrol the Internet with the aim of regulating content. Postings that criticize the government or address sensitive topics are quickly removed.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050925/tc_nm/china_news_dc_1

40 years after, old freaks look like 60's freaks aged-Not-well, same messages ... hidden agendas out in the open.  Guess they didn't hear about the fall of the Soviet Union or just recently Poland voting anti-communist rule, also failing economies due to Germany and France's socialistic governments. 

But whoever said "intellectuals" have any common sense????

Thank goodness for freedom of speech ... in any other country they'd be .... you fill in the blanks. 

 

 

 

 

 

"More Moonbattery"

"Mike Freeland attended yesterday's anti-American protest in Washington and took some great photos, including a number of Communist banners. You can view them here. 

http://www.narley.org/protestPhotos/showList.php    (lots of server traffic so slow load)

http://powerlineblog.com/    "

 

With Hurricane Rita bearing down on the Gulf today, let's review some of the facts surrounding Katrina and energy prices to understand what's happened and what we should be doing - and not doing - in response.
In the year before the Katrina hit, gasoline prices rose $0.50 per gallon, and politicians and reporters remained calm. They knew the rise was due to many factors, including booming Chinese, Indian and world-wide demand; lack of excess production capacity; rising US crude oil inventories; US refineries running at peak capacity; uncertainty about Iran, Iraq and Venezuela; high US summer demand; and other causes. But there was no "crisis." Logic and calm prevailed.
 
Then the storm smashed the US energy infrastructure as badly as it damaged cities, homes and lives. Consider the following facts, available at www.eia.doe.gov
 

• The US uses 21.3 million 42-gallon barrels of oil a day (21.3MMBD);
  
• The US uses 11MMBD of the 21.3 as gasoline.
  
• The US produces 5.5MMBD (1.6MMBD from thousands of platforms in the Gulf of Mexico).
  
• Katrina shut down hundreds of platforms and cut 0.9MMBD of supply - 60% of Gulf Offshore production.
  
• Many damaged platforms are now producing; it will be weeks before all are at full capacity.
  
• The oil moves through undersea pipelines to Gulf Coast refineries; other pipelines distribute crude oil and petroleum product around the country.
  
• Some pipelines were damaged and must be repaired.
  
• US refining capacity is 17.0MMBD; 8.1MMBD (47.4%) in the Gulf Coast Region.
  
• Katrina left six refineries damaged, flooded and without electricity. Four are now running; two (5% of US refining capacity) will be out for several weeks.
  
• The US imports 10.8MMBD of crude oil (refined products make up the difference.)
  
• The Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP) which brings in 0.9MMBD was evacuated and shut down as Katrina neared.
  
• Another 2.6MMBD that comes through Gulf Coast ports was cut off completely for about a week.
  
• It will be weeks before those facilities can move pre-Katrina volumes; repairs will cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
  

So at the height of the summer driving season, Katrina shut down platforms producing one-sixth of US domestic oil production; and LOOP, which throughputs 30% of US oil imports. She damaged handling facilities and refineries that process almost one-half of our domestic and foreign oil; and the tank farms and pipelines that move most of that oil and gasoline to the US Northeast and Midwest.
 
This damage compounded the "non-crisis" causes. The result was that the world price of crude oil topped $70 per barrel for a short while. The US average price of gasoline hit $3.05 by September 1 -- up $0.70 from August 1 and $1.20 from year-earlier levels (although as facilities come on, prices have begun to drop).
Politicians and journalists who understood and explained earlier gasoline price hikes totaling $0.50 suddenly found it incomprehensible that anything could increase prices by another $0.70. They saw no connection among Katrina, the damage, supply cutoffs and the price increase.
 
They knew that prices rose since 2004 because of supply and demand in a world market; they should figure out that losing 16% of US crude oil production could cut US and world crude oil supply and raise prices.
They knew that US refineries had been at full capacity for years; they should figure out that damage to, and shutdown of, six major refineries could make a big difference in US gasoline supply -- and US gasoline prices.
 
They knew that the US imports more than half of all the oil that Americans use; they should figure out that closing LOOP and losing 8.5% of US crude oil imports would make a difference in total US crude oil supply. And they should figure out that damage to onshore petroleum receiving facilities in New Orleans, Biloxi, Mobile and other major Gulf ports could make a huge difference to total US supply, as could damage to the pipelines that move crude oil and product around the country.
Finally, they should figure out that each of those things has some impact on costs to consumers; the combined impact is inescapably large.
                                                                                                                         
But critics apparently see no connection between damage, shortages and price increases, so they want "solutions." Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) wants the Federal Trade Commission to investigate so-called "price gouging." Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) is introducing a bill to tax energy companies' profits. The state of Hawaii has already instituted price controls on energy and other states are considering similar measures.
The politicians' desire to do (or say) something prevails over logic and information. The proposals are a disservice to the nation. Americans would understand the issues if they were explained, as was the case for the price changes the year before Katrina.
President Bush used the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to ease supply pressures. He proposes to site refineries, nuclear plants and Liquefied Natural Gas plants on closed military bases. That could speed permits, diversify energy sources and cut down on "Not In My Back Yard" arguments. Senator George Allen (R-VA) wants to suspend gasoline regulations to eliminate "boutique" fuels. That could introduce efficiencies into the worst supply bottlenecks.
Neither proposal will satisfy critics who call for non-solutions and blame those who disagree. They want the spotlight, not answers. That's pandering, not policy.

The author is a consultant on domestic and international energy, security and trade issues.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092305D70.html

"Don't get stuck on stupid

"New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin held a press conference a little bit ago, and started losing control to a media pool assembled that was showing signs of panic, due to the previous incompetence in the region by the local and state government. Lt. Gen. Russel Honore stepped in and literally took over. Here's what he had to say:

09-20honore.mp3

Honore: And Mr. Mayor, let's go back, because I can see right now, we're setting this up as he said, he said, we said. All right? We are not going to go, by order of the mayor and the governor, and open the convention center for people to come in. There are buses there. Is that clear to you? Buses parked. There are 4,000 troops there. People come, they get on a bus, they get on a truck, they move on. Is that clear? Is that clear to the public?

Female reporter: Where do they move on...

Honore: That's not your business.

Male reporter: But General, that didn't work the first time...

Honore: Wait a minute. It didn't work the first time. This ain't the first time. Okay? If...we don't control Rita, you understand? So there are a lot of pieces of it that's going to be worked out. You got good public servants working through it. Let's get a little trust here, because you're starting to act like this is your problem. You are carrying the message, okay? What we're going to do is have the buses staged. The initial place is at the convention center. We're not going to announce other places at this time, until we get a plan set, and we'll let people know where those locations are, through the government, and through public announcements. Right now, to handle the number of people that want to leave, we've got the capacity. You will come to the convention center. There are soldiers there from the 82nd Airborne, and from the Louisiana National Guard. People will be told to get on the bus, and we will take care of them. And where they go will be dependent on the capacity in this state. We've got our communications up. And we'll tell them where to go. And when they get there, they'll be able to get a chance, an opportunity to get registered, and so they can let their families know where they are. But don't start panic here. Okay? We've got a location. It is in the front of the convention center, and that's where we will use to migrate people from it, into the system.

Male reporter: General Honore, we were told that Berman Stadium on the west bank would be another staging area...

Honore: Not to my knowledge. Again, the current place, I just told you one time, is the convention center. Once we complete the plan with the mayor, and is approved by the governor, then we'll start that in the next 12-24 hours. And we understand that there's a problem in getting communications out. That's where we need your help. But let's not confuse the questions with the answers. Buses at the convention center will move our citizens, for whom we have sworn that we will support and defend...and we'll move them on. Let's not get stuck on the last storm. You're asking last storm questions for people who are concerned about the future storm. Don't get stuck on stupid, reporters. We are moving forward. And don't confuse the people please. You are part of the public message. So help us get the message straight. And if you don't understand, maybe you'll confuse it to the people. That's why we like follow-up questions. But right now, it's the convention center, and move on.

Male reporter: General, a little bit more about why that's happening this time, though, and did not have that last time...

Honore: You are stuck on stupid. I'm not going to answer that question. We are going to deal with Rita. This is public information that people are depending on the government to put out. This is the way we've got to do it. So please. I apologize to you, but let's talk about the future. Rita is happening. And right now, we need to get good, clean information out to the people that they can use. And we can have a conversation on the side about the past, in a couple of months.

I think the General just started a movement, and he may not even realize it. Every time a reporter, in any situation, starts spinning, or completely misses the point, they need to be peppered with, "Don't get stuck on stupid."

I'd pay money to see David Gregory in the White House Press Corps foaming at the mouth over something trivial Scott McClellan said, and have McClellan say, "David, you're stuck on stupid. I'm not going to answer that."

I'd have fallen out of my chair if John Roberts would have listened to Joe Biden ramble on, and said, "Don't get stuck on stupid, Senator."

I can see the bumper stickers now. I can even see those stupid rubber wristbands with DGSOS etched in them.

I love General Honore. "

http://www.radioblogger.com/#001001%22

BEIJING

"North Korea pledged to drop its nuclear weapons development and rejoin international arms treaties in a unanimous agreement Monday at six- party arms talks. The agreement was the first-ever joint statement after more than two years of negotiations.

The North "promised to drop all nuclear weapons and current nuclear programs and to get back to the (Nuclear) Nonproliferation Treaty as soon as possible and to accept inspections" by the International Atomic Energy Agency, according to the agreement by the six countries at the talks. "......."

"This is the most important result since the six-party talks started more than two years ago," said Wu Dawei, China's vice foreign minister.

The talks, which began in August 2003, include China, Japan, Russia, the United States and the two Koreas."

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/19/D8CN47KO0.html

Coalition forces have arrested two alleged leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq, the US military has said.

The two men were identified as Taha Ibrahim Yasin Becher, also known as Abu Fatima, and Hamed Saeed Ismael Mustafa, also known as Abu Shahed.

The men were apparently holding a meeting at the time of their capture.

They are said to have headed the Mosul branch of the terror group, which is led by Abu Musab al Zarqawi.

The group has claimed responsibility for dozens of suicide bombings which have left thousands of people dead.

They have also kidnapped and murdered several Western contractors, including Briton Ken Bigley.

A US statement said Abu Fatima took over as the group's top-ranking operative in Mosul 12 days ago, after his predecessor was captured by Coalition forces.

On Thursday, Major General Rick Lynch said security forces had killed 226 militants and captured 757 in recent operations in Mosul and the surrounding area."

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-13440629,00.html?f=rss