VDH is quite perceptive in describing what prevents Europe from real reform or a positive step forwards:

But it is just as likely that any European counter-reaction will be unproductive. Instead of calling for more American-style assimilation and intermarriage, critics could prescribe strict isolation of Islamic minorities. Re-arming could make Europe even more hostile, rather than promoting Western unity. The longer work hours, reduced welfare subsidies, increased transparency, and economic flexibility needed by Europe might be received by the masses not as necessary medicine, but as foul concoctions forced down their throats by the hated American competition.

And that’s what we are beginning to see in terms of political responses: a challenged and ineffective center and a resurgent hard left and xenophobic right who try to capitalize on the deep European resentment. If these two groups gain momentum - Germany is a good example where the center lost and the left won- then the hurdles to reform and create positive change will become higher and higher up to a point where for some countries they will eventually become insurmountable. VDH thinks the US can help and comes up with a number of interesting options where in more than one way he has found a role for me too.

UPDATE: More here.

Stephen Schwarz today revisits the Sharia in Canada issue in his TCS column and he makes absolute sense. In a way his arguments go back to what was referred to yesterday as the media-hype following hurricane Katrina, exactly the same mechanism is at work here. In our attempt to vigorously execute the war on terror and curtail jihadism wherever we see it, western societies have now opted to take on all forms of religious tradition. If we take on Muslims, then we might as well take on Christian, Jewish and Hindu traditions while we are at it. Schwarz notes wryly that now Jews in Ontario have turned out to be the staunchest defenders of Muslim rights fearing that kosher food may be the next thing on the government’s chopping block.

Again, I am not overly sensitive when it comes to religion, but it seems that the broad-brush approach to neutralize certain faith-based practices is undermining the very type of multicultural society that so many of us want to live in. If we add the phenomenon of self-censorship into the mix, it isn’t hard to see how our diverse and free communities are under serious pressure to abandon creativity and tradition for the sake of a safe, secure and bland type of society. If you’re familiar with the term, it’s a form of equalization.

The uninformed hysteria perpetrated by the right when it comes to Islam has scored a number of victories over the outdated and equally questionable models marketed by the left. In response governments, in this case the one in Ontario, resorted to using its power to force a poorly informed and rash decision on the public. That approach was in no small part prompted by the media kerfuffle that was going on, but it was totally oblivious to its long-term consequences.

More on Europe’s decline, here. Via Donald Sensing.

And while we are at the topic, DC based euro-skeptic George is back at it.

Media hype and tabloid journalism contributed to an exaggerated picture of what happened during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. The real story is coming out now, but some of the damage may already have been done as the federal response is largely framed on the media perpetrated assumption that it failed, argues Matt Stinson.

The other area where the media have gone in overdrive – with a similar impact on policy and long term perceptions – is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Richard Brandes who has set up a website dealing solely with this issue is now guestblogging at Solomonia where he shares some of his ideas about the subject.

The launch of Pajamas Media is getting closer and the opportunity it has, judging from just these two examples, is phenomenal.

Yes, moving from a megalopolis to a provincial city has its challenges and if big city life runs in your blood it may take years to get used to new, clean and placid surroundings. The experience of moving from Hong Kong to Vancouver is very similar to moving from LA to Portland, and Nancy Rommelmann explains how she adjusted to the sudden change. In my case that adjustment, six years into the program, is still ongoing although I know that there are definite benefits.

(hat tip: Michael Totten who wants to make a reverse move, but has taken an intermediate step: Beirut).

My jaw dropped, even the Dutch are now considering it (note: it's a Dutch link). At least, that's what a report of the Council of Economic Advisers concludes after a study for Dutch parliament which had asked for advice on the matter. We will have a long way to go and there are some serious drawbacks to implementing a flat tax, but it seems as if there's a realization on both sides of the ocean that the current complicated system of progressive taxes combined with endless deductions and exemptions is in serious need of a massive overhaul.

Yesterday I touched on the advent of self-censorship, arguing that it will inhibit freedom and in the case of the arts, a clampdown on creativity. While the decision to remove an artwork from a museum is most likely giving in to the fear of being singled out for attack – think Rushdie – the decision of the bank that edited one of its star researchers is likely driven by commercial considerations. These are in play in Hollywood too where Sony ditched Albert Brooks’ movie "Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World". While Warner picked it up, it underlines the danger that even works of art that have the best intentions run the risk of disappearing, never to be seen by the pubic. And Brooks' intentions in the post 9/11 world were genuine:

"But I thought, what could I do in a teeny way — and believe me, it's a teeny way — to defuse this? There had to be some way to separate the 1.5 billion people who don't want to kill us from the 100,000 or so who do. I thought if I could get five Muslims and six Hindus and maybe 3 Jews to laugh for 90 minutes, then I've accomplished something."

Just finished listening – some 47 minutes – to Ann Althouse’s podcast and if you have some spare time it may be worth your while. It was revealing to me, not only to hear someone go through a detailed commentary on her own recent blog posts, but to notice a stark difference between Ann’s online blog persona and the one that came through in the podcast. Sure, hearing and seeing people usually causes some surprises if you’re only familiar with their writings, but I just couldn’t match the concise blog entries with the long winded chat that Ann treated us to in her podcast. Maybe it was her mood which by her own account wasn’t that great and which didn’t help the first ten minutes. For a little while her performance was somewhat off, but it got better, much better. The one thing I just couldn't figure out was Ann's sense of humor, maybe it was shrouded in her bad mood as I would have expected her to have one.

She covers a wide range of topics and what the podcast did, and what you often don’t get from her blog, is how she gets excited about a particular issue. She doesn’t seem to be driven by a particular emotion or specific interest, but it’s the use of certain terms that get Ann going, in both the wrong or the right direction. An example of the latter is her spot-on assessment of Cindy Sheehan and the use of words in her campaign; less convincing is Ann’s take on her little spat with Andrew Sullivan over a BBC-opinion piece. Some of us enjoy getting linked by Andrew, Ann. His linkage to Peaktalk wasn’t always contextually perfect but it did help to move a particular issue or argument further.

Other topics on Ann's table are the tropical storms, Lynndie England, supreme court judges writing and blogging, government sponsored-sex in Denmark and an interesting take on the movie The 40 Year Old Virgin. As they say, hear the whole thing.

Would I do a podcast? Hard to say, my Dutch accent wouldn’t probably really bolster my image, but I think that commentary on the radio – which I did a few times after a European issue was discussed here – or online does add to short and fast crafted blog posts. It adds as another layer. Check out Ann and you will know what I mean.

That is the only way to describe a political situation where you can’t even get conservatives to support a reduction in corporate taxes.

Self-censorship is on the rise and once discovered, it is often unapologetically defended by those that participate in it:

A museum on Monday defended its decision to remove a sculpture from an exhibition for fear of offending Muslims, citing the "sensitive climate" following suicide bombings in London in July. The Tate Britain decided not to include "God is Great" (1991), in a display of works by British-based John Latham, infuriating the artist and renewing debate over where to draw the line when censoring the arts.

"God is Great" features copies of the Bible, Koran and Talmud -- sacred texts of Christians, Muslims, and Jews respectively -- embedded in thick glass.

"Having sought wide-ranging advice, Tate feels that to exhibit the work in London in the current sensitive climate, post-July 7, would not be appropriate," a museum spokesman said.

In the wake of hurricane Katrina many in Europe could not resist the opportunity to gleefully point to the underbelly of the American Dream, arguing the lack of a proper safety net for the poor and needy. Yet, it has also highlighted some very unpleasant truths about the state of affairs in for instance Britain, where poverty and ghettoization are rampant:

The minister for constitutional affairs, Harriet Harman, agreed that some of Britain's black and poor communities were beginning to resemble those in the US.

"We don't want to get into a situation like America - but if you look at the figures we are already looking like America," she told the Independent. "In London, poor, young and black people don't register to vote."

With regards to addressing poverty in the US, Dan Morgan last week came up with a number of interesting ideas without succumbing to just spending and forced social engineering. We've done the latter, extensively, in both Europe and the US. Time for new solutions.

David Frum, that is. Depsite earlier reports, freedom of the press in Canada is still alive and well.

Israel has not been getting the coverage here that it deserves, but do check out the Head Heeb who condenses the latest violence and the Sharon-Nethanyahu struggle into one excellent round-up.

The only functional "grand coalition" that has earned a real place in history was the one led by Winston Churchill during WWII, uniting all parties behind one common cause: the survival of the nation. Similar coalitions these days can be seen in Israel where Likud and Labor join forces at times when Israelis fail to give either party the ability to form a majority government. But Israel is a nation under threat and that makes it far easier to set aside differences and work together for the common good.

That sense of urgency will probably be subordinate to endless bickering and positioning in Germany, but even Gerhard Schroeder has now conceded that there is no scope for any other form of co-operation:

"I want this coalition to happen," he told the state-owned ARD television network, in his clearest endorsement of a joint cabinet made up of his Social Democratic party and the opposition Christian Democratic Union. "I will do all I can to make it work."

If that means he will forego the chancellorship remains to be seen, over the weekend the idea of a rotating leadership was floated: two years Schroeder, two years Merkel at the helm. The only precedent for this type of arrangement was in Israel too, here Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Shamir rotated the role of prime-minister in the mid-1980s. It’s doubtful that Schroeder and Merkel can live together under similar terms, but who knows.

That's what the weather forecast looks like. So one more view from the beach in our community where we spent so many hours this summer.

And over the past few weeks it did indeed feel like an Indian Summer, a term that found its way into my life because of that great, if not best ever, French chanson entiled l'été indien:

Tu sais, je n'ai jamais été aussi heureux que ce matin-là

Nous marchions sur une plage un peu comme celle-ci

C'était l'automne, un automne oû il faisait beau

Une saison qui n'existe que dans le Nord de l'Amérique

Là-bas on l'appelle l'été indien

It's hard to believe that a frenchman could sing so passionate a song about North America, but the Joe Dassin was born in New York.

The right is slated for a big victory in the Polish parliamentary elections. There is an interesting pattern that repeats itself. Upon the collapse of the Soviet empire nations like Poland moved to the right only to re-embrace ex-communists once the miracles of capitalism failed to materialize quickly.

The same holds true for Eastern Germany that decidedly moved to the left in last week's elections. In doing so it elected some very unsavory characters into parliament:

Germany's new Left party, which could play a crucial role in deciding the next chancellor, faced acute embarrassment yesterday amid claims that at least seven of its MPs had collaborated with the Stasi, the East German secret police.

The music industry as we have known it, is dying. So are movies and newspapers. May I add one more? TV. Cable has splintered the once powerful medium into tiny bits each catering to niche audiences, now competition from online media will over time make the "box" pretty much obsolete.

Interestingly, the trend to cater to more populist tastes in Europe is undermining the monopoly of the once powerful state-owned TV stations. An interesting piece in the FT looks how that is happening in Italy and The Netherlands:

On the side of the government is the indisputable fact that the system is hideously complex and imposes large costs on the adventurousness and autonomy of programme makers. But reform also means an acceptance that the Dutch “model” doesn’t work any more.

This represents an admission that parties, creeds and associations once deemed to express the richness of the society can no longer justifiably command time on the national broadcaster. This is a bitter admission for those who prize a tolerant, diverse society. As in Italy, it amounts to the sanctioning of an autonomous media power, with its own laws, rhythms and world view - and a political system that must learn to accommodate it.

UPDATE: Andres Gentry writes:

If writing something is the lowest rung of blogging, and Podcasts are the next, then perhaps these new PSP TV programs are the third rung of a citizen-run/based/focused civil society. With cheap digital video cams an enterprising video journalist or movie maker could bypass all the current distribution channels and make a name for himself. And if a group of people were especially adverturous, it might not be long before the next great TV series wasn't shown on actual TVs but instead was broadcast straight from the internet for a bare fraction of what Seinfeld or Friends cost.

The word for it, which I should have used in the original post is vlogging. Of course.

The British government is seriously contemplating a public inquiry into what lay behind the July 7 London Underground attacks following some pressure from local Muslim leaders.

Now we’ll have to see if this idea comes to fruition, but it strikes me that public inquiries are supposed to deal with investigating how the operation of government failed under certain circumstances, the inquiry into Bloody Sunday for instance is a good example. The investigation into 7/7 and the prosecution of the perpetrators – to the extent they’re still alive – is ongoing and it would be very disruptive and potentially dangerous to these proceedings to have a concurrent public investigation. Think about it, could you have imagined a public investigation into what may have caused Bloody Sunday right after it happened, rather than into what happened on the day itself? Or better still, a congressional investigation into the origins of 9/11 before the 9/11 Commission got to work?

For now, there’s no evidence whatsoever that the British government failed. The idea of a public inquiry has been floated as some will have cleverly identified it an excellent opportunity to steer the outcome of it into a particular direction. And in doing so they could potentially hamper British policymaking for a long time to come:

Muslim leaders believe that a public inquiry into the July 7 suicide attacks will expose a deep well of resentment at Government policy in Iraq and the Middle East.

And that’s the entire point of arguing for a public investigation. It’s another attempt to deflect the world’s attention from the real reasons behind the terror of 7/7 and use the public dime – once more – to smear Blair’s Iraq policies, regadless of whether the findings of such an inquiry would suppport that. The creation of a forum and its accompanying media circus will virtually ensure it.

Anyone keen on an inquiry searching for the root causes may save the British government some trouble and just start by reading this.

Technorati is now tracking 18 million blogs. On Monday this week, which is only four days ago, that number stood at 17.4 million. Amazing.

The latest from France:

Middle-class Frenchwomen are to be given incentives to have a third child under a scheme to maintain the country’s population and keep younger parents at work. In the latest in 60 years of state measures to promote more births the Government of Dominique de Villepin is to pay €750 (£507) (= US$914 ed.) a month to a parent who stops work for a year to care for a third child. In addition to £177 a month child allowance, M de Villepin also doubled the tax credit for couples who employ home help for children under six.

The men with the poison-filled syringe arrived two days before Li Juan's due date. They pinned her down on a bed in a local clinic, she says, and drove the needle into her abdomen until it entered the 9-month-old fetus. "At first, I could feel my child kicking a lot," says the 23-year-old. "Then, after a while, I couldn't feel her moving anymore." Ten hours later, Li delivered the girl she had intended to name Shuang (Bright). The baby was dead. To be absolutely sure, says Li, the officials--from the Linyi region, where she lives, in China's eastern Shandong province--dunked the infant's body for several minutes in a bucket of water beside the bed.

Statistics involving ethnic origin are taboo in France’s officially colour-blind state, but it is accepted that poorer families of Arab and African origin have fertility rates well above those of white French couples.

NOTE: Matt Rosenberg argues China should be taken to task for these horrors in the court of public opinion and I agree with him, but it will not happen. As Chris Patten so eloquently described in East and West, the lure of business opportunities and trade deals, not to mention geo-political considerations, have left most of the thinking and supposedly ethical west in a permanent state of “kowtowing” to Beijing’s leadership. Not only does it allow China to get away with murder – in this case literally - it also signals to the Chinese that it can become a member of the modern world entirely on its own terms.

Judging from yesterday's visitor referral logs and Google searches I should have known that something was driving a renewed interest in the offerings on Dutch TV. And yes, there was.

NOTE: There was a time when we thought things were changing ...

Four days have passed since the German election and there is no indication of what sort of coalition government will take the reigns. In the meantime we have the pleasure of reading through an avalanche of editorials and columns that are all saying more or less the same thing. The WaPo yesterday qualified the situation as a mess, and today in the Guardian, Timothy Garton Ash, one of the more nuanced writers on Europe, includes France in the discussion and talks about the two sick men of Europe. It could all have been so different, and I could even have been a part of it.

Remember that by late 1990 the iron curtain had disappeared, Germany had been reunified, Margaret Thatcher was purged from her leadership role by generally pro-European forces and Britain was experiencing a biting economic downturn. Logic held it that the new economic center of Europe would now be Germany, centrally located and well-positioned to act as the entry gate to the newly emerging free-market democracies in former Soviet territory. What Germany had failed to do militarily it would now do economically. It was hard to argue with that logic at the time, and it was even widely believed that with the European central bank moving to Frankfurt, London would rapidly lose its place as the major financial center in Europe. Frankfurt was set to take over the reigns in a new Europe.

That’s also how I got to work in London, recruited by one of Britain’s largest banks who were determined to play a role on the continent and had started to recruit promising European graduates who could navigate the new market. The week I joined they even acquired one of Germany’s largest private banks, and I spent my formative years dealing with corporate clients all over Europe, notably in Germany. By mid-1992 the Euro-mood had reached fever-pitch and I was sent to attend one of the most lavish corporate courses in Bad Homburg (the town where former Deutsche Bank Chairman Herrhausen was murdered by the RAF in 1989) on the outskirts of Frankfurt. It’s doubtful these kinds of courses still exist, wine during lunch, lots of beer before and after dinner and relaxed classes were we were initiated in "Inter-cultural communication in the workplace", "From socialism to capitalism - The Eastern European laboratory" and similar beautiful things. The reason I bring it up is that we got some organized tours as well and the memory of Frankfurt’s deserted streets returned to me when David Frum pointed to the draconian laws on shopping hours that had barely changed in some 13 years.

Yes, even under Helmut Kohl – who represented the same party as Angela Merkel – things didn’t change materially on the economic front. German reunification was thrown into Kohl’s lap and together with his cordial relationship with Reagan and Bush the elder he somehow became an icon of a new Germany. But, and it was pointed out in many commentaries this week, the German right is not the free-market deregulating force as most of us would expect it to be. Kohl got to preside over the promise of an economic miracle that never materialized, at least not for Germany.

From the first day I joined Barclays Bank I lobbied to get a posting to Hong Kong and in the spring of 1992 I narrowly averted a transfer to Europe’s supposedly new financial center. I missed out on the brief miracle and years of stagnation and instead I got an exhilarating ride through a boom and a bust. Which would you prefer?

Yesterday I briefly highlighted how the new Dutch budget introduces a package of reforms by making some incremental changes to the welfare and healthcare arrangements that have characterized the country since the late 1960s. It got a vigorous response from the opposition – the Social Democrats or PvdA – by way of their leader Bos:

“This government keeps hammering on the responsibility of its citizens. That makes people uncertain and eventually it will lead to chaos”, according to PvdA leader Wouter Bos on Wednesday during the parliamentary debate. He thinks that the cabinet should offer more security and protection and is making the assumption that citizens want, and are able to handle, more responsibility. “If you want flexibility from people, then you have to offer them security. But you ask for flexibility and only offer insecurity”.

More laws, more rules and thus less choice: it never occurred to me that more security would give me more flexibility. Return to the risk-free society, that seems to be the basic message here.

In The Netherlands you don’t win elections by playing the anti-America card or any other divisive tactics, and Bos is shrewd enough to know that the threat of a disappearing comfort zone might well tip the electoral balance in his favor. Both he and the other opposition parties have announced they will undo all of the reforms that are presently on the table. The victory of capitalism and free-markets that forced Europe’s (and North America’s) left closer to the center during the 1990s is clearly under pressure, witness the German elections. Promoting responsibility wrapped in a package of privatization and dergulation was relatively easy during economic boom times, now it is a much harder sell.

And not just in Europe. Even in decidedly free-market societies with conservative governments there is always the anticipation or assumption that government is really there to absorb all risk, premium free. In a must-read assessment of America's current economic plight (oil, Katrina, budget deficits) the Cunning Realist makes that point convincingly:

Reckless risk taking is encouraged, because the public sees the government give a wink and a nod that it will be there as a backstop should problems occur. Often it's far more than a wink and a nod. President Bush just announced that the government is going to throw hundreds of billions of dollars into rebuilding the Gulf coast states after the hurricane. If you knew the government would pay for your temporary relocation, rebuild your house, give you a job, and send you a nice check after a natural disaster, would you buy insurance? Would you live in a place less vulnerable to a natural disaster? Would you evaluate your overall risk profile rationally and take appropriate measures to protect yourself? And importantly, what incentive does government have to live up to its own responsibility to prepare for disasters if the printing press is always available as a salve when something happens?

In turn this has a significant impact on the value of the dollar and the US economy for years to come. In America it's big government conservatism, in Europe it's reinvigorated socialism. The appetite to neutralize reform and hand responsibilty back to the state remains a strong force to be reckoned with. Expect more of it in the years ahead.

Is the title of a BBC-documentary that follows the lives of Dutch second division soccer star Mohammed Allach and his bride, Sanne. You probably guessed it, this is not an everyday Dutch marriage, our soccer player is Moroccan and his young wife is your typical average Dutch blonde. The documentary is positioned to consider that progress and warm relationships in the Dutch multicultural landscape are possible; and the wedding of Mohamed and Sanne should definitely be considered as such. However, even these blissful newlyweds can not insulate themselves from the sinister underbelly of Dutch multiculturalism:

Sanne's sister Marlou was a teacher at an Islamic primary school five years ago when during a lesson a nine-year-old Muslim boy announced that he wanted to become a jet pilot "to bomb the Jews". It turned out that the boy had been shown a Hamas propaganda video during religion classes. A subsequent report by the Dutch intelligence service suggested 20% of Muslim schools in the Netherlands were funded by extreme Islamist sources.

When I wrote about Simon Wiesenthal yesterday I qualified the Holocaust as “one of the worst mass murders in human history”. Believe me, some thinking went into that particular line as the initial draft read “the worst mass murder in history”, but I could already picture a link, an e-mail or even my own conscience telling me that probably more people died during China’s Great Leap Forward and Stalin’s pre-war purges. So I changed it, but I knew that in the rush of saving my post to this site, I erred.

Well, Norman Geras saves me by asking the question yesterday if there was anything exceptional about the Holocaust, and if it was unique compared to the many other tragedies that have marked the history of humankind. The answer is affirmative and Norm gives us three key reasons why the Holocaust stands out in uniqueness. Neither the policies of Stalin, Mao or even Pol Pot for that matter, satisfy all of the three criteria that were sadly fulfilled by Hitler. So whenever genocide or mass murder occurs we can test the events against these particular criteria in order to determine if they're on a par with the Holocaust.

"If I've lost Malkin, I've lost the conservative blogosphere"

More here.

Analysis and debate are always subject to all parties understanding the exact meaning of terms invovled. That is why I kept hammering on the definition of "tolerance", especially when it came to Dutch matters as the media almost treat the two as being synonymous. An American reader of Dutch descent nails it:

My main point here is to comment on your ideas of Dutch tolerance. I understand your point of view, but I wonder if your idea of tolerance sometimes borders on the post-modernist notion that tolerance implies -- or should imply -- a kind of cultural relativism which assigns equality and validity to all systems of thought, culture, and belief as opposed to the idea that all these systems, right or wrong, have a right to existence, but not to automatic approval. Or that to be true, tolerance must, in sense, unlike the Dutch version, be wholly altruistic.

What has always appealed to me about the Dutch -- or as I conceived the Dutch -- version of tolerance was a frank recognition of differences, sometimes on ultimate questions, but a willingness to live (put up?) with differences without assigning personal approval or denying personal disapproval. This is, of course, a quite politially incorrect version of tolerance. But far healthier than the denials of comtemporary, so-called, tolerant multiculturalism. For the Dutch, tolerance is an act of will; for the politically correct American, tolerance amounts very often to a sentimental orgy of denial. Any good Dutchman will be willing to let you go to hell in a handbasket, but he will tell you in no uncertain terms that is what you are doing. The American will just cheer you on.

Excellent point. The original Dutch tolerance, or pragmatism, mutated in a dangerously politically correct version, and in the wake of recent events there's a change in atmosphere that is trying to recapture the spirit of the original "tolerance".

NOTE: Other readers have prompted me to compare European hedonism and American hedonism. Give me some time, it will be explained in due course.

Eastern Europe is growing, countries like Germany are stalling and in between are the free-market nations who are trying to find a balance between these two extremes, using incremental steps. At least, that’s the impression I got when looking at the Dutch budget which was released today. Here are a few highlights:

The centre-right coalition’s 2006 budget included €2.5bn in tax relief and handouts to ease the financial burden on middle-income families with children, whose purchasing power has “declined sharply” in recent years.

It credited “painful but effective” measures - notably a wage rise freeze agreed with employers and unions last year - for trimming the budget deficit to 1.8 per cent of gross domestic product, 0.3 per cent lower than anticipated a year ago.

Meanwhile unemployment, which has nearly doubled since 2001, is set to fall for the first time in five years, from more than half-a-million or 6.75% of the workforce, to 475,000.

Corporation tax will be reduced to 29.6 per cent, a lower rate than anticipated a year ago, while capital transfer tax is to be abolished in January, making it easier for businesses to raise capital to finance growth.

A compulsory health package, scrapping the distinction between public and private insurance schemes, is introduced in January, as is a tougher disability scheme based on the individual’s ability to work. Unemployment benefits will be tightened, discouraging early retirement.

Still, the current right-of-center government’s approval rate is at an all-time low of course, the economy is not doing well and the measures by local standards are “harsh”. Therefore this budget needs to deliver the results fast so that a return to traditional European solutions can be averted at the ballot box in 2007.

NOTE: The comparing unemployment and budget deficit numbers come from the latest print edition of The Economist.

Steyn is echoeing the theme of this week: welfare addiction over demographic reality.