8. juni 2003

Poland joins EU Not official yet, but early exit polls indicate that an overwhelming majority of Poles, 81.9 %, have voted to join the European Union, and that voter attendence has exceeded the required 50 %. President Aleksander Kwasniewski was quoted as saying "We today have returned to the European family." So, when did Poland leave Europe? Not voluntarily, for sure, as I think that would have to be September 1, 1939. It's been a long, dark time. 9:37:31 PM    comment []

— The net sealed Raines' fate There's been a feeding frenzy in the press over the Blair/NYT scandal. I'm not saying it was not worthy of critical attention, but it's never pretty to see what happens when the sharks smell somebody's blood, in this case executive editor Howell Raines. A piece in LA Times argues, as has many others, that countless Net outlets, including blogs, contributed greatly to creating a situation where Raines had no choice but to go. Or, that the owners had no choice but to push him, depending on what you choose to believe. However, it is important to note that it was the combination of these external factors and the fact that there was serious opposition to Raines inside the NYT. Disgruntled insiders had, thanks to countless web sites and blogs, an outlet for conducting a guerilla campaign against the editor. Both these factors had to be present. I don't think bloggers should take too much credit for this outcome. 9:30:44 PM    comment []

Check that site Netcraft has a very useful site for finding out who owns a web site, how long it's been up and running, and what operating system it is. Well worth a bookmark if you ever check out web sites. 8:07:39 PM    comment []

The fall of France Steven Den Beste is very worried about France these days. No, not the way you think. He's worried about the strikes in France, which have been amply reported in the world press. What has not been reported, however, is the way the strikers intimidate, attack and vandalise opponents, while the police does nothing. This is really nothing new; the French government has for years had an attitude to strikers that can be amply described by the terms laissez faire and appeasement. A number of his correspondents have reported that just speaking out against the left-wing protesters who strike against a necessary pension reform risks life and health. Den Beste sees parallels to the fall of the Weimar republic in Germany, which brought so much calamity to the world. If the economic problems are not addressed, sooner or later the state will get into serious troubles, and the drastic reforms then forced upon it may lead to collapse. Extremists, both Islamic immigrants and extreme-left groups, can use the apathy and disorganisation of their opponents to bring in a dictature of the few. Consider how much the world eventually paid because of the collapse of the Weimar Republic. Then consider what the price would have been if the Weimar Republic had owned France's nuclear arsenal, and it had fallen into the hands of the Nazi dictatorship. What would happen because of the formation of a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic of France? Or a nuclear-armed People's Republic of Socialist France? Both with a religious zeal to spread the new French enlightenment to the world? I don't want to find out. Historical parallels only go so far, of course, and the French state has been stable in its own particular way for decades. Even worst-case scenarios aside, it is extremely troubling if a vocal and violent group, backed by unions, can force the majority to accept its view of the world and its solutions. I see the problem on a small scale here. Extreme left-wingers and Christian fundamentalists are in a minority in Norway, as they are in Sweden. Yet they are able to hold the countries hostage to a number of intolerant institutions and laws, directed against pornography, prostitution, alcohol and whatever is not politically correct. Sure, for issues that mean a lot to many, the extremists are defeated. We have for example a state church, financed by taxpayers. Not even 5 per cent of the population bothers to go to church. In fact, our Prime Minister is a priest, having a party with around 6% of the popular vote but yet managing to get himself into such a powerful postion. It is just a fact that fanatics are so dedicated to their particular dogma that they overpower a majority that simply doesn't care enough to oppose them or engage them. 5:34:22 PM    comment []

— Iraq WMD scandal may be worse than Watergate John W. Dean, who was legal counsel for President Nixon and played an important role in the Watergate scandal, argues that if WMDs are not found in Iraq, there is an even better case for impeaching Bush than it was for Nixon. Bush, he argues, stated decisively and confidently that there were huge stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons there. Already today, it seems pretty clear that many bold statements made by many "hawks" were false. Was this based on bad data from the intelligence sources, or did Bush intentionally mislead his own country and the world? If no WMDs are found, it appears that Blair may be in hotter water than Bush, but the powers of the US Congress committees is much more extensive than those of corresponding british committees. To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose." Dean argues the case on factual and legal grounds. Another question entirely is how politically possible a legal case against the president is. In the highly partisan climate of the day, it is hard to imagine a sufficient number of Republicans voting to impeach, and even more, convict their own president. Another isssue is how a case could be made that Bush lied. Practically everybody, including the French, the Germans, former president Clinton and vice president Al Gore, have all stated that Iraq had WMDs.  Hans Blix said these weapons had been produced, by Iraqi admission, and were not accounted for. If Saddam Hussein had gone to great pains destroying the country's stockpiles for WNDs, why did he not go out of his way to prove this to the weapons inspectors? If no WMDs exist (and, remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence) then it is a case for Bush, but not only him, being factually wrong. He did not lie if he believed what he said. Unless some solid pre-war intelligence report surfaces that states Iraq was free of WMD, and that the Bush administration shoved this under the carpet, I doubt any good case can be made for intentional dishonesty. At worst, Bush may have oversold the case on the strength of the evidence. I doubt anyone can be impeached for that. 12:14:48 PM    comment []

No NDA for bloggers Blogging are forcing conference organisers to rethink their gag rules for journalists, as many attendents are likely to be blogging about what happens. Nobody asked the bloggers of the All Things Digital conference in San Diego to shut up about what they saw and heard. Gag rules are mostly for advertising a conference anyway, giving the attendents the illusion that exclusive secrets will be revealed. No industry leader will think that "off the record" statements are really going to be kept within the walls, anyway. 10:21:05 AM    comment []

Germany will not be forced out After the deadly bomb attack that killed four German peacekeepers, Berlin is resolute that they will not withdraw from Afghanistan. In Norway, on the other hand, which was not involved in this terror attack, the top brass are getting cold feet. This is getting embarrassing. 8:28:38 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2003 Jan Haugland. Last update: 01.07.2003; 00:25:10.