It started last night with putting a quick post together around an interview with Dutch Queen Beatrix, but instead of doing that I first watched the entire two-hour and twenty minute documentary (two parts) about her 25 years as a monarch which the Dutch celebrate today. It was fascinating stuff. It’s not just an interview with the queen herself, three former prime-ministers as well as the current one share some revealing insights and together with past news footage gives the viewer an excellent idea of how Dutch - and by extension European - society has changed over the last quarter century. If you’re interested in constitutional law, modern history and are able to follow Dutch, it’s a must-see. Three things stood out and deserve comment.

The first thing that struck me, and it never ceases to amaze me, is the incredibly influential role that a Dutch monarch can enjoy under the nation’s constitution. Although in theory, as we learned at school and at college, the role is supposed to be largely ceremonial, as head of state and head of the government the queen has the ability to get actively involved in matters of state. There are the weekly meetings with the prime-minister where pending affairs are discussed and as one of the former premiers disclosed, she would be quite pro-active by not shying away from giving some significant input on ministerial appointments. And that approach wasn’t restricted to domestic affairs. One of the incidents that got some attention in America was when she called Clinton to express her disappointment over the fact that a Dutch candidate did not get sufficient presidential support and thus failed to get appointed as head of NATO. Of course, this is also a function of her driven personality, but it seems watching the documentary that the four elected cabinet leaders were certainly amenable to take Queen Beatrix’ positions into consideration when developing policy and drafting legislation. In a lot of cases her input may have been minimal and she will no doubt have signed laws she didn’t like, but as an unelected official she was surprisingly active in helping out in the nation’s kitchen.

Yet despite her political instincts she remained notably absent during the aftermath of both the Fortuyn and Van Gogh killings. This is somewhat odd as the documentary makers point out that in both cases there was a rare call from Dutch politicians, public and media to let the queen come forward and unify the nation with a speech or other symbolic gesture. In the interviews the queen briefly refers to them as “political murders”, enabling her to duck any elaborate treatment of both assassinations. It’s a clever escape route, the queen does not get involved in politics, but in view of her active engagement in matters of state as well as her very clear concerns over the direction of the society she represents it’s odd that she declined to act on such a traumatic experience. Her visit to an immigrant youth center shortly after Van Gogh’s killing was designed to appease Muslim sentiments rather than native Dutch anxieties and was deemed to be inadequate.

She isn’t that quiet on Europe. Together with the current prime-minister she delivers a well-crafted pitch for the European Constitution in the documentary, the former touching on the efficiency of it, while the queen refers to the past-wars and violence that often tore the old continent apart. Her interviewer engages her on this topic and without missing a beat Beatrix points out the dangers of nationalism while underlining the importance of one’s own culture. Read into it what you want, but it was a gentle yet forceful push to encourage Dutch viewers to try and see the benefits of European integration arguing that it could still enable the preservation of their own national culture. To give you some material to reflect on this, picture an American president arguing that nationalism is a bad thing on the eve of an amalgamation with Canada and Mexico.

So, in summary the current Dutch monarch has been able to exercise a tremendous amount of influence on areas where in theory she shouldn’t have and in doing that she has used her powers selectively to promote certain causes. It’s hard to accuse her of enforcing a political agenda, but throughout her tenure she has often come out where she and the political leadership felt Dutch public opinion was headed and that was hardly ever on the right of the political center. As a result she must have been as baffled by the recent ruptures in Dutch society as the center-left political elites that have run the country for decades. It probably explains her unwillingness to step up to the plate with a symbolic speech to pacify and heal the Dutch nation after the recent political violence, it was too un-Dutch and way outside her comfort zone and, maybe in her and her advisers’ minds, too politically charged.

During her 1999 state visit to China I had the pleasure to meet her and talk to her and it was evident that her intelligence and her ability to creatively combine answers and respond to them skillfully was not just a rumor. Here is one sharp woman who will easily outdo many western government leaders in her detailed knowledge of a wide array of topics something that also reveals her diligent work. Despite her slight tilt towards the left and occasional lapse of judgment, I do respect her for her abilities and in the way she has modernized the Dutch royal family. Compared to the behaviorally challenged Windsors in Britain, the Oranje-Nassau family is a likeable bunch of ‘common royals’ with whom you can have a chat and a drink anytime. As a result the Dutch royal family is extremely popular at home.

More importantly she has remained consistent in repeating throughout her 25 years in office a message that is equally dear to the right: the collapse of moral values. Here’s a brief excerpt:

However, the Queen lamented the hardening of society, saying that it has become more superficial, pointing also to a greater emphasis on materialism. She said people have become ruder and that individualism is taking force.".

And:

But she regrets some changes in the Dutch character: "I believe that some of our matter-of-factness, austerity and moderation — which were part of the Dutch character — have become less visible

As her role as a monarch would warrant, a traditionalist at heart.

UPDATE: Arjan thinks I am too mild in my judgement and so do others:

By what earthly justification do the Dutch accept the moral and constitutional authority of an unelected head of state? Why do YOU? Don't tell me that Beatrix is nice and smart. That's neither here nor there. The very concept of the monarchy is impossibly at odds with the idea of democracy, is it not?

Yes, but anti-royalist movements have always been on the fringe of Dutch politics, they invariably failed to get traction. Both Fortuyn and Van Gogh by the way were staunch republicans.

The phenomenal approval ratings she enjoys indicate that the Dutch do not particularly care, underlining the maxim that every people get the government they deserve.

This weekend will mark the 30th anniversary of the fall of Saigon. Wunderkraut remembers and his post also explains why with time and events (Iraq) we have started to look differently at the Vietnam War.

The genie is out of the bottle. Roger Simon, Charles Johnson and Marc Danziger have now launched their Pajamas Media initiative to the outside world and are inviting other bloggers and investors to take part. The two-tiered business plan (corporate advertising and a news service) offers a clear route to make blogs commercially viable which is good news as a business model for blogs has so far been somewhat elusive.

The advertising part, getting the Lexuses and Microsofts to spend some of their big budget ad-dollars on blogs rather than on The Economist and Time Magazine, is straightforward and kudos to the Pajamas folks for moving this forward. By pooling blogs in order to expand eyeballs and get a bigger chunk of advertising dollars all participating bloggers will benefit.

As Roger rightfully comments, the newswire service is a bit more complicated. The news generating capability that blogs have is phenomenal, from Rathergate to part-time writers with a laptop on the scene disseminating newsworthy stuff from places like Iraq and Lebanon. Yet, the implementatation is somewhat more complicated (it will require a separation of free and subscription-based content) and it requires financing which prompts the question: is there a clear market need and if so, who are your direct competitors? Here Pajamas will go head to head with existing media and newswire services who have deep pockets. Traditional media have so far been unable to adapt to the blogging phenomenon - it wasn't a major threat initially - but now that blogs are creating news and providing sound analysis, their franchise is under pressure, but it's certainly not dead. The shift of corporate ad-dollars is a wake-up call and while bloggers are ahead of the curve now, their advantage won't last long. My advice to Pajamas: move fast.

NOTES:
Marc Danziger has a fairly detailed description of the rationale behind the Pajamas project, here. For bloggers a must-read.

Dan Drezner is excited and has initiated a discussion on his site.

Bush yesterday signed the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act ("FECA") into law. On the face of it purports to protect copyright, which is why Hollywood was keen to have it, but at the same time it insulates companies that develop DVD-players that edit out offensive content from legal action. Rogier is asking why we would need to have another V-Chip and the conservative movie bloggers at Libertas are equally dismayed:

Now, my attitude about these things is that if parents don’t want their children watching offensive material, they should simply not buy/rent the DVDs. I know some of you will say, “That’s impractical, you can’t imagine how difficult it is to raise kids in this new media environment in which everything is available to them.” Fine, but we’re basically now trampling over copyright law for what is essentially just your convenience.

Indeed. Allowing parents to block a TV-show is one thing, but to let your DVD-player edit the actual content of movies is quite another. It all comes back to the recurrent theme of taking responsibility, which is something that parents are increasingly unable to handle and where outsourcing to third parties is often the preferred option. Yet, there's good reason to start looking critically at the impact of today's entertainment on youth culture as this piece of news from Britain reveals.

Parental action is probably too fragmented to make any impact. In a way parents have unwittingly opened the door to outside regulation: a pro-active media insustry that will start to look critically at its own products or an increasingly enthusiastic (nanny) state. Guess who has the longest breath?

UPDATE: More or less related to the issue of parents stepping back from their natural role as responsible educators, here's LaShawn Barber:

People are just too afraid, too busy, too tired, too ignorant, too lazy or too slack to even try to raise decent human beings. And we wonder why America is going to hell in a handbasket.

One of the things on my wishlist is making a feature length documentary about Reagan's life of significantly better quality than what has emerged on film so far. Even the documentaries available on DVD at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley are very average productions that fail to do the former president justice. It's not an easy subject to tackle objectively and that is probably also the reason why Hollywood to date hasn't tried anything meaningful and with that I discount James Brolin's journey into a terribly subjective abyss.

But we may have to wait for a few more years as new documents continue to emerge and yesterday it was announced that the diary the Gipper kept during his White House years will be published by HarperCollins. Don't expect any spectacular revelations or new facts, but it will still make for an interesting contribution to history:

Still, scholars are greeting the publication with anticipation: "We've known of these diaries for a long time, and it'll be interesting to see if they tell us anything that's new," said Lou Cannon, a former Washington Post reporter and author of several books about Reagan, including "President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime," his biography. "One of the things all of us who write about Reagan know, no matter how much we thought we knew him, there's always something else to learn."

Can't wait.

Sometimes you have to admit that you got something wrong, but in this case I don't mind:

The last of Syria's troops left Lebanon on Tuesday after a bittersweet ceremony near the border, ending a military presence that for 29 years helped Syria control Lebanon and confront Israel through proxy militias.

Much faster than expected. The test however will come in the form of elections the date of which was confirmed earlier today:

Lebanon's pro-Syrian parliament speaker promised on Wednesday that elections, the first without a Syrian military presence for 33 years, would start on May 29.

Let's see if with its military withdrawal Syria's influence has indeed become negligible.

The red carpet treatment for Pope Benedict XVI here at Peaktalk raised some eyebrows, most notably from my wife who argued: these are the people that want to avoid the use of condoms to fight AIDS in Africa. Maybe, but at the same time there are many other tools to fight this disease in combination with the use of condoms, working to adjust behavioural patterns being the primary one. Matt Rosenberg makes a compelling point about fighting the disease, one that hardly gets any coverage in the mainstream media:

The only thing resembling a magic bullet for AIDS prevention is the power of the individual.

It all comes back to family, and parents who model stable, caring and monogamous intimate relationships for their children to emulate as they themselves move toward, and into adulthood. Additionally, economic opportunity and education enhance family stability, influencing individual behavior and decisions.

Restraint and monogamous relationships, taking responsibility, all basic human qualities that are apparently hard to move to the top of the agenda in the post-modern world. It's interesting that by steadily abandoning the moral compass in our own western society we happen to be exporting the same to the less developed world, often with disastrous results.

Dan Drezner asks if a French "No" would spell the end of the European Union as we know it. He is skeptical:

"The European project has managed to generate a common market, a common Court of Justice, the euro, Schengenland, an increasingly assertive European parliament, and even the faint stirrings of a common foreign and defense policy -- all using the current set of legal and political arrangements. None of these will disappear if the French say non some have argued"

Dan is right. None of these accomplishments will disappear overnight and they are strong enough to absorb the aftershocks of a French or Dutch no-vote. However a rejection of the draft-constitution may signify the end of the road for the hitherto unstoppable European integrationists. They have taken their mission far, very far without any meaningful voter input, but now they may be hitting that proverbial wall.

On the practical level there are many possible outcomes, but as I remarked earlier this week it will on a more abstract level provoke reconsideration of what Europeans want Europe to be. The reason is simple, if we get a negative outcome in the French and Dutch referenda it will be largely because of national issues rather than concerns about Europe or its constitution which no one will have read anyway. Struggling economies, immigration, crime and safety are far more easily identifiable for the average voters than the benefit of having a European constitution. If anything, the introduction of the Euro and opening up the borders has done everything to alienate a lot of European citizens and a return to a national forum is the most obvious route to try and fix these inconveniences.

In other words, there finally may be room for a debate centered on the premise that in order to be economically successful and be a counterweight to US power (still the dream of many across the pond), Europeans shouldn't really abandon their nation-states. With that we should again look closely at what Margatet Thatcher's vision of Europe was, outlined in her famous 1988 Bruges speech, arguing for an economic free-trading zone of sovereign and independent nations, separated by borders. Here's an excerpt, highlighting the fundamental principles of her vision:

My first guiding principle is this: willing and active co­operation between independent sovereign states is the best way to build a successful European Community.

My second guiding principle is this: Community policies must tackle present problems in a practical way, however difficult that may be.

My third guiding principle is the need for Community policies which encourage enterprise. If Europe is to flourish and create the jobs of the future, enterprise is the key.

My fourth guiding principle is that Europe should not be protectionist. The expansion of the world economy requires us to continue the process of removing barriers to trade and to do so in the multilateral negotiations in the GATT.

My last guiding principle concerns the most fundamental issue, the European countries' role in defence. Europe must continue to maintain a sure defence through NATO.

Sovereign states, no ideology, free markets, no protectionism and common defense by strengthening the atlantic alliance. Thatcher concluded by arguing that this vision for Europe didn't need any new documents or treaties, they were all pretty much there (note that this was 1988 and there have been quite a few additions since then). And finally:

What we need now is to take decisions on the next steps forward rather than let ourselves be distracted by Utopian goals. Utopia never comes, because we know we should not like it if it did.

Let Europe be a family of nations, understanding each other better appreciating each other more, doing more together but relishing our national identity no less than our common European endeavour.

No one in his right mind can argue that the EU and its institutions will collapse after a rejection of the draft constitution. Too much has been accomplished and hard to unwind, and make no mistake, a lot of it is good. But most of it was never built on a strong and democratic foundation. Euroskeptics are on the verge of having a unique opportunity to re-start the debate about Europe and its future, and this time they have a far better chance at success by including those that so far have never been really consulted: European citizens.

Via Jeff Jarvis: Take a look at this photo. Only in a second term, I guess.

The NYT ran a short profile of Amsterdam's mayor, Job Cohen, in its Sunday edition. Cohen has ever since 9/11 been under severe criticism from the resurgent Dutch right who perceives him as the embodiment of the soft, multiculturalist approach that has characterized the country's immigration policies and its inability to deal with Muslim fundamentalism. Not long before he died, Theo van Gogh, succinctly summarized his feelings about Cohen.

To be sure, Cohen's role is not easy. As a Jew he has received numerous threats from Muslim extremists over the years and now lives under round the clock security. What has opened him up to the criticism is his unwillingness to take a tough stance against the radical elements that are disrupting Holland's social cohesiveness:

What, if anything, makes this calm man angry? It is, he says, the new tough talk of "war" on extremism, "war" on terrorism and "clamping down" on immigrants, heard from some politicians. "I see more polarization," he said. "I don't like it, it's bad for the city, bad for the country. Security comes from a stronger sense of community, from getting closer. I worry about the hardening tone."

Well, the Amsterdam mayor may need to combine building a strong community with taking on the radical fringes that seek to destroy it. Not an easy task, but there it is. What struck me though is this passage:

On another day, he attended an awards dinner of a successful Moroccan group. Before the audience of well-suited businessmen and women in jewels and glittering long dresses, the mayor began: "These have not been easy times for you. You may even have wondered: am I wanted here?" The hall was dead silent, as Mr. Cohen continued: "Yes, we all belong here. You are much needed in this society, you are the hope of this country."

An apt comment since the native Dutch have long ceased to be tomorrow's hope.

Sometimes I get the question, are things really that bad in Europe? Have they really lost their moral compass? Will Franklin found some disturbing news in the United Kingdom:

A mother who gave birth to a twin girl after an abortion failed is suing the hospital for £250,000 to help bring up her daughter.

"Although I love her to bits, I have a child now that I wasn't planning to have and I believe the hospital should take some responsibility.

Mom didn't want to have a baby, she got you by accident, got rid of your twin sister, tried to get rid of you, it didn't work, and now she blames the hospital.

Mom has sent a great message of love to her daughter and at the same time imparted an enduring lesson in taking responsibility. Some generations may have lost that moral compass, the next generation may be lucky to even have one.

Megan McArdle has a great post up about how rich we are today:

The average middle class man of 1920 would have regarded all but the most hopelessly drug addled or mentally ill street people as wealthy beyond dreams of avarice.

Yes. But of course, the term rich is highly subjective and I have a suspicion that the average middle class citizen these days is reluctant to consider him or herself rich. Yet, by any measure they should. The problem is that very few have discovered that the road to wealth is not just traveled by making more money, consuming moderately is equally, if not more, important.

Even during the years when I received a generous salary and bonuses I did not hesitate to wait for a bus rather than take a taxi home, indeed the US$3 saved this way (this was in Hong Kong) was enough of an incentive for me to wait a few extra minutes in the sweltering heat. It wasn't a deliberate strategy, it's an almost natural instinct, the same by which I avoid going to Starbucks, something I see a lot of people with less income do on a daily basis. To me Starbucks is a luxury; coffee: you can brew it at home. And it is just not the small things, until recently I drove an old Honda up to the point that it became embarassing when visiting clients.

My point is, these days we can squeeze so much value out of middle-class incomes that most people indeed do not realize how incredibly wealthy they are. Believe me I can splurge on certain items, but I can afford to do so because I have consistently made choices when it came to spending and saving money. Yet cheap credit, soaring real estate values and the Hollywood lifestyles blasted continuously into our living rooms have created a consumerist middle class that will never ever be rich, they want it all and they can now get it all. The price they pay for that is substantial: their independence. And they will never be rich.

IT'S ALL ABOUT RISK

Some fifteen years ago I walked into a London office as a young banking trainee and my first boss, one of these seasoned and arrogant investment bankers, gave me only a few moments of his expensive time to tell me: “It’s all about one thing, risk”.

And how right he was. My journey across the globe was in essence a quest to strike the right balance between risk and reward, each time hoping a new equilibrium could help me move forward. Playing safe when you need to, roll the dice when you think you can. From the relative safety of investment banking to working with promising early stage companies, each time trying to find the right balance.

Capitalism in itself is a long historic journey where the participants always had to manage risk during their pursuit of wealth. From that perspective we're no different from the Dutch who settled Manhattan in the 17th century, only today the boundaries are no longer geographical. But the tools we use today to manage uncertainty are no different: sales techniques, legal documents, currency hedging, technology, insurance; they all have been around for ages.

This week I am proud to host a group of contributors who will update you on the state of affairs in their area of expertise. Each of them has assumed a measure of risk and is able to talk about an aspect of it. Marketing, sales, law, technology, entrepreneurship, it’s all capitalism, and it’s all about risk.

GENERAL BUSINESS

There's nothing like the confluence of politics and markets. Political Calculations has spent some time looking at Air America's viability as a business. Read it and draw your conclusions.

Craig at Lead and Gold argues that strategy may be more important to business than to a military general.

Now that we have 'budget airlines' and 'budget phones' says Interim Thoughts, are we witnessing the emergence of a parallel budget economy?

Pitiful is the capitalist who submits to the stupidity of others without a fight, says Goobage.

Coyoteblog looks at the recent economics study by a couple of business school professors and draws some conclusions about trading strategy and the NFL draft.

FINANCE, INVESTING AND COMMODITIES

Want to mitigate your risk when investing in media companies? To help you, The Media Stock Blog has a compilation of the best blogs and websites for investors interested in media and entertainment stocks.

Why is money in video-games never referred to as 'money' and how comes it's often accepted as a global currency, asks Multiple Mentality. If you have the answer, go here.

Ego reports that the price of tungsten metal has increased, and while China plays a dominant role in this market, North American companies could be back in business. Go long on tungsten is the message I guess.

THE LARGER ECONOMY

Timing your trip to the gas station these days is a form of advanced risk management too. However, is the surge in oil prices a result of increased demand or inflation, asks Mover Mike?

The Interested Participant notes that even if overseas economies are starting to prosper, the US remains a more desirable place to many living overseas. As you can see from the 17th century painting above, that has always been the case.

The Big Picture has one of the gloomier pictures this week, arguing that the post-bubble expansion is about to end. And he may indeed have a point.

Last week's COTC host, Brian Gongol points out that the world risks running out of food and offers a solution.

Hamster Motor suggests that barter economies have contributed to the misogyny of primitive cultures. A discussion ensued.

Patri Friedman at Catallarchy turns a negative article about modern consumption on its head and concludes that America is a rich nation.

TECHNOLOGY

Now here's a risk you can't run: having your site being banned by Google. It happens from time to time, and Blog Business World has some useful recommendations in case it happens to you.

The Mobile Technology Weblog looks at why developing economies often leapfrog a stage in technology deployment. Leapfrogging: another way to manage risk.

ENTREPRENEURSHIP

A new age of transportation is upon us, argues Jeff Cornwall of The Entrepreneurial Mind. And yes, that will create lots of entrepreneurial opportunities.

Lip-Sticking rounds up some solid advice from women entrepreneurs.

PEOPLE

Transient human resources pose a risk too. This CTO raises an important issue: How does a leader ensures his legacy if he leaves his company?

Talking Story has been busy debunking some management myths, this week arguing why managers shouldn't know everything.

When it comes to employee bargaining power, Half Sigma argues why there should be some government regulation. Yes, governments help neutralize risks, but in doing so create that other famous business impediment: regulatory risk.

The BusinessPundit points out that with the increasing number of women in leadership positions we may see more egalitarian power structures in business.

THE LAW

The ever present risk of lawsuits. The (Legal) Underground looks at obesity lawsuits and wonders if threatened legal action against fast-food chains and restaurants was nothing but a hoax.

Managing the Business of Law has three key criteria for making the hiring of a lawyer a success.

The Conglomerate argues that strong fiduciary duty laws are necessary to foster entrepreneurship. It also looks at the interesting assumption that common law systems offer minority investors more protections than civil law systems.

SALES & MARKETING

Although he doesn't think drug marketing is all that bad, Galen's Log argues why he can do without drug reps.

Marketing eYe discusses how you can leverage trends to sell more products.

The team at Modern Marketing looks at a new model of marketing, describing it as a vast satellite dish scanning the marketplace for issues and conversations.

Miss O'Hara is deeply annoyed with GM and its inability to get things right. And slapping the GM label on every vehicle won't do it any good in the long run.

Reduce market risk. TopLineCreators tells us how to boost customer loyalty.

Mitigating sales risk? Ticket sales are crucial says Pro Wrestling Impact. It gets people in the door.

How should companies deal with public online criticism? It depends if you're large or small, says pc4media.

GOVERNMENT

The discussion about a 'flat tax', a great remover of uncertainty, has been gaining momentum over the past few months. The Skeptical Optimist explains why even this tax is still progressive.

Here's a disingenuous way to manage your risk: getting subsidies. Mad Anthony takes a look at sugar subsidies.

Social Security reform: shifting retirement risk from the public to the private sector. The AARP has come up with some suggestions to keep Social Security solvent and Will Franklin of WILLisms grades the nine-point effort and isn't very happy.

BUSINESS BLOGGING

Is there a risk that your business lacks exposure? Matt Rosenberg of BlogConsultingPro has some good advice on what to do and what not to do if you set up a business blog.

The Montreal region has been doing very well in attracting international businesses, says Barry Welford of The Other Bloke's Blog.

Tax Updates says that the proliferation of computer technology has enabled the mind-numbing complexity of the tax law.

Business Promos has lots of promotional products and ideas and is updated regularly.

And last but not least, a new business blog aptly named The Business of Better. Their aim: applying operations intelligence to reduce business risk.

*****

And that's it. A big thanks to Jay Solo who is the great organizer behind the Carnival of the Capitalists, I admire his patience in re-scheduling the weekly event whenever that is necessary.

Next week the party is hosted over at Incite.

The "No" vote has the upper hand in a recent Dutch poll:

Thirty-two percent of poll respondents intended to vote, of whom 52 percent planned to vote "no", against 48 percent who supported the constitution, according to the poll commissioned by Dutch NOS public television.

Thirty-two percent intends to vote? In what may be a last chance to preserve your nation's sovereignty? What an engaged electorate. Meanwhile in France the potential no-voters make up an even larger chunk of the electorate:

The latest French poll indicated that 62 percent of voters will reject the constitution - the highest figure so far.

A rejection in either country would be a phenomenal setback for the draft constitution and force a serious rethink about the entire project. But if both countries, by the way original EU-founding nations and once staunchly pro-European nations, balk at the document than European integration as a whole is back to square one. It will give the Euro-skpetics the upper hand in a debate that often never was or was entirely conducted by the "yes-men". More momentum will be added if the British are given a chance to render their views, provided they vote Michael Howard's conservatives back into power in a general election next week:

Mr Howard, in contrast, has given a categorical assurance that the Tories "would give the British people the chance to reject [the EU Constitution's] provisions in a referendum within six months of the General Election". Uniquely in British history, the Government would be calling a referendum and campaigning for a "No" vote. This would give the British people an opportunity to send a clear signal to our European partners that they regard the EU Constitution as a step too far towards the establishment of a European superstate and that Britain will co-operate no longer in this out-dated and discredited project. [bolding mine]

Tony Blair is not unequivocal about his plans and is, like the rest of the world, anxiously looking at what will materialize on the continent.

Education in Europe failing? Half of German's youth below the age of 24 does not know what the holocaust is, according to a recent survey by newspaper Die Welt.

American presidents address the nation in times of trouble, in times of national need. That is not necessarily the case when a Canadian leader attempts to do the same. For good measure, Toronto columnist Linda Williamson compiled a list of when Paul Martin and his predecessor failed to address the nation:

Not after 9/11, even though 24 of our countrymen were murdered by terrorists. Not when we joined the war in Afghanistan. Not when we declined to back the U.S. in Iraq; not when we naively rejected the U.S. missile defence program.

Not when the government refused to compensate thousands of victims of the tainted blood scandal, many of whom are dying as they continue to await justice today (...) Not even when the government decided to redefine the institution of marriage.

No, none of those things were deemed important enough for the Liberal prime minister to address the nation.

Indeed they were not. But with the Canadian Liberals and especially with their two most recent leaders it was never about a vision, formulating a policy and taking their nation somewhere. Even election campaigns were devoid of any debate. It was always about power and retaining it at any price. And now that the power is slipping away it was time to address the nation in a desperate attempt to turn the tide.

Canadians have no idea how abused they are by the way politics are conducted in their country. In 2000, former Prime-Minister Jean Chrétien forced an early general election in order to maintain control over his party and deflate the attempt of Paul Martin to become leader. In 2004 new leader Martin invited them to the polls because he knew that it wouldn't be long before the appalling details of Adscam would become public and erode the Liberal hold on power. And now that it is time to let Canadians have their say Martin shamelessly, but too obviously, uses his office to manipulate the timing of an election. As in any democracy, it's now up to the people, but I fear it will take a very long time for Canada to cleanse itself of the abject political culture that has dominated the country for so long.

A reader asks if Pope Benedict XVI could play a role in the run-up to the referendum on the EU-constitution in France which is a predominantly Catholic nation. The new Pope has in the past stated his belief that Europe is essentially Christian and has questioned a possible admission of Turkey to the EU.

While it is tempting to contemplate a direct role for an engaged Pope, it is very unlikely that he would weigh into this emotional debate as (a) the question of Turkey’s admittance to the EU is not on the ballot, although the referendum could be construed as a vote about a Turkish entry; and (b) even if the Pope were to carefully contribute to the debate he will put a phenomenal amount of political (or religious?) capital on the line during the honeymoon days of his tenure which would be unwise. Moreover he has earlier this week promised "an open and sincere dialogue" with other faiths, so expect a Pope that treads carefully. To be sure, before he became pope, Cardinal Ratzinger denied the claims attributed to him about Christianity being superior to Islam which is of course at the heart of the debate about Turkey.

His concerns over Turkey's entry are primarily fueled by the notion that western democracies do not have have the moral agility to absorb significant members of a religion that is far stronger than today's Christian faith:

“It is true that the Muslim world is not totally mistaken when it reproaches the West of Christian tradition of moral decadence and the manipulation of human life . . .”

And yes, that does relate to the EU Constitution which has not included a reference to Christianity, again Ratzinger:

Asking whether European leaders had omitted a mention of Christianity in order to avoid offending Muslims, Cardinal Ratzinger said that logic was unpersuasive. On the contrary, he said, Muslims would naturally have expected Europe to affirm its religious patrimony, and the absence of any mention of religious faith tends to reinforce Islamic perceptions of Europe as a decadent society. "What offends Islam is the lack of reference to God, the arrogance of reason, which provokes fundamentalism," he said.

With that in mind and the current demographic patterns it's not hard to see why the 'Europe and Islam' question will be a central theme of Benedict XVI's papacy as Arthur Chrenkoff explains. The papal approach to this issue however should be in shoring up the Christian base in Europe first, rather than setting the Vatican on a collision course with Islam.

It's interesting that it is not just the Catholic Church to have picked up on the mechanics that are contributing to Europe's demise. The secular liberal-right (for example Fortuyn, interestingly a gay catholic) has so far been equally vocal in pointing out that the West's lack of values and cultural cohesiveness have seriously weakened its ability to survive in the wake of Muslim immigration patterns. Both the Ratzingerians and Fortuynists (to simplify the terminology here) while operating at different ends of the politcal-social spectrum, have because of that been branded "fascist", "extremist" or "doctrinaire" by the established political and media elites in Europe. And that is also why to date they have not been able to decisively sway the majority away from the relativist path it has taken.

Secular forces need to somehow team up with religious forces to ressurect Europe's moral fortitude. It will be one of Benedict XVI's focal points to ensure that the Catholic Church plays its part in this process. But it will also mean that the secular voices of reason on Europe's right start working with the church as they have a common goal: save a continent that is steadily collapsing.

My concerns over the dilapidated state of heterosexual relationships and the fraying of a moral society at the hands of excessive capitalism is nowhere clearer than if we look at how the next generation is being brought up by today’s parents. The daycare-generation was touched on briefly earlier this week and yesterday research under Dutch teachers yielded some truly depressing numbers. A translated excerpt:

Almost 60% of the teachers state their concern over their pupils’ situation at home. Almost two-thirds, 63 percent, is distressed over the level of aggression among the children.

Almost 60 percent of the interviewed teachers say that parents shift the burden of bringing up children to schools. Almost 60 percent thinks that today’s parents do not spend enough time educating their children. More than half of the interviewed, 52 percent, opines that parents expect more of their children than they used to in the past.

There you have it. A society that has embraced materialism as a paramount virtue - and believe me the Dutch of today rank among the most consumerist people of all – has outsourced the care of their children to a largely state-run education system. And at the same time the neglected youth are urged to do better than ever before. It’s no wonder that aggression is on the rise in Dutch middle class neighborhoods.

The deeper concern here is that it is unlikely that we will see any change. The Dutch middle classes are like many of their western counterparts often over-leveraged from a financial perspective and are used more than ever to their comfortable lifestyles. The words 'suffering' and 'discomfort' no longer feature in their vocabularies. And these are the very people that have abandoned the church en masse, and are happy to qualify those that want to put morality and values back on the agenda as “too conservative” or “extremist”. John Paul II wasn’t very popular in the secular left-liberal lowlands, so you can probably imagine how Benedict XVI’s agenda will go down.

And to sum it all up, they are the very people that in the wake of the Van Gogh and Fortuyn murders turned their back on the facts in the hope that things would soon get back to normal. Yes, there was shock and disbelief, but the idea to effect change or undergo a little discomfort in the quest for a better tomorrow is an alien concept for the Dutch and many of their European brethren. The thought of facing a disruption to your pampered lifestyle? Now that would be truly immoral.

NOTE: While writing this I remembered one of Reagan's better speeches, this one to the 1992 GOP Convention:

Let us apply our ingenuity and remarkable spirit to revolutionize education in America so that everyone among us will have the mental tools to build a better life. And while we do so, let's remember that the most profound education begins in the home.

I will leave it to your imagination how Reagan is perceived in The Netherlands, and what the likelihood is that a leading Dutch politician would argue that Dutch parents assume some more responsibility in raising their offspring.

The Carnival of the Capitalists will be hosted here this coming Monday, April 25, 2005. Your posts on business, technology, law, marketing, entrepreneurship, finance, economics, in fact anything related to the pursuit of creating wealth are welcome.

Entries are due by 3:00 pm ET this coming Sunday, April 24, and you can submit here and here.

Whatever other bloggers make of Andrew Sullivan's emotions and arguments, and yesterday was another day where we got plenty of it, he remains a superb writer who is always able to apply an incredible sense of wit:

I was trying to explain last night to a non-Catholic just how dumb-struck many reformist Catholics are by the elevation of Ratzinger. And then I found a way to explain. This is the religious equivalent of having had four terms of George W. Bush only to find that his successor as president is Karl Rove. Get it now?

Agree with him or not, it's good stuff.

There are two very good pieces from Michael Novak at AEI which I encourage you to read. The first one, which appeared today, deals with the new pope's view of liberty:

One of Cardinal Ratzinger's central, and most misunderstood, notions is his conception of liberty, and he is very jealous in thinking deeply about it, pointing often to Tocqueville. He is a strong foe of socialism, statism and authoritarianism, but he also worries that democracy, despite its great promise, is exceedingly vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority, to ''the new soft despotism'' of the all-mothering state, and to the common belief that liberty means doing whatever you please. Following Lord Acton and James Madison, Cardinal Ratzinger has written of the need of humans to practice self-government over their passions in private life.

And yesterday Novak discussed Benedict's view of the culture of relativism:

On the basis of relativism, however, no culture can long defend itself or justify its own values. If everything is relative, even tolerance is only a subjective choice, not an objective mandatory value. Ironically, though, what post-moderns call "tolerance" is actually radically intolerant of any view contrary to its own.

and:

The culture of relativism invites its own destruction, both by its own internal incoherence and by its defenselessness against cultures of faith. This is the bleak fate that Cardinal Ratzinger already sees looming before Europe.

Read them both.

Following on my post below, one more thought to end this very interesting day.

It's not gay marriage that will - among other things - herald the end of western civilization as the Catholic Church would argue. If we want to preserve what we have and secure a future for our children, we better start working on heterosexual relationships. That's where the church has a point.

Those of you who wonder why I would welcome Cardinal Ratzinger as the new pope may want to read what Victor Davis Hanson wrote yesterday, arguing for a strong pope:

The current crisis in Western culture is not over the famine or pestilence of the past but the boredom of an affluent and leisured populace—at once yearning for transcendence beyond its rich but ultimately unsatisfying material world, and yet so skeptical of anything not explicable by pure Reason, the source of all its worldly pleasures. An inspiring pontiff challenges modern Western man to rethink that the world is only what he can see or hear; an irrelevant pope confirms cynics’ smugness that religion is an unnecessary and superstitious creed.

Benedict XVI fits that bill as he can be expected to be a tireless challenger of the excessive hedonism that has affected both Europe and America. This is not a religious issue, it is something that affects us all which is why I am so interested in it.

If you want to have an insight into the practical applications of Ratzinger's views and how 'extremist' they are, check out my piece The Pope on Feminism - a post that appeared on the opinion pages of the National Post in August 2004. It goes to the heart of how excessive materialism is eroding the core values of our society. If that's rigid, doctrinaire (the term of choice on CNN today) or radical, great. It means there's a lot of work to do for I don't believe for a second that we should raise our next generation in daycare centers just so that Mum and Dad can buy a fancy house or drive the newest BMW.

More or less as expected, it's Joseph Ratzinger.

UPDATE: Driving into town the various reactions on the radio news were telling, from memory: “Cardinal Ratzinger is known for his conservative views, despite that he got an enthusiastic welcome from the crowds". The negative, uninformed and irrational reactions from many media and commenters around the world are in and by themselves worth the election of Benedict XVI.

But seriously, I am not a Catholic, nor socially conservative. Yet it seems to me that in our society there are few, if any, authoritative voices that are willing to defend certain traditional values such as the family and the sanctity of life. The Catholic Church under media pope John Paul II has been able to keep a number of important debates alive, benefiting Catholics and non-Catholics alike. In some instances the Vatican's positions were necessary and legitimate, in others they were outdated and forgettable.

The demise of western society will not be brought on by Islamists, global warming or economic disaster. The erosion of certain core values - ironically brought on by the West’s ultimate engine, capitalism - is the absolute front-runner to undo what western democracies have achieved over the past centuries. With that in mind, I welcome the election of Joseph Ratzinger as the new pope.

Here are some other reactions:

Kathy Shaidle:

"Ratzinger's election will annoy all the right people. As I've said before, I hope his resemblance to Mr. Burns and Nosferatu, along with his Stalag 13 name, won't turn everyone off at once"

More than a little annoyed is Andrew Sullivan:

"If the insular cardinals believe that they have helped save the faith in the West, I fear they are mistaken. They may have ensured its final death rattle"

To which Professor Bainbridge responds:

"Andrew Sullivan is an Ass"

To give some credit to the professor, he adds:

Yet, in the political sphere, the new Pope demonstrably recognizes that there is legitimate room for disagreement on how one operationalizes all but the most basic Church teachings, such as the gospel of life, and that even there Catholics may in appropriate instances even vote for politicians who do not share the Church's view on that central tenet.

Robert Tagorda:

"Though he is indeed doctrinally conservative, he doesn't necessarily have a predisposition to stamping out dissenting voices"

Anchoress:

"I must say, they really, really HATE him, and they’re not even trying to hide it. No honeymoon for Benedict XVI. I just heard someone on CNN call him a “Catholic NEOCON.” Pray for Benedict XVI. It is no easy thing to have so much hatred and malice being directed toward you. He will need our prayers"

Arthur Chrenkoff:

He's 78 years old, so the cynical argument went, and is not expected to have as long a stint in the office as, say, somebody in their 60s, and this would allow the Church hierarchy a few more years to trash out among themselves the ultimate direction they want the Papacy to take in the new millennium. Well, Ratzinger looks pretty healthy to me, and God can have a pretty wicked sense of humor in these sorts of things.

Yes. Deng Xiaoping didn't get going until he was 76 and he accomplished a lot, in his eighties.

The most vivid memory for me is watching the TV in my New York hotel room and wondering: who is behind this heinous attack? For a short while it seemed our worst fears had materialized: fundamentalist Muslim terror had reached the American heartland. I used this memory in one of my 9/11 remembrance pieces:

It was one of the busiest periods in my career working round the clock in the New York offices of a major US law firm, strolling back and forth to my hotel on Fifth Avenue, often in the middle of the night. And when I entered my hotel room I was usually too wired to sleep, so instead I watched TV and sometimes ordered in food, digesting it together with the news I was watching. The news was not good. The news was gut wrenching terrible that week with many innocent casualties, dying in a collapsing building, firemen coming to their rescue. Switching to other channels was not much better either, with an endless parade of witnesses and experts taking the stand in the Simpson trial.

Yes, it was the month of April 1995 and the nation was trying to wrap its head around about what had just happened in Oklahoma City. I distinctly remember the various experts on Larry King the night of the attack, outlining in very precise terms why Muslim fundamentalists hated America and in turn I tried to assess the long term implications of a Muslim attack in the American heartland. If it were indeed Muslim fundamentalists acting out of hate it was surely alarming news as it would mean we would be engaged in an almost unending battle with an enemy that could strike anywhere at any time. Surely a terrifying prospect. Imagine the relief when we figured out it was a bunch of right-wing nutbars with a poorly defined agenda and very limited resources. It was the 1990s, and we had taken care of an inconvenience by arresting the guilty, bringing them to trial and we could redirect our worries or concerns to other more easily quantifiable manners, like the stock market, something that would hold us in an odd spell for quite a number of years to come.

The April 1995 bombing failed to be the warning it should have been.

Today we will remember the Oklahoma City bombing and its victims.

In three days there have now been three instances in which certain far-left elements have found common ground with the right, or where the right adopts some leftist theories. Are we seeing a trend? Or is it just coincidence:

In Holland the radical left campaigns for a "no" vote in the EU referendum, as does the Dutch right;

In Canada the leftist NDP all of sudden discovers some "good ideas" in the conservative platform;

In America, the social right sees some value in the legacy of Andrea Dworkin.

If you can find more, I will post them. To be sure it's likely a coincidence as the Dutch and Canadian situations are nothing more than short-term political expediency that may even bring some worthwhile results. But if theocons and feminists unite, there's deep trouble ahead.

This week hosted at Gongol.

Next week it will be here at Peaktalk, following a last minute date swap.

Entries are due by 3:00 pm ET this coming Sunday, April 24, and you can submit here and here.