I have long abandoned the practice to comment on individual terror attacks on these pages and instead relied on bloggers that are somewhat closer to the fire. Following today's attacks in Beersheba I checked out Dutchblog Israel where Bert provides us with some sane and succinct commentary, I especially liked this bit:

The timing of this attack - the day on which dates were made public for decisions related to a pullout from Gaza - suggests that, like the settlers and their supporters, Palestinian(-Islamist) terrorists would prefer Israel to continue its occupation. In the past, during every stage of negotiations or planning towards some Israeli pullout from occupied territory we witnessed a rise in terror attacks.

Discontinuation of the occupation would be a major setback for a group like Hamas as it would nullify it's raison-d'etre. Like any radical terrorist group its greatest fear is a transformation to normality, a phenomenon that has haunted the IRA for decades.

UPDATE: Mitch has e-mailed some thoughts:

Might I suggest as a countertheory that withdrawals give the impression of retreat, and that aggressive tacticians will respond to apparent retreat with a form of pursuit, ie, a redoubling of effort? That is, if you leave your enemy with the impression that he "has the bulge" on you, and he's rash or headstrong, he'll plunge forward.

An equally plausible position I think, unfortunately there is not enough 'hard' evidence to support either theory. I am tilting towards the first one as Israel has always responded with forcefully re-entering previously occupied territories after an attack. On the other hand the second theory would give Hamas far more credibility among Palestinians in the long run, enabling it to replace the Palestinian Authority as the de-facto government of all Palestinians.

The plight of two French hostages in Iraq has focused the attention on the new French law to ban all religious apparel from public schools, notably the headscarf for Muslim girls which is driving the hostage-takers’ demands. France, thinking it was getting a free ride in after bailing out of the Iraqi Freedom project, is getting a pretty rude awakening it seems.

After the failed experiment with tolerant multi-culturalism which has resulted in un-integrated fringe societies, or parallel universes if you like, Europeans have started to introduce new measures to forcibly assimilate their Muslim communities. Under the banner of the separation of church and state the French have now gone from one extreme to the other and the outcome I fear will have the same effect as the soft-approach: the expatriate Muslim community will disconnect itself from mainstream society and it will be even harder for French public officials to get a grip on these underground communities. Anyone thinking that home schooling is an American phenomenon should try and take a look at ethnic and religious groups in Europe that can’t identify with anything that secular public education has on offer for them. And when the same institutions take on some of these groups’ more treasured cultural identities then it is fair to say that the proposed laws have some clear flaws, thoughts that must have crossed the minds of those two unfortunate journalists captured in Iraq.

Separation of church and state is a great concept but it strictly refers to the government applying religion in its day-to-day workings. A policeman who alters his uniform by wearing religious insignia blurs that distinction, a student that walks into a public school should within the bounds of what is reasonable be allowed to wear a headscarf or a turban. In that way at the very least a society opens up its doors to religious and ethnic minorities and a middle ground between multi-culturalism and drastic bans can be achieved. While France’s attempts to creatively experiment with integrating Muslims are laudable, current legislation is not helpful and if it will stand the test of time and terror it will have far reaching consequences for long-term cohesion in French society. With the abduction of two journalists and the threat to kill them if the ban on headscarves is not rescinded this week, the French have been given a stark reminder of the intransigence of Islamist hardliners and the inevitable part that France will have to play in the struggle between freedom and terror.

UPDATE: The Belmont Club confirms our suspicions that France is working frantically behind the scenes to broker some sort of deal with the hostage-takers and their backers to secure the release of the hostages.

Another medical mishap in the Dorsman household last night so I didn’t have time to see the McCain and Giuliani speeches. Check out PoliBlog and the RNC Convention bloggers for a good round up of reactions.

Kim Du Toit is in Amsterdam and I was keen to hear what the Texan gun enthusiast with South African roots had to say about my native grounds. Given Kim’s usual blunt rhetoric I found his observations remarkably mild but then almost everyone left, right, center, old, and young thinks the Dutch capital is an unusually cool place, even I get a kick out of the touristy canal trip. This bit however struck me as very interesting as it is hardly ever mentioned with regards to the Dutch:

Frankly, I don't know why the Dutch bother to speak their own language at all. Everyone speaks excellent English, most of the signs are in English, and it's pretty much the lingua franca of commerce.

True. Compare that to the fear infused zeal with which the French and especially the French-Canadians protect their language from English influences. The Dutch are certainly proud of their cultural heritage, but they are simply too pragmatic to bother to protect their language. Languages evolve over time and if the English language is ever going to get a foothold on the continent it will indeed be in Holland.

UPDATE: Du Toit has updated his post and it is much better and pretty accurate, especially the conclusion:

What I think I like most is that the Dutch are clearly a no-nonsense people in terms of commerce, but they're not obsessed with attitude about it. Of course, Holland is part of the filthy EU, but then again, it's not too suprising that they joined up: the Dutch go along to get along.

On the mark. Especially the "no-nonsense" part, it's one of my trademarks and I have used it with great success on three different continents.

In the ongoing litany of complaints about idealess campaigns and stale democracies I have in the recent past blasted both Europe and Canada but it isn’t hard to see that US politics are equally disappointing when it comes to finding an engaging debate about the future direction of the nation. During my convalescence I followed the news from a distance but all I could hear and see was Swift Boats, Mekong, Veterans and over-analyzing the military careers of Kerry and, to a lesser extent, Bush. A sad spectacle indeed and very reminiscent of the tedious and disappointing campaign of four years ago. You would have thought that events since the Bush-Gore match would at the very least have inspired some debate on the future course for America rather than endless attempts at character-assassination by both parties.

This week George W. Bush has the opportunity to end the abysmal campaign by doing what John Kerry has so far failed to do and that is - borrowing from the Reagan campaign library - define today’s problems and translate them in tomorrow’s potential. Elections are always about the future and there’s quite a bit for Bush to address on both the domestic and foreign policy side. Domestically he will have to lay out a very clear economic and fiscal plan and temper some of his social conservatism without alienating the Christian right. On the international scene he can rightly point to phenomenal achievements in Afghanistan, Iraq and the War on Terror at large but there will have to be a clear cut agenda of where the Bush team is headed in the next four years. A medium term plan for Middle East troop deployments, how to engage Iran and North Korea, a comprehensive plan for restructuring the nation’s intelligence effort but also: building strong relationships with Russia and China. In short, Bush has the opportunity to present a coherent strategy, engage American voters and make it clear why his vision of the future is far more compelling than what Kerry has put on the table so far.

As discussed before, there aren’t that many undecided voters left, but the Republicans should ensure that their base turns out to vote while at the same time nail the few remaining swing voters. If Bush can pull this off this week in New York he should be able to cruise to November 2 without too many glitches, the numbers are already moving in his favor. It is Bush’s moment and I would almost dare to say: it’s his election to loose.

Chrenkoff has another edition of “Good News from Iraq” up, cross-posted at Winds and Opinion Journal. Have a look especially at the economic and reconstruction news, many are contributing to this colossal task, and even better news is that:

Bosnia-Herzegovina, also a scene of war not that long ago, is planning to send a mine clearing unit to Iraq. "Defense Minister Nikola Radovanovic said... the Balkan country has a moral obligation to help in Iraq after all the international assistance it received during the conflict of the 1990s in the Balkans."

This I would call the long-term dividend of peacemaking and nation building efforts. One day Iraq will contribute in a similar vein to the reconstruction of other fledgling democracies. Good news indeed.

Feminists and conservatives appear to have found each other as unlikely partners in the fight against sharia to be applied in settling certain civil disputes in Muslim communities in Canada. As I have argued a while ago, both parties are picking the wrong fight. As long as parties in a dispute subject themselves voluntarily to arbitration and if the consequent arbiters’ ruling does not violate the laws of the land then there is absolutely no reason for these groups to start hyperventilating over sharia, although I do understand that they may have some concerns. On Saturday I came across the following in the Vancouver Sun (subscriber link only) which highlights that in many other religions arbitration is common practice:

Since orthodox Jews in British Columbia take part in a Jewish court system called Beth Din, Vancouver Rabbi Levy Teitlebaum maintained a sharia system of adjudicating private disputes, as long as it followed Canadian law, would be an “appropriate method of community and ethnic involvement – because Muslim leaders are connected to their people and know their principles”

Here’s a rabbi defending the use of sharia, primarily on the grounds that he himself has had good experiences with this form of adjudication:

“We hear anything that is brought to us, whether it is a business deal gone sour or inheritance and domestic disputes between a husband and wife” said Teitlebaum, executive director of the Orthodox Rabbinical Council, which has spearheaded the Beth Din courts in Canada.

The article went on to say that:

In compliance with the Arbitration Act, which allows faith based arbitrators to settle private civil disputes, the Jewish parties who use the Beth Din system have to sign a document indicating their acceptance of the arbitration and the judgment. Neither however can be forced the rabbinical court route. Rulings can be appealed, reviewed and overturned.

That should alleviate feminist fears and allow the implementation of sharia within the confines of Canada’s Arbitration Act. And conservatives should please themselves with another positive aspect of this phenomenon: the privatization of certain parts of the congested justice system. Case closed.

First of all, thanks to all the well wishers. It was indeed a pretty miserable week but recovery is on the way and I plan to back early next week, just in time for the GOP convention in New York. So to compensate for the absence, and because I have never done it before, I will liveblog the Bush speech on Thursday.

That’s what the doctor told me yesterday I would have after undergoing emergency surgery on my right eye. Vision in that eye had become blurred recently and the last time similar symptoms had emerged it turned out to be a pituitary tumor that was pressing on my optic nerves. Fears of renewed tumor growth abounded in the Dorsman household, but it yesterday turned out to be a retinal detachment. It seems like it has been fixed and everything will be fine, but coming out of the general anesthetic and having to operate with one eye makes even reading the newspaper a challenge so I will work on the premise that it could indeed be a miserable week. As soon as I am up to it regular blogging will resume but that could well be late next week. See you all soon!

When I marveled at the impact of liberal Americans eligible to vote in Canada in local elections, it never occurred to me that since most, if not all, of them are still American passport holders they can equally help swing close contests in the US. The Kerry campaign did think of it and Diana Kerry, the candidate’s sister, is now campaigning in Canada to get as many expatriate Americans to register for their absentee ballots, by some estimates there are anywhere between 400 and 500,000 Americans living in Canada.

With a few exceptions they are not likely to be in the Bush camp, although with so many Vietnam draft dodgers and their offspring up north you would have to wonder about their inclination to vote for a candidate who has built his campaign on his Vietnam record. They may have become so Canadianized that they can’t be bothered to vote either way. In any case, Canado-Americans presumably get to vote in the state in which they resided before they left the US and thus can have a significant impact in a number of hotly contested swing states. It would be interesting to see some numbers after the November election.

This is an OTB Traffic Jam Entry

Yesterday in the Daily Telegraph Mark Steyn reflected on the US troop redeployment and put it in the context of US-European relations. As ever in good form:

But in NATO, for generations, whenever the bill's come, there's been a stampede to the washroom, not just from the Canadians but the Continentals, too.

There are days, and this is one of them, that I am really thinking to devote this entire blog to the monumental realignment that is taking place in cross-Atlantic relations. The diverging paths of Europe and North America that started shortly after the end of the Cold War and which were accelerated by and after 9/11 are of the same magnitude as the struggle against Islamofascism itself. The war on terror is but one component of two continents steadily drifting apart. John Kerry’s promises to fix these rifts and return to the Cold War days of strong relations with European partners negates the new global and economic realities, it's an uniformed campaign ploy to differentiate himself from Bush. A Kerry presidency will very likely be treated with the same suspicion as the Bush one over at the Elysee. For the Euro-inclined North Americans called Canadians who wonder where they will end up it should be evident that from cultural, geographical and economical standpoints their fate is unalterably intertwined with their southern neighbour.

It’s a busy week, hence few posts but in them meantime check out this week’s Carnival of the Vanities over at Jeremiah Lewis' Fringeblog. I will check in later today, hopefully.

It appears that peace activists’ prayers have finally been heard, Bush is redeploying US troops based in Germany. In doing so he has unwittingly removed one of the pillars of Germany’s economy, and Davids Medienkritik is quick to point out that the French would be more than willing to take up the vacant slot. They might, but let's not forget that they are too close to home to stay in Germany over the weekend and prop up the local economy with redundant Euros.

Were getting closer to the final round of the presidential contest and Conrad has a good round-up of recent electoral maneuvering. It seems like front-runner Yudhoyono is well positioned.

Chrenkoff kicks off the week with a discussion of a document called Outline of a Doctrine of French Policy, which can be summarized as promoting the position that France should be the leader of a Latino-Catholic force in the world as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon and Slavo-Soviet power blocks in existence at the time when the doctrine was formulated by Alexandre Kojeve. From today’s vantage point it isn’t hard to fathom that the current French leaders have applied Kojeve generously in recent years in positioning France as a very distinct pillar of the western world, assuming a leadership role in the European Union and challenging the Anglo-Saxon, or American, supremacy following the end of the Cold War. Arthur Chrenkoff summarizes some of the diverging paths of the Western World and concludes:

Regardless, however, it is wise to remember today that our common roots in Athens, Rome and Jerusalem don't necessarily make for our common interests in Washington, Brussels or Baghdad.

So the Cold War period was a unique period where the interests of the Judeo-Christian World briefly converged. Up to that point there was too much that differentiated them, but with the advent of two successive evil empires it wasn’t that hard to unite what came to be known as the western world. The enabler for that was neither religion nor economy, these were really often dividers, no, it was the ability to adopt the principle of a liberal democracy with guaranteed rights for the individual as a sustainable model for the modern state. Ironically, apart from France and Italy, at the time Kojeve launched his ideas the Latino-Catholic world was still mired in dictatorship and regression and was a somewhat uneasy partner of the free West. But with democracy and economic reform taking hold in Spain, Portugal and Latin America the West from a liberal market perspective today is far more homogenous than ever. However in the face of Islamofascist terror and threats of chaos imposed from wayward third-world entities the West should, in theory, be far more unified than it is today. Only two weeks ago I pointed to Garton Ash whose new book centers around the premise that “there’s more that unites than divides us”.

If that’s the case, then attempts that seek to end the post Cold War convergence by trying to build a new pillar of power in a time when western liberal democracy faces one of its most lethal threats are extremely dangerous. They not only end a unique alignment of the free world, they negate the basic values on which that alignment was built. It doesn’t come as a total surprise that this is coming from a European nation that missed the reformation, came late to empire and was a laggard when it came to economic reform and embracing free markets.

UPDATE: David Warren weighs in:

But power politics are more calculating and cynical than that. The whole project of building a united Europe depends on replacing the old intra-European national antipathies with a new common antipathy. The public demonization of America thus serves the interests of Europe's new bureaucratic order, as George Jonas and others have argued.

An unapologizing European, who wants a Europe bound up with America in the cause of spreading freedom through the world, Mr. Garton Ash often writes as if sweet reason were bound to prevail. It seldom is, and to defeat the enemies of freedom, her friends must be willing to get ugly.

It doesn’t come as a surprise that after a number of coalition members have been tested, notably Spain and The Philippines with fairly disastrous results, it’s now the turn of the Dutch. The Dutch government started to doubt whether a continued stay in Southern Iraq would be politically palatable after the first Dutch soldier was killed a while ago. On Saturday a second one was killed and a significant number injured, but staying the course seems to be the prevailing attitude, so far. This is good news but it shouldn’t be underestimated how the Dutch feel about battle deaths, an overwhelming majority in the country believes that the main purpose the army has is peacekeeping and nation-building and when the first bodybags appear it is usually considered time to pack up and bring the boys home.

The casualties coincided with a lethal threat addressed directly to the Dutch and Italian governments by the Islamic group al-Tawhid. It yesterday threatened to attack Italy and The Netherlands if both countries refuse to withdraw troops from Iraq. Addressing Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi directly al-Zarqawi’s group said:

"You have challenged the soldiers of Islam, so expect an Islamic earthquake."

If anything, I am surprised these threats emerge this late in the game. It will be a fairly serious test of Italian and Dutch spines.

Mattel has been sitting in my portfolio for quite a while now, not really doing anything which is somewhat of a disappointment as I bought it as a turn-around opportunity quite a while ago. Companies that have turn-around potential but whose performance continues to be lackluster revert to an endless deluge of press releases, image overhauls and a mixture of rebranding and restyling and so it is with Mattel who have now relaunched their flagship doll Barbie as, you got it, a presidential candidate. But the company hastens to add it is not about improving the bottom line at all:

The company is working to capitalize on its best-known product, which has been losing its appeal to older kids. The move is less a money-making initiative for Mattel, and more a labor of love, Mattel spokeswoman Julia Jensen told Reuters.

Doubtful claim. It would seem more like Mattel is trying to catch up with Talking Presidents who have launched a successful range of political dolls, now even marketing a turkey dinner Bush. Since my four-year old daughter loves Barbie-type dolls, what do you think I as a politically engaged parent would be buying if I had the choice between Barbie for President or the famous Ann Coulter doll? Yes, even as a Mattel shareholder I would still opt for the blonde pan-conservative babe. So if Mattel wants to improve its bottom line, acquiring Talking Presidents would be far better than restyling Barbie for the umpteenth time. And to be honest, even today’s kids would see right through a Barbie candidacy as a feeble attempt to grab some publicity. Give us the real thing!

Mike Perry of the Inkling Blog sent me some thoughts on the divergent paths of Europe and the US and reminds me of a very important part that I, as a former resident of Asia, should have spotted and addressed much earlier:

I enjoyed your remarks about "Hedonistic Europe." Europe and the US are moving apart quite rapidly. More and more I find I have more in common with more traditionally minded Asians than with at least the public voices of Europe from whence my culture came.

Very true. Michael Barone, interviewed by John Hawkins over at RNW echoes the same sentiments:

With its negative population growth, sluggish economies and huge welfare state burden, Europe is on its way to becoming less important economically, culturally and militarily. The United States, in contrast, has positive population growth, a resilient and growing economy and a smaller welfare state burden. With one-third of the world--India and China--moving rapidly from Third toward First World status, Asia is likely to become more important to the United States and Europe less so.

By sheer economic necessity and the potential for becoming part of an emerging middle class many Asians embody the traditional set of virtuous capitalist values that helped built great economies in Europe and the US during much of the 20th century. Over time I received many comments from readers about China being a potential enemy of the US and the free world and I always brushed these off as erroneous views of the post-cold war world. On the contrary, when it comes to the potential of future alliances many Asian countries and especially China are likely to be natural partners for North America, economically, strategically but also culturally.

You can't really ask your readers to donate money for your blogging efforts and then retreat to the hammock for a month once the proceeds are in the bank. Well, justice is swift and today's blockbuster featuring New Jersey Governor James McGreevey will force Sullivan back to the workstation, although as of this moment the dish remains unupdated. I bet you he will be back tomorrow morning.

Last night Irene and I got back from a nice four day sojourn in, as the Sharkblogger would say, hippy-dippy liberal Seattle. We had a great break, one of the highlights being a kayaking trip on Lake Washington which was followed by one of the best Mexican meals we ever had. And of course we stocked up on books; especially the university bookstore had some good stuff. Four days however made it abundantly clear as to why the Bush campaign doesn’t really bother with Washington state; it’s solid Kerry (and Nader) territory and pretty much a write-off in terms of electoral votes for the Republicans. We noticed only one Bush-Cheney sign and that was well outside the urban areas, but as the Rosenblog tells us, there are still many conservative voices living around the Puget Sound.

So, it's back to normal here and regular blogging will resume later today or tomorrow.

Starting today I will have short break which will take me to Seattle and there will be no posting until probably Thursday. But there’s lots of good stuff around this week, be sure to check in at the Carnival of the Capitalists on Monday at PoliBlog, the Carnival of the Vanities is on Wednesday over at The Smallest Minority.

By some considered the most powerful woman in The Netherlands, Neelie Kroes is likely to be appointed to become a member of the European Commission. Mrs. Kroes belongs to the free-market liberal party and was a popular figure in the 1980s when the Dutch started to re-embrace the market as the preferred engine of economic growth. As is the case with so many politicians who start out as idealistic reformers, over time they become part of the political establishment and invariably become mandarins once their time as an elected official is up. They get plum appointments in the public and private sector and can cruise well beyond the retirement age from appointment to appointment without making any real attempt to reform or effect change, as doing so would disrupt the very system that they feed on. Sustaining vested interests appears to be the primary objective, rocking the boat not. The European Commission is a prime example of this dynamic, it is a notorious dumping ground where retired politicians thrive as mandarins until they are too old to serve or when some type of scandal from the past comes to haunt them finishes them off for good. Yet, the leader of the Dutch free-market party hailed Mrs. Kroes’ likely appointment with great enthusiasm:

All too often an unholy alliance of Christian-Democrats and Social-Democrats obstructs necessary economic and political reforms in the European Union.

And since the centrist Christian-Democrats and Social-Democrats are devoid of ideas it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the European Commission is hardly a hotbed interested in generating initiatives that will motivate Europeans to come out and buy-in to the European project. Euro-skepticism remains the order of the day. I doubt if Mrs Kroes, much as I once liked her is able to make a dent in the complacent mandaranism that dominates the team she will now join. Her second marriage to a social-democrat who as a minister had to resign over out-of-whack expense claims further supports the notion that Mrs Kroes has become pretty much part of a political elite. Political elites invariably have a tendency to adhere to and sustain a set of values which somehow ensures their hold on power, be they in government or in a party that is shut out of power by the electorate. David Warren pointed to this mechanism earlier this week when he compared Democrats and Canada’s Liberals:

Both U.S. Democrats and Canadian Liberals have come to envision the role of the political party within the State as the creation and nurturing of vested interests that will bind whole constituencies to the party in permanent dependency. It is to create and preserve ghettoes of one sort or another, and the groupthink of the ghetto. For both, the demonization of political opponents is the most effective tactic for herding the vote.

Anti-European voices are guaranteed to get the demon-treatment from the Euro-elites. Americans have rallied behind Reagan and George W. Bush because they were able to convincingly win the battle of ideas and they were not identified as members of the political elite. Reagan demonstrated the bankruptcy of statist socialism as a model for society, Bush has pretty much abandoned old style internationalism as practiced by his father and grandfather, it had become an obsolete model in the new world and dogmas of the political establishment were replaced with new ideas from neo-conservatives. It’s the successful proliferation of new ideas that has sustained the success of the United States as a political and economic entity in recent years where relative outsiders were allowed to define new political agendas. Karl Rove can hardly be cast as a member of the political elites. Warren argues that Bill Clinton was an aberration because he projected many new ideas; I would add that a lot of Bill’s ideas came straight out of the conservative handbook. Here’s a bit more from Warren:

The Liberals have, through interminable re-election, been able to remake Canada in their own image, as a country in which ideas will not be discussed. The Democrats failed to do that in the U.S.

That’s why Europe and Canada lack dynamism and ability to generate the same level of economic and social progress as we see today in the United States, it also explains why both entities struggle so much with Bush and the Republicans: they lack the imagination to either engage their US counterpart in a real debate or are clueless as to how to partner with the US for the benefit of all. Any generous European or cordial Canadian compromise with Bush would be seen as suspicious by vested interests and constituencies, note how Tony Blair struggled domestically. In the US, the Democrats will likely be shut out of executive power for another four years for running an aloof elitist who fails to provide new ideas and is only able to co-opt a weaker version of what is already on offer from the Republican side.

Ideas and innovation define progress, renewal and ultimately success in a society. The European Union, Democrats and Canada’s Liberals all of whom at one point where quite capable of painting a vision of a better tomorrow have failed their respective constituencies by recycling old ideas and propping up vested interests, often with the help of a firmly ensconced mandarinist elite. Democrats are looking at a challenged road ahead, and with more plum appointments in Europe and barring ideas from discussion in Canada, both polities will fail to make a decisive jump and become part of tomorrow.

Donald Sensing takes on one of my favorite topics, European decline versus American dynamism. One point is interesting where Donald says:

One might argue, though, that as Christian faith has declined in Europe, God has been replaced by the state as "that which greater than nothing can be imagined," a classic definition of God given ~900 years ago by St. Anselm. If so, rather than envisioning themselves as children of God, Europeans have more and more envisioned themselves as children of the State, which is now the ultimate respondent for the plea, "give us today our daily bread."

Not necessarily so, many European countries have actively rolled back the state over the past 25 years and while the state remains prominent in day-to-day life in most European countries, God’s place has been taken by other institutions. The first one is the individual which has left behind many of the constraints that church and society put on it in the past. The hedonistic culture, the relaxed sexual mores, and of course the holiday culture (which is viewed as a very basic entitlement) have long overtaken restraint and the Calvinist work ethic. When I comment to friends back home that I have taken only a few weeks of holiday I am met with sheer amazement: “man, you work hard!” As I discussed before, the centerpiece of European civic ambition is to lead a nice and comfortable life and “make it” to retirement with as little effort as possible.

But that doesn’t mean that individuality has given Europeans a suitable replacement for God. On the contrary, the quest for belonging to a bigger group, a cultural or spiritual entity, has taken on many bizarre forms. One example that springs to mind is the cult that has developed around soccer teams with its extremist form of hooliganism, or even the fads inspired by certain reality-TV shows. Whenever I visit the old country I am amazed at the out of the ordinary cross-generational behaviour that can be witnessed on a regular basis when watching European TV. This is not to say that these cultural expressions are absent in America, they are very present, but it seems they are kept in check by religiosity and responsibility. The latter is brought about by economic necessity; there is not much of a safety net that you can hope for when excessive consumption takes the place of working. In general, I find North American youths in their early twenties far more mature and responsible than their counterparts across the ocean. They may have less fun but they are far better positioned to lead fruitful and exciting lives, underpinned by a healthy work ethic and undiluted ambition.

So if the average European has become a pleasure-seeking individual devoid of a clear spiritual home you can probably sense how the slow abolition of the nation state and the embrace of the European Union impacts the citizenry. At a time when guidance, purpose and cultural identity would help mitigate the excesses of clueless atheist hedonism, Europeans are offered the uncertainly of a cultureless statist behemoth over which they have very little, if any, influence.

When a post-convention bounce failed to materialize for John Kerry pollsters pointed to the fact that this year the number of undecided voters was unusually small, making it hard to bring about a post-convention uptick. As a consequence, a post-convention bounce for Bush should be equally small.

Q and O questions the theory that there may be a very small group of undecideds and that John Zogby somehow put forward that notion in order to support his numbers. It’s a tough one for sure, but I would venture that the issues at stake this election are far more pressing and clear than they were four years ago, enabling voters to make an informed choice early. The rhetoric dealing with Iraq and the War on Terror is unlike anything we witnessed in the boring Gore-Bush match. The other important difference is that four years ago there was no incumbent in the race whose record could be judged. As the sitting President Bush elicits very clear emotions and therefore many voters have already made their pick, making it hard for candidates to pull them back into undecided territory. Power Line today points to the fact that there may still be a sizeable number of undecideds out there so Bush could produce a decent bounce after the New York convention. But once that has happened the pool of undecideds will have shrunk to a negligible level and poll numbers will probably only fluctuate marginally in the two remaining months to the November election.

This post was entered into OTB's traffic jam.

The Wal-Mart wars are not running out of steam it seems. The first outlet in North America could be unionized, but Wal-Mart is fighting back.

My post on the Pope and Feminism made its way into print, another thank you to the National Post’s Adam Daifallah. It also generated some interesting reader mail, the best one being the following:

Loved your thing about the stay at home mothers. I was one too and had to endure all that nonsense about my wasted education and being my husband's chattel. And guess what: In my late forties, after being out of the workforce for 20 years and unemployable, I started my own business and the same people told me I was crazy to do something like that at my age. I did not listen that time either, and my business is coming along nicely.

Isn’t it always the case that individuals that beat their own path towards success and independence are frowned upon by the world around them? Staying at home mothers are derided, yet personal initiative and risk taking is equally likely to get the boot from the average compliant citizen.

While in Canada a campaign is underway to preserve free speech by helping a radio-station in its fight with a ruthless regulator ready to yank its license away, in Hong Kong Albert Cheng seems to finally have been ditched by his former radio employers.

For the uninitiated, Cheng once hosted Hong Kong’s most popular radio show, Teacup in a Storm which had become a prominent vehicle of pro-democracy and anti-Hong Kong government comment. However Cheng resigned from the role earlier this year after receiving numerous unanimous threats. He did so with good reason: in August 1998 he was attacked by chopper-wielding thugs and left in a pool of blood in front of the radio station where he was due to run another episode of Teacup, the culprits of course were never apprehended. It was a miracle Cheng survived and he was brave enough to return to the airwaves in the wake of this vile attack on his life arguing that he could simply not give in to violence. It has been impossible to prove a direct link between the attack and continued threats and Beijing’s attempts to stifle the free press in Hong Kong, but the frequency and targets have fueled suspicion with fingers pointing in one very clear direction.

Albert Cheng has returned to the front and has announced he will stand as a candidate in Hong Kong’s legislative elections scheduled for September. These are contentious elections by their very nature since the vote is rigged in such a way that the real democrats can participate and win seats but never capture a workable majority. As a wealthy man with a foreign passport (that he is willing to renounce to participate in the election) Cheng’s stand is commendable, he could easily pack up his bags and play golf in Canada for the rest of his life. But, he’s willing to give his vast Teacup audience a voice that they can no longer hear on Hong Kong’s airwaves in order to bring the battle a little closer to Hong Kong’s pro-Beijing establishment.

Those who have followed the deterioration in US-European relations over recent years will be eagerly awaiting Free World: Why a Crisis of the West Reveals the Opportunity of Our Time, a new book by Timothy Garton Ash which is due out in October/November this year. The Economist had a preview and notes that according to Garton Ash, Europe and America have more in common than some of the recent rhetoric from both sides would indicate. I especially was intrigued by this comment:

As Donald Rumsfeld tactlessly pointed out, the divisions within Europe mean there is little sense in proclaiming that there is a common European view of the war, peace or even policy in the Middle East –and a similar story prevails on the other side of the Atlantic. The many attempts to argue otherwise, says Mr Garton Ash refreshingly, come from others seeking to grab attention in a crowded market by provocative simplifications and distortions (bolding mine – ed.)

Many weblogs, this one included, have been extremely critical over European attitudes over issues such as Iraq, Israel and the global War on Terror. Simplifications surely have been used in the discussion about US-European relations and co-operation, seeing a once solid ally who is supposed to share the same values abandoning a longtime partnership in what could be one of the defining battles of our times in no small part contributed to the intensity of this debate. Garton Ash is right on the mark by arguing that democracies on both sides of the Atlantic have far more things in common that should enable them to unite. But when I look at the various arguments I have made over time, from socio-economic to demographic to economic, it seems that it is becoming increasingly difficult to reconcile the bi-polar free word. It is almost as if there’s as much to unite as there is to divide and while maybe a simplification I don’t think it’s a distortion. At the same time the current state of affairs may well be reversed if Europe is able to deal with all the challenges that prevents it from more clearly aligning its interests with those of the United States. Let’s revisit the discussion when Garton Ash’s book is on the market.

Entered in Beltway's Traffic Jam

Iain Murray has together with a few others launched a new blog devoted entirely to free-market solutions for the environment, called The Commons Blog:

The Commons Blog is a collaborative web log dedicated to the principle of promoting environmental quality and human dignity and prosperity through markets and property rights. Put more simply, it’s about free markets protecting the environment.

Great initiative and if the content is going to be as good as the design (of course, Stacy) this will become a must-read site.

Last week the Vatican issued a new document, from the hands of one of its most conservative cardinals, Joseph Ratzinger, attacking radical feminism and assessing the damage it has done to families. In doing so the Catholic Church has now set the stage to take on one of the last vestiges of political correctness, feminism. As my regular readers will know I am far from socially conservative and not even a Catholic, but this time I have some time for the Pope and his thoughts. Here’s why:

Women should not be stigmatised if they do not have a job, the document says.

And in many places in the western world they are. In The Netherlands not too long ago it was one of the government’s stated objectives to “get as many women to work as possible”, a policy of course implemented by a special Deputy Minister of Women’s Affairs. This is social engineering of the worst kind. First, it assumes that women, with all the phenomenal advances in women’s rights (for which emancipation is a far better term that feminism, like conservatism is preferable to environmentalism) are not able to get to work by themselves and need a helping hand from their great friend, the government. Secondly, kicking women out of the house and into the workforce is based on the untested assumption that it will not in the long run have a detrimental effect on the family and in particular on children being raised in families. Indeed in a country like the Netherlands non-working women are frowned upon, while the ever growing army of double-income families happily dump their children into daycare centers, not in order to exercise some great social right, no, the ability to work has proven to be a ticket to a lifestyle that a generation ago was only reserved for the rich and famous. I know all about that since Irene has pretty much junked her career to take care of our kids in a fashion reminiscent of our own youths when women were expected to stay at home. The reason for that is very simple, we want our children to grow up with all the love and care they can possibly get as evidence to date points to stable families as being the single-most important factor in raising successful, independent and confident human beings, a happy kid is worth more than a Porsche in front of the house, so to speak. The long-term social cost of neglecting a generation by relegating them to daycare or after-school-care is unknown.

Reactions from feminists to the Vatican’s call are hardly surprising, here’s Angela Phillips, a lecturer at London's Goldsmiths College who says that the condemnation of feminism:

"seems to be a worrying step back to a religious fundamentalism."

Ah, the religious bogeyman is dusted off again, this time to accentuate the difference with statist socialism where the nanny-state happily takes children away from care in the family to nurse them in those great state-owned facilities. I really think the world has had its taste of both church and state-enforced care.

The paradox is that trademark issues from the right, freedom and free markets, seeking wealth and fortune are encouraged by left-of-center intellectuals; whereas a more conservative approach to the role of women and families somehow seems to bar access to great career and market opportunities. So, there’s no clear answer to this conundrum but the answer should not be found with radical feminists or governments that seek to artificially engineer our society, and nor should we accept the Pope’s lectures on how the world should implement social mores on men, women and children alike. The latest missive from the Vatican however contains a few worthwhile talking points when we look at the increasing tension between seeking wealth and raising a new generation.

When I read about Kerry meeting with two marines last Saturday who later said they weren’t impressed with the candidate and supported their current commander-in-chief 100% I sensed there was more behind this story then just a failed photo-op. The real story of course is the extent to which the armed forces should be used during an election or positioned as supporting one candidate over the other. A great discussion took place over at Sgt. Stryker’s (hat tip: No Pundit Intended) whose conclusion is on the mark:

I want to say that by openly declaring who we’re for and against, we’re possibly introducing doubt into the citzenry’s mind about our loyalties. The people of this country expect us to serve the Constitutional government, and by extension all of them, with all the dedication we can muster, no matter who is in charge. That’s why we have rules that say you can’t attend a political rally in uniform, that you can’t publicly campaign for candidates, and that you can’t run for Congress. That’s why it’s imperative that we not allow ourselves to be used as a politician’s or pundit’s prop to advance their own agenda, whether you agree with that particular agenda or not. We have to maintain the image of neutrality.

Absolutely. Any attempt to politicize the armed forces endangers its neutrality and its ability to serve and respect whoever occupies the White House. It is one of the greatest achievements of the free world to have a military that is un-political; many nascent democracies have fought long and hard for this hallmark of freedom. That shouldn’t stop Kerry from staking out, at his own peril, a photo-op with servicemen, nor should it dissuade Bush from using his Commander-in-Chief credentials during the campaign. But caution is warranted and the military should never be provoked to take sides. In that respect it will be very interesting to see how Tommy Franks’ new book is going to play out during the campaign once it is released. As a retired officer he has every right to speak his mind - and cash in - on his career in the military, but his words can have a pretty dramatic impact on the current campaign. He is no doubt aware of this and that's why his view of the Bush administration appears to be somewhat complex.