http://news.sky.com/story/967285/france-introduces-financial-transaction-tax
This is sheer genius. How does one deter investment in French companies while shafting individual investors who don't have the resources or know-how to use loopholes? Introduce a levy on financial transactions.
A vast conspiracy of unprincipled City "speculators" could not have come up with something better to punish France and encourage investment outside its borders.
August 1, 2012
January 2, 2010
Akmal Shaikh
When was the last time that you heard of a drug courier being referred to as a well-balanced individual with a all the trappings of a "normal" life? It seems quite obvious to me that it would be the kind of activity that people who are more on the fringes of society would engage in.
If you are carrying 4kg of heroin, as Shaikh was, you will inevitably end up being being paid a fraction of the drugs' street value to carry it. I do not know what the going rate is for this line of business and a few thousand euros is indeed a mere fraction of what that heroin's "retail" price is, however it is quite a bit of money to someone who was allegedly down and out and looking to make some quick cash.
Putting to the side the Chinese government's obnoxious attitude, what if we were to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that this guy were guilty (the only reason we're not, to be honest, is because he's a national of a western country)?
How should have China handled a situation in which an individual is caught smuggling 4kg (!?) of heroin?
If you are carrying 4kg of heroin, as Shaikh was, you will inevitably end up being being paid a fraction of the drugs' street value to carry it. I do not know what the going rate is for this line of business and a few thousand euros is indeed a mere fraction of what that heroin's "retail" price is, however it is quite a bit of money to someone who was allegedly down and out and looking to make some quick cash.
Putting to the side the Chinese government's obnoxious attitude, what if we were to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that this guy were guilty (the only reason we're not, to be honest, is because he's a national of a western country)?
How should have China handled a situation in which an individual is caught smuggling 4kg (!?) of heroin?
Shaikh's insanity (manic depressive) plea is the my-dog-ate-my-homework of criminal defenses and just doesn't cut it, especially considering the enormous amount of drugs that he was carrying. I don't think that he should have been put to death, but on the other hand, one must also respect China's judicial sovereignty, and I don't see how anything less than a particularly lengthy sentence (i.e. life imprisonment) in a Chinese jail would have been appropriate in this case.
October 23, 2009
1-0 to the BNP
What you need to ask yourself is whether the BNP has lost a single vote since Question Time went off the air yesterday evening? The answer is probably not.
Everything played right into his hands. Not only did every insult from the hostile crowd and panel consolidate his support by allow him to portray himself as someone being thrown to the lions, he was asked a series of questions which the average ex-mainstream party voter who is now voting for the BNP could not care less about. Financial crisis, unemployment or MP expenses anyone? No. The Holocaust, the KKK and hanging British generals (WTF). This may gain traction in a multicultural and prosperous city like London, but certainly not in the places where he is actually getting votes.
Why was he not asked how he actually plans to solve the problems which he uses to drum up support?
Griffin is nowhere near having any of the oratory polish of a Le Pen (some of his answers were frankly ridiculous and someone like Paxman would destroy him easily), but the more he is vilified, the more he will be able to cry foul and strike a chord with disenfranchised voters by continuing to rail against the "establishment".
Everything played right into his hands. Not only did every insult from the hostile crowd and panel consolidate his support by allow him to portray himself as someone being thrown to the lions, he was asked a series of questions which the average ex-mainstream party voter who is now voting for the BNP could not care less about. Financial crisis, unemployment or MP expenses anyone? No. The Holocaust, the KKK and hanging British generals (WTF). This may gain traction in a multicultural and prosperous city like London, but certainly not in the places where he is actually getting votes.
Why was he not asked how he actually plans to solve the problems which he uses to drum up support?
Griffin is nowhere near having any of the oratory polish of a Le Pen (some of his answers were frankly ridiculous and someone like Paxman would destroy him easily), but the more he is vilified, the more he will be able to cry foul and strike a chord with disenfranchised voters by continuing to rail against the "establishment".
July 12, 2009
Heaven has no rage like the EPP's love to hatred turned
Nor hell a fury like the people scorned...
The Conservative Party's departure from the European People's Party and decision to spearhead a new, anti-federalist group has ruffled a few feathers. Unsurprisingly, media coverage and political reaction to the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group has, by and large, been negative. Much has been made of statements on civil liberties issues and climate-change by some members; others have been accused of being Nazi sympathizers. To everyone’s relief though, these stories have mostly been dismissed as either being exaggerations or half-truths. On the other hand, two realpolitik-influenced contentions over the move have gained traction with the European Parliament's chattering classes. Firstly, that as a result of having left the EPP, the Conservatives have isolated themselves in Europe - and the United Kingdom in the process. Secondly, that the party itself has lost considerable political influence in the biggest political group in Strasbourg.
I fail to understand the line of reasoning used with regards to both points, especially if one looks at the situation as it stands today in the European Parliament. Why would the Conservatives be "isolated" merely because they do not belong to a dominant political group within a political chamber? If, from the Assemblée Nationale to the Bundestag, smaller parties are able to have their say by forming coalitions or cooperating on a need-to basis with others, I am confident that as the fourth biggest group in the European Parliament, the ECR will do just fine. As a matter of fact, smaller parties often obtain excellent results if they play their cards right. One need only look at the regional election results in Belgium last month, where the francophone green party, Ecolo, surprisingly became key post-electoral power brokers despite having finished third overall!
When parties choose to work together because they have common ground, they work together, when they don't, they don't. The group that the Tories are actually in is irrelevant and does not mean that they cannot cooperate with allies in other groups when needed and vice-versa.
The other big issue brought up by the new group’s detractors is the Conservatives’ alleged loss of influence (read power) engendered by their departure from the EPP. The Tories did negotiate an exceptional "package" in 2004, however five years ago the Socialists had not just been obliterated in the elections and the EPP *needed* the Conservative MEPs in order to stiffen their ranks. Accordingly, they were allowed to punch above their weight and given several plum positions. Considering that, in addition, the Conservatives would hypothetically be the fourth or fifth party in the EPP today, I am puzzled as to why anyone thinks that the Tories would be able to obtain anything close to what they were able to obtain in the previous legislature.
The real problem, in my humble opinion, is that Tory core principles of "eurorealism" and classical liberalism are simply not compatible with the EPP's collective consciousness and the enormous influence of French economic dirigisme and German über-federalism on its political agenda. The hoopla over "isolation" and "influence" are non-arguments. There is bound to be considerable friction in the next couple of years between London and the Franco-German axis over Lisbon and their regulation-happy social market policies - this has nothing to do with what political group the Tories are in!
As an aside, I also find it surprising that David Cameron has been subjected to so much criticism for having had the unmitigated gall to merely carry out a campaign promise! What is more important? Being true to your principles or compromising yourself on key ideological issues in order to stay in the European Parliament's Christian Democrat cum Socialist good-ol’-boy network
The fact of the matter is that the Conservatives have simply exposed the elephant-in-the-room that EU federalists have been hiding their head in the sand over for several years.
Many things in Europe are not working and millions of Europeans have realized it. And no, sorry, they are not just ignorant Little Englanders or political zealots. They are normal people, who pay taxes and are asking themselves serious questions about the European Union, where it is headed and whether its influence should increase in their everyday lives.
Thanks to the creation of the European Conservatives and Reformists group, a clear fault line in European politics has finally been drawn by a mainstream and resolutely democratic political party. Now the ball is in the federalists' court. If they continue to pompously dismiss the real concerns of millions of Europeans instead of trying to reconnect with the people and making Europe work, they will continue to disappoint and alienate the electorate, from referendum failures to the steady decline in voter participation.
As the inspirational (sigh) campaign slogan concocted by the European Parliament for the recent elections read: it's your choice!
The Conservative Party's departure from the European People's Party and decision to spearhead a new, anti-federalist group has ruffled a few feathers. Unsurprisingly, media coverage and political reaction to the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group has, by and large, been negative. Much has been made of statements on civil liberties issues and climate-change by some members; others have been accused of being Nazi sympathizers. To everyone’s relief though, these stories have mostly been dismissed as either being exaggerations or half-truths. On the other hand, two realpolitik-influenced contentions over the move have gained traction with the European Parliament's chattering classes. Firstly, that as a result of having left the EPP, the Conservatives have isolated themselves in Europe - and the United Kingdom in the process. Secondly, that the party itself has lost considerable political influence in the biggest political group in Strasbourg.
I fail to understand the line of reasoning used with regards to both points, especially if one looks at the situation as it stands today in the European Parliament. Why would the Conservatives be "isolated" merely because they do not belong to a dominant political group within a political chamber? If, from the Assemblée Nationale to the Bundestag, smaller parties are able to have their say by forming coalitions or cooperating on a need-to basis with others, I am confident that as the fourth biggest group in the European Parliament, the ECR will do just fine. As a matter of fact, smaller parties often obtain excellent results if they play their cards right. One need only look at the regional election results in Belgium last month, where the francophone green party, Ecolo, surprisingly became key post-electoral power brokers despite having finished third overall!
When parties choose to work together because they have common ground, they work together, when they don't, they don't. The group that the Tories are actually in is irrelevant and does not mean that they cannot cooperate with allies in other groups when needed and vice-versa.
The other big issue brought up by the new group’s detractors is the Conservatives’ alleged loss of influence (read power) engendered by their departure from the EPP. The Tories did negotiate an exceptional "package" in 2004, however five years ago the Socialists had not just been obliterated in the elections and the EPP *needed* the Conservative MEPs in order to stiffen their ranks. Accordingly, they were allowed to punch above their weight and given several plum positions. Considering that, in addition, the Conservatives would hypothetically be the fourth or fifth party in the EPP today, I am puzzled as to why anyone thinks that the Tories would be able to obtain anything close to what they were able to obtain in the previous legislature.
The real problem, in my humble opinion, is that Tory core principles of "eurorealism" and classical liberalism are simply not compatible with the EPP's collective consciousness and the enormous influence of French economic dirigisme and German über-federalism on its political agenda. The hoopla over "isolation" and "influence" are non-arguments. There is bound to be considerable friction in the next couple of years between London and the Franco-German axis over Lisbon and their regulation-happy social market policies - this has nothing to do with what political group the Tories are in!
As an aside, I also find it surprising that David Cameron has been subjected to so much criticism for having had the unmitigated gall to merely carry out a campaign promise! What is more important? Being true to your principles or compromising yourself on key ideological issues in order to stay in the European Parliament's Christian Democrat cum Socialist good-ol’-boy network
The fact of the matter is that the Conservatives have simply exposed the elephant-in-the-room that EU federalists have been hiding their head in the sand over for several years.
Many things in Europe are not working and millions of Europeans have realized it. And no, sorry, they are not just ignorant Little Englanders or political zealots. They are normal people, who pay taxes and are asking themselves serious questions about the European Union, where it is headed and whether its influence should increase in their everyday lives.
Thanks to the creation of the European Conservatives and Reformists group, a clear fault line in European politics has finally been drawn by a mainstream and resolutely democratic political party. Now the ball is in the federalists' court. If they continue to pompously dismiss the real concerns of millions of Europeans instead of trying to reconnect with the people and making Europe work, they will continue to disappoint and alienate the electorate, from referendum failures to the steady decline in voter participation.
As the inspirational (sigh) campaign slogan concocted by the European Parliament for the recent elections read: it's your choice!
January 26, 2007
Un grandissimo uomo...
Italian TV has a poor reputation however its entertainment value is underestimated; everyone is always in a good mood, the conversation is light, there's an endless procession of good looking women (there are always some hunks on hand for the females in the audience too) and there's just enough spice, or beloved polemica, as the locals say, to keep you on your toes at all times.
So it's Saturday evening and I am surfing pointlessly on the internet while quiz show, Fratelli di Test, the Italian version of Test the Nation, is on in the background on Rai Uno. The host, Carlo Conti, reads off questions in different categories and introduces a historical one by asking the audience to watch a quick video showing "four very great men" ("quattro grandissimi uomini' - note the use of the -issimi superlative ). Twenty to thirty seconds of black and white footage follow with John Lennon's Imagine playing in the background showing a succession of 20th century historical figures - Martin Luther King, Ernesto Guevara, John F. Kennedy and Mahatma Gandhi. As the video ends the following question appears on screen (this is just a capture from RAI's website where you can take the televised test yourself online).
Who said that, "nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind"?
Wait. Hang on a second, there's something that I don't get. What's Ernesto Guevara doing in that list? I suppose that he qualifies as a man and arguably even as an icon, however I don't think that a cold-blooded and violent revolutionary like him is a grandissimo uomo and he certainly would be the last person who would have been quoted saying something like that.
On the contrary, Guevara's main concern, as with most pacifists (?!), was that someone would pick up his gun and keep on shooting it if he fell!
On a slightly less sarcastic note and even if it's just a game show, I do find that putting him in the same category as Martin Luther King and Gandhi is irresponsible didactically and an insult to the memories of men like the latter who despised violence. Even a more controversial figure like Kennedy can at least be credited with having helped to avoid a global nuclear war - a cataclysmic conflict that Guevara and his sandbox pal Castro would have been greatly responsible for.
They say that winners write history books, but why is it that communists are the only ones who have lost and/or created social and economic havoc (read injustice) everywhere, yet are still able to infiltrate culture and politics at all levels to peddle their lies and brainwash people?
So it's Saturday evening and I am surfing pointlessly on the internet while quiz show, Fratelli di Test, the Italian version of Test the Nation, is on in the background on Rai Uno. The host, Carlo Conti, reads off questions in different categories and introduces a historical one by asking the audience to watch a quick video showing "four very great men" ("quattro grandissimi uomini' - note the use of the -issimi superlative ). Twenty to thirty seconds of black and white footage follow with John Lennon's Imagine playing in the background showing a succession of 20th century historical figures - Martin Luther King, Ernesto Guevara, John F. Kennedy and Mahatma Gandhi. As the video ends the following question appears on screen (this is just a capture from RAI's website where you can take the televised test yourself online).
Who said that, "nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind"?
Wait. Hang on a second, there's something that I don't get. What's Ernesto Guevara doing in that list? I suppose that he qualifies as a man and arguably even as an icon, however I don't think that a cold-blooded and violent revolutionary like him is a grandissimo uomo and he certainly would be the last person who would have been quoted saying something like that.
On the contrary, Guevara's main concern, as with most pacifists (?!), was that someone would pick up his gun and keep on shooting it if he fell!
On a slightly less sarcastic note and even if it's just a game show, I do find that putting him in the same category as Martin Luther King and Gandhi is irresponsible didactically and an insult to the memories of men like the latter who despised violence. Even a more controversial figure like Kennedy can at least be credited with having helped to avoid a global nuclear war - a cataclysmic conflict that Guevara and his sandbox pal Castro would have been greatly responsible for.
They say that winners write history books, but why is it that communists are the only ones who have lost and/or created social and economic havoc (read injustice) everywhere, yet are still able to infiltrate culture and politics at all levels to peddle their lies and brainwash people?
Yankee go home!
Random ramblings on happenings in Italy...
Elements of the reliably hysterical hardcore Italian left are going into high gear over an agreement between the government and the United States to expand the latter's military base in Vicenza. Though the satanic US government would be pouring millions of dollars into building contracts which would stimulate the local economy, some people are more concerned with fighting alleged American imperialism than cooperating with a long-time ally, regardless of misgivings over US foreign policy. The fact that 700 local jobs would have been lost, as the U.S. military wants to consolidate the 173rd Airborne Brigade in one location and would have gone somewhere else if the government had not authorized expansion, seems to be of little concern to people with such high ideals...
Incidentally, an incoherent rampage by Emilio Franzina, a communist Vicenza town council member, is being sent all over the place in Italy and it is recommended viewing for anyone who understands Italian, it's a classic example of left-wing hysterics and empty "idealism". The man immemorably rants for six minutes non-stop about everything and anything, yet the only items of substance that came out of it were, apart from his predictably ideological (read anti-American) opposition to the base's expansion, is his being especially upset that he had cut his vacation short to come back to Vicenza to debate the military base issue when they mayor wasn't even around. Oh yeah. That and that he made sure to end his little speech by saying that he loved America. Where have we heard that one before?
Incidentally, an incoherent rampage by Emilio Franzina, a communist Vicenza town council member, is being sent all over the place in Italy and it is recommended viewing for anyone who understands Italian, it's a classic example of left-wing hysterics and empty "idealism". The man immemorably rants for six minutes non-stop about everything and anything, yet the only items of substance that came out of it were, apart from his predictably ideological (read anti-American) opposition to the base's expansion, is his being especially upset that he had cut his vacation short to come back to Vicenza to debate the military base issue when they mayor wasn't even around. Oh yeah. That and that he made sure to end his little speech by saying that he loved America. Where have we heard that one before?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)