 
A blog by an American expatriate living in the heart of New Europe |
 "It's a lateral transfer" -- George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States |
along for the ride
the newsstand
station standardsin the cityprogressive stations
democrat stationssports stations
satire stationsoff the rails
| Thursday, November 23, 2006Happy ThanksgivingWith a heavy heart at the news of the tragedy at the Halemba mine, I wish you a peaceful and happy Thanksgiving. More than ever, today it will be easy to remember all of the things we have to be thankful for.
posted by Gustav at 12:52 PM Friday, November 17, 2006Thursday, November 16, 2006Is free trade too much to ask?
 Poland's demand that Russia play fair is burning up both Brussels and Moscow The EU and Russia had been preparing the love fest for months. On November 24, representatives from Brussels and Moscow were to meet in Helsinki to hammer out a new partnership agreement. This “landmark” agreement was meant to strengthen the EU-Russia relationship, though exactly how was unclear. Poland, however, had other ideas. Foreign Minister Anna Fotyga has made use of Poland's veto on the mandate necessary to launch negotiations. The move has officials in both Brussels and Moscow apoplectic with rage – and accusing Poland of blackmail, settling scores, and putting narrow national interest above the interests of the EU. Forget that other more powerful EU nations have already committed those same sins – I wouldn't defend them either – the reality is that Poland's veto was the right move against a trading partner that is trying to manipulate the energy market for political gain, as well as sow disunity among EU members. Poland has demanded that before it lift its veto, Russia must first either sign a transit protocol of the Energy Charter Treaty, which would open up Russia's gas pipelines to foreign competition, or ratify the treaty altogether, which would end state-controlled Gazprom's monopoly. Additionally, Poland demands that Russia finally lift its unjustified ban on Polish agricultural goods. Both are issues on which the EU should support Poland. The food ban is little more than a thinly-veiled political slap in the face, as for a year Poland has made every effort to satisfy the Russians on the supposed “hygienic” criteria Russia says Poland's products do not meet. It's well-known that Russia's food-hygiene standards are far lower than the EU's, and yet Polish food products are exported to, sold in, and eaten in every EU member state. What is it about Polish food that isn't good enough for the Russians? Window of opportunity On energy, the EU has a slim window of opportunity now to force at least some movement on Moscow's obstinate stance on its gas market. The Kremlin, through Gazprom, has a stranglehold on all of Russia's gas exports, leaving those supplies open to political manipulation. At the moment, the EU is relatively immune to that manipulation, as it isn't yet totally dependent on Russian gas – but it soon will be. Russia hoped to bring that reality closer at the Helsinki talks. Conversely, without the EU market to sell its energy to, Russia would be unable to fund its shaky economic recovery. By the time another chance to negotiate another “partnership agreement” rolls around, China may be just as big a customer as the EU, making Moscow better able to dictate terms. If the EU wants a dependable supply of gas free of political interference, it ought to insist on energy liberalization. The current partnership agreement expires soon, but can be automatically extended. Moscow has much to gain from a closer relationship (it's hoping for endorsement of its WTO bid), the EU very little. The EU ought to take this opportunity to make sure Moscow treats each EU member with the same amount of respect, and diversifies its gas market, before it's too late.
posted by Gustav at 7:31 PM Wednesday, November 08, 2006U.S. politics Democrats win House
posted by Gustav at 9:15 PM Monday, November 06, 2006Final scores, game 3 Warsaw Eagles 19 : Pomorze Seahawks 6
posted by Gustav at 11:14 AM
|
Happy Thanksgiving The moners tjing is sad (but not that uncommon)...but you don;t seem to care about the millions of turkeys which die every Thanks Giving! Turkeys have rights!Eh?Eh? I am starting a branch of Human Tights Watch - Turkey Rights Watch! Ha ha. When did you become a vegan beatroot? Turkeys are some of the dumbest animals alive. They don't deserve to live. Oh yes -- they're also delicious! http://www.flowers-shop.org In modern times, people have sought ways to cultivate, buy, wear, or just be around flowers and blooming plants, partly because of their agreeable smell. Around the world, people use flowers for a wide range of events and functions that, cumulatively, encompass one's lifetime No way we can lose now So I guess You're a big UCLA fan now, huh? Definitely. For one week I was a Notre Dame fan too, it was awful. But seriously. USC lost to a friggin' unranked 8-4 team. Penn State had the same record. But Michigan took care of business against Penn State (which I would put up against Oregon State any day of the week). Why should a team that lost to an unranked mediocre squad get a chance to play for the national championship, over a team that lost by 3 to the number one team in the country? Because they already played? Because they're in the same conference? Wasn't this about putting the best two teams up against each other? Why do losses in October count less than losses in November? And I'm not surprised about the computer rankings - USC plays one more game than Michigan. Put another game on Michigan's schedule against a respectable opponent, and Michigan would top USC. Of course, Michigan would have one more game if there were a conference championship game... the Big 10 just needs one more school to be able to be divided into two divisions of 6. The obvious choice for that school is Notre Dame -- but they're too damn greedy to give up their NBC contract. So, as everyone can see, it's all Notre Dame's fault. As usual. Top Cat - Of course you miss Bo! His battle with Woody Hayes was something special for folks on both sides of the Michigan-Ohio border. I enjoy the Tressel-Carr rivalry much, much less. Did you ever think when you were growing up that a trip to the Rose Bowl would be a disappointment? Playoffs? Did you ever think when you were growing up that a trip to the Rose Bowl would be a disappointment? If it meant not playing for the national championship, and we were eligible. When I was growing up people were already complaining about the system, and later, in 1997, it was torture that we had to share the title because we had to play in the Rose Bowl. I 100% support playoffs Where do you weigh in RT? Think Florida should play OSU, or should we have a rematch? I haven't seem Florida play, so really I dont have an educated opinion on it. I would say that I think Michigan is the only team that has a chance of beating Ohio State.....but I remember someone here saying something about how bad he hates Texas and always roots against Texas teams......so I am just going to stay neutral...at least until the Cowboys / Lions game. ;-) Seriously, I do think Michigan should be #2. But I think that the SEC, having been snubbed recently, will lobby their way into the Title game. But if Florida beats Ohio State, and Michigan really kicks USC's ass............I guess Florida would be deserving because they beat OSU and Michigan did not. I personally would like to see a playoff system. OSU and Michigan both have a month and a half off between their last game and the BCS bowls. Thats plenty of time to have a 16 team playoffs. That's a very fair answer. To be honest, I don't have anything against the University of Texas per se, they have a darn fine history, a classy coach, and as far as I know (I'm not exactly jacked in) an honorable program. I simply generally root against Texas teams on principle ;-). Do the Cowboys and Lions play this season? It won't be any contest. The Lions are awful, and everybody knows it. We live for college ball where I'm from. I think Florida just might weasel its way in (we won our conference! we won our conference!). But you're right, if Florida beats OSU, then they beat the #1 team and they deserve the title. I think there's very little chance of that happening though. A UM-USC game would be a classic too, though. And once again, you're preaching to the choir on playoffs. I think it would make college football so much more exciting as well, since during the season most teams only play one, maybe 2 out of conference games against real powerhouse conferences (and the Big-10 almost never does it). I would have loved to see UM play a biggie from the SEC, the Big 12, the ACC or the Pac-10 during the season... But I understand that the conference schedule is brutal, and often coaches need the "lighter" opponents to prepare. But with playoffs, we would see a lot of inter-conference battles that we don't see during the season. I'm all for more UM-UT games, or OSU-Nebraska or FSU-Washington. Now THOSE games would be interesting -- even moreso in the playoffs. I've heard the argument however (and find it somewhat convincing) that a playoff system increases the chance of injury to these players, some of whose only future is in pro football. Don't you think there's some truth to that? Yeah but hell....most NCAA players will never play pro football. I guess that same argument would apply to college basketball as well. Although the risk of injury is not as high. Hell they've already risked injury for 12 games, half the chosen sixteen would only play 1 post season game, same as they do know. Only 8 teams would play beyond the current number of games. Or you could cut out a couple of the bogus early non-conference games, and add the playoffs and MOST teams would play less risky games than they are now.....but the same people bitching about playing more games would probably be the same people bitching about playing less though. But at least that is better argument than the lame academic reasons most college presidents use. The networks hold the key. If they took their cash out of the bowl game system and offered it only to participants in a playoff system....the college presidents would come around. Might have to replace the NCAA with a more open-minded body first though. You could still have all these bogus bowls for teams not in the chosen 16. Yep....you got screwed brother. The SEC wins again. Being a typical Yankee, it just seems to me that there's an inherent slant towards the southern conferences in the voting. Two Big-10 teams at the top this year is a very rare exception. And of course, the computers tied Florida and Michigan (even though Florida had an extra game!). It was the coaches who voted Florida above UM. "I don't think coaches are, quite frankly, the best people to vote on that poll," said Rutgers coach Greg Schiano, who had Michigan No. 2 and Florida No. 3. "But I take it very seriously. I know it's important, because we're dealing with people's lives." And then there's this: Tressel said he didn't feel right putting Ohio State in the middle of the decision of who the Buckeyes are supposed to play for the national title. Michigan coach Lloyd Carr, a member of the coaches' poll, said there was no scenario in which he would choose not to vote. On Tressel's abstention, Carr said: "I thought it was real slick." I can see both points of view -- if it were anybody but Ohio State. Now it just looks like Tressel was trying to screw Michigan and/or get the easier opponent in the national title game, hence: All these factors were sure to set off renewed calls to scrap the BCS and go to a playoff. Count Florida coach Urban Meyer as supporter of that plan. "We're beyond the fact of do we need a playoff," he said. "It's now, can we get one." ... "It's an imperfect system," Meyer said Sunday. "If you want a true national championship, the only way to do it is on the field. Carr agreed: "I hope one day we have a system where all the issues are decided on the field." But Ohio State coach Jim Tressel, however, isn't so sure about a playoff system. "With a 12-game season, it would be next to impossible to have a 16-team playoff," he said Sunday. "We'll continually improve the system. As you look at it over the past few years, it has gotten better and better." Funny how Tressel seems to be the only guy in the world who still favors the BCS these days. Nice cop out on his part. But I'm trying not to be a sore loser. The country believed that if USC had won its last game, then it deserved to play against OSU in the National Championship. This way, UM gets a shot (in the Rose Bowl no less -- Big 10 v Pac 10 once again!) to prove the country wrong. Gustav's picks: Michigan 28 - USC 21 (Both have awesome defenses and their offenses are great, but not as great as Ohio State's. I think UM's defense and offense are both better than USC's though) Ohio State 40 - Florida 27 (No contest. I'm being nice to Florida, having them lose by less than 14) Final Rankings: 1. Ohio State 2. Michigan 3. Florida 4. USC (But I would have also loved to have seen a USC-Florida game. I'd take USC in that one too.) Is free trade too much to ask? the biggest problem is Germany... http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Schroeder_Defends_His_New_Russian_Job.html http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/10/066e1ec5-017c-4891-b83c-0c5b80d6b5e2.html ....history repeats. The cheek! http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=mergersNews&storyID=2006-11-16T170704Z_01_L16885811_RTRIDST_0_RUSSIA-EU-ACCESS.XML I heard pray tell that France is supporting Poland vs. Russia. France has expressed its belief that Russia should lift the food ban -- but has said it won't let that get in the way of a more expansive EU-Russia deal. Lithuania, on the other hand, has expressed full support for Poland's blocking of the deal: link The Russians should go screw themselves - they are just like Saddam's Iraq - an oil dictatorship kleptocracy. Time to start self-rationing oil and gas to teach the primitives exploiting the deaths of micro-organisms millions of years ago for their own current gain is hardly the pinnacle of intellectual and industrial achievement. The Russians are using the one thing that kept Communism going - natural resources - just to stay afloat - like Brazil it makes nothing and consumes everything U.S. politics Reposting from another site, not 100% on topic about Rumsfeld, but close enough for government work, for Bush, read 'the Bush team' (including the departing SOD): For the sake of argument, let's assume that Bush really did want to secularize and democratize the Middle East. He chose the absolute wrong way of trying to achieve that possible. He came up with an answer he liked, namely "massive military action" first and then looked for a problem to apply it to rather than trying to figure out what the problems were in the first place (terrorism is usually a symptom of deeper problems, not the worst problem in and of itself). And/Or he could imagined what the end result he wanted was and tried some reverse engineering (I think NASA used to do something like that when it was still effective). Encouraging democracy and secularism in countries already along that road so that other countries have some models to look at and emulate. (Currently there's no model for secular civil society in the middle east). The problem is that an army is a very blunt weapon, good at some things (invading, deposing governments, killing large groups of people within a certain area) and not not much else. No army has ever been good at doing the sorts of things that needed doing in Iraq after the success of the initial invasion (largely 'people work'). The result is the current mess we have now. Damned if I know what to do now. Leaving would create a power vacuum that would be filled by another Saddam (or the old Saddam if he isn't killed first) or some kind of conservative theocratic regime or some horrible combination of the two. On the other hand, staying isn't doing any good either. At best, we're becoming figurehead occupiers, unliked by locals (at best), accomplishing no real good and a magnet for stirring up and strengthening the very forces the invasion was supposedly targeted against. Damned if I know what to do now Invade Iran of course! Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Certainly a fresh approach is needed. But is Bob Gates the one to find it? Somehow I doubt it. I would be most happy to see a Democratic House and a Republican Senate. This way, both halves of the country, which have been giving each other dirty looks for the past six years, will be forced to come to the table and iron out their differences and actually work together as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans. A Demo House and Senate would not provide this kind of atmosphere. I'm not as optimistic as you Aaron, but I hope you're right. It may be a moot point however. I'm seeing now that the AP predicts a democratic win in Virginia... I'll just let it go at "I told you so." I never said they wouldn't win geez. What i said, actually was: My prediction for next month's elections is that the Dems won't do nearly as well as everybody thinks they will, but they may just squeak it out in the House. That may not be all bad. If they win in Congress now, they will share the blame for everything that goes wrong between now and the Presidential elections in 2008. and later... If they do win, I see them going on several witch hunts, holding lots of trials and hearings, and dividing the country even further. That's what the "base" seems to want. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans don't want witch hunts, but they do want competent governing. If that's what the Dems decide to do, it will indeed set the stage for the presidency. There's still a long way to go, and a lot to see from the Democrats. But at the moment, Pelosi seems to be making the right noises. I do hope you're right about this setting the stage for the presidency, but taking on liability for what happens over the next two years I see as rather a disadvantage than an advantage. In any case, it was more than the Foley scandal that helped the Dems win. That Iraq thing was a pretty big motivator, i'd say. I'd retort that it was a much bigger win than expected... they certainly didn't just squeak by in the House... Certainly, Iraq and just honesty and competence in general were the big issues... Maybe they will wind up sharing the blame. It depends on how they run with it all. Otherwise, this seems to sum it all up in my mind: HEARTS AND MINDS ++++++++++++++++ By Jim Wallis A Defeat for the Religious Right and the Secular Left In this election, both the Religious Right and the secular Left were defeated, and the voice of the moral center was heard. A significant number of candidates elected are social conservatives on issues of life and family, economic populists, and committed to a new direction in Iraq. This is the way forward: a grand new alliance between liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, one that can end partisan gridlock and involves working together for real solutions to pressing problems. It is clear from the election results that moderate, and some conservative, Christians - especially evangelicals and Catholics - want a moral agenda that is broader than only abortion and same-sex marriage. Various exit polls showed a shift of 6% to 16% fewer evangelicals and Catholics supporting Republican candidates than in 2004. Poverty, the war in Iraq, strengthening families, and protecting the environment are all moral values. And many Americans this year voted all of their values. While a large number of seats changed hands, the margin of victory for individual seats was very low in most instances. So, it was not as large a Democratic victory as the seat count makes it look. I hope that the Democrats realize this and "reach across the aisle." I hope that the Republicans lose some of their arrogance and gain some humility so that they are also willing to "reach across the aisle." It is the only way anything is going to get done. By the way, don't forget immigration. The Republicans hurt themselves on this because they couldn't work with each other and were very ham-handed in their approach and lost all of the gains with hispanics that Bush managed to get in 2004. The seat count is what counts. The Dems were down 12 and came up 16. Not as big a reversal in the Senate but they still took control after being in the minority since '94 That's 12 years in case anybody has been counting. So I'd say it was a whopping big Democratic victory. And how should the Democrats reach across the aisle? Should they allow the Republicans to let the rich get richer and wage wars in perpetuity? They probably will although they shouldn't. So sorry. That was a switch of 28 seats in the House and maybe more depending on 8 or so still undecided races. You're right ig -- Cumulatively they won big. But Chuck's point is more convincing -- the majority were very close. I don't have a political crystal ball -- so what? The bigger point here is that this was really a vote against Republicans (and Iraq) than for the Dems. I still don't know what solutions the Democrats propose to the US' problems. Show me the policy! I don't mean to sound like a Dem cheerleader as if I think they can bring about big changes. I'll be happy if they bring even a slightly saner healthcare system into being. If they manage to make even a little less fashionable all the fearmongering, that'll do me fine, too. Even if they begin to consider the problems with the US occupation of Iraq without such discussion being labeled treasonous. Even a slightly more progressive tax system being considered will be nice as opposed to giving write off after write off to the likes of Paris Hilton. Final scores, game 3 station archives
enjoy the view
|
|
 |
my feed