Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
    Loading
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Archive for February, 2003

    New Weaselette Sighting

    Posted by Ralf Goergens on 14th February 2003 (All posts by )

    Austria has decided to deny the USAF the use of its airspace and also prevents American troop-transports via train to Italy, as long as there is no new resolution by the UN Security Council authorizing the use of force. The troops probably will have to be transported by ship, via Rotterdam in the Netherlands, causing a delay of several days. I have never seen a weaselette myself, but I’m told they are just the right size to clean your pipe with. Sounds handy.

    Posted in Europe | Comments Off on New Weaselette Sighting

    Heavy Suspicions

    Posted by Ralf Goergens on 13th February 2003 (All posts by )

    I don’t want to brag, but it took me only a couple of seconds to see through last weekend’s harebrained peace plan cooked up by Schroeder and Chirac. That has nothing to do with superhuman powers of perception; living in Weasel Central I simply have more practice watching them and know which way they’ll jump in any given situation. This plan has the sole purpose of showing French and German voters that those two are doing their utmost to prevent the war and aren’t the ones to blame when it inevitably comes to pass. Some American bloggers, lacking my expertise with small furry mammals were suckered into fearing this may derail the Bush Administration’s carefully laid plans. They couldn’t have known how impotent and at the end of the day inept our politicians really are. Then again, for all their inability to achieve anything themselves they are still adept at throwing spanners into other people’s works. Their willingness to plumb new depths surprised even me. They acquired a little sidekick (a weaselette?) and blocked Turkey’s access to defensive equipment by their vetoes. Actually, only France and Belgium vetoed the decision. Germany merely let it be known that it “approves” of the French-Belgian decision, but timed its motion in such a way that it still amounted to a veto in practice. At the same time Schroeder is sending Patriot launchers and missiles to Turkey, just like the Netherlands, but they will be manned by Dutch soldiers; Turkey will also be guarded with AWACS planes, but these are going to have German crewmen on board. In hindsight I have to say this is vintage Schroeder; he doesn’t even have to fake the courage of his convictions by vetoing the decision himself, he can tell his voters that Germany will neither be involved directly nor via NATO while still helping Turkey to get the equipment it wants without putting German soldiers on the ground there. This begs the question what kind of mind it takes to come up with such a convoluted scheme; at this point Chirac must feel pretty uneasy when meeting his good buddy Gerhard. The Bush Administration for its own part seems to have given up any attempts to bring Schroeder around and is now apparently just minimizing the damage he can do until he has to leave office. The readiness of France and Germany to accept severe diplomatic, political and to a lesser extent economic damage as a price for their intransigence has renewed suspicions that France and Germany are trying to hide some terrible secret that would come out once the files in Baghdad are open to American and British investigators.Taking this premise to its logical conclusion this secret would have to be the arming of Iraq with WMD by Germany and France in order to use it as a proxy against America or at the very least the sale of equipment for the making of WMDs by German and French firms, with the official approval of both governments, just as Lexington spelled it out in this post. I myself am still convinced that the motivation for this behavior is electoral and financial opportunism, just as I wrote here. Schroeder and Chirac know very well that they can’t stop the war on Iraq, but for their own purposes it is enough to show the voters back home that they tried everything they could to stop it. Chirac also is trying to increase his bargaining power, so that the French industry’s contracts with and investments in Iraq won’t be lost after the war. From the point of view of Schroeder and Chirac it is consistent with their former words and deeds to block any help for Turkey via NATO because officially preparing for the war would undercut their pretense that it still is preventable. Those claiming that France and Germany intentionally made Iraq a country armed with WMDs also cite as evidence Iraq’s declaration of its weapons programs, leaked to the Tageszeitung and translated by Deutsche Welle, and also an article by the former head of the Iraq’s nuclear weapons program. Then again: Even if a firm illegally delivered such technology to Iraq it doesn’t mean that that country’s government knew of it or approved of it, much less was or is wishing to make Iraq a regional power with WMDs. These articles also aren’t the whole story. If you want to know which firms supplied Iraq, go to the Wisconsin Project’s Database of Iraq’s Suppliers and simply type in China, France, Germany, Russia, United Kingdom and United States to see lists of firms from these countries. The biggest number of firms comes from Germany, but with exceptions that was before Gulf War I. Back then Iraq was seen as a kind of bulwark against Iran and nobody was expecting that Saddam would employ use these weapons to occupy Kuwait and attack Israel. It makes no sense to retroactively interpret the events in the 80s in the light of Schroeder’s and Chirac’s behavior today. One more thing: At the time Helmut Kohl was Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder’s direct predecessor, one of the most pro-American German politicians. It is simply ludicrous to think that he would that have wanted to use Saddam against America, especially during the Cold War, even more so than it is ludicrous today to assume the same about Schroeder and Chirac. To conclude: Schroeder’s and Chirac’s behavior is stupid and wrong, but Germany and France haven’t become enemies of America, as some bloggers maintain, even if they aren’t behaving as allies should. Some firms may have broken the embargo, but there is no sinister plan to turn Saddam into a weapon against America.

    Posted in War and Peace | Comments Off on Heavy Suspicions

    Itís Not About Oil

    Posted by Jonathan on 13th February 2003 (All posts by )

    Here’s an excellent refutation of the “It’s all about oil” anti-war argument.

    Posted in War and Peace | Comments Off on Itís Not About Oil

    Evil Secrets

    Posted by Chicago Boyz Archive on 10th February 2003 (All posts by )

    On this business about France and German opposition to the United States attacking Iraq, Mr. den Beste was right and I was wrong. His basic argument was that the French and the Germans must have something to hide, and that was why they were so strongly opposing the upcoming U.S./U.K. conquest and occupation of Iraq. I argued that domestic political factors were sufficient to explain their behavior.

    Recent developments, in particular the leaked “peace plan”, have shown I was mistaken.

    Den Beste has excellent coverage and analysis of this leaked Franco-German plan. (here and here and here.) There is no need for me to repeat or summarize his posts. Read them if you haven’t already. The recent Franco-German effort to thwart the military build-up in Turkey is consistent with all of this. David Warren has excellent coverage of this episode, though he mistakenly attributes the Franco-German actions to “vanity”.

    No. It is not vanity. There is something far more serious and menacing going on here.

    After mulling this business on and off today, I am left with the following train of thought. The Germans and the French are not just making gestures of opposition. They are seriously trying to prevent the United States and Britain from going into Iraq. They are persisting in this in the teeth of the manifest intention of the U.S. to go in. In other words, they are putting themselves into explicit opposition to the United States on a matter which the United States has made clear is necessary for its security. This is a very serious thing to do. They are openly and explicitly and consciously making themselves allies of a country the United States has made clear is its enemy. Moreover, the French and Germans know they have a weak hand, and they are imposing great political costs on themselves in continuing to push this. But they are persevering. So, as den Beste notes, where they are going to such extraordinary lengths to try to prevent the US from going into Iraq, and their public explanations are inadequate or incredible, they must have some concealed motive. What motive? Fear of discovery of their complicity with the Iraqi regime is the most likely explanation. The thinking along these lines has been that the French and Germans don’t want the world to know that they have been selling weapons technology to Iraq. This disclosure would be embarrassing, but is it enough to justify the increasingly desperate efforts the French and Germans are making?

    Let us take it a step farther. Let’s assume that the French and Germans have been actively assisting Iraq to acquire WMD, especially nuclear weapons. Why would they do this? First, of course, money. That has to be part of it. In the German case, I think it is probably the main part. But they are running huge risks just for money. There must be more. What?

    At least in the case of the French, a plausible explanation would be a positive desire to see Iraq armed with WMD, and to assist it to acquire them. Why? Pure power politics. France sees itself in a zero-sum power struggle with America. But America is the Hyperpower. France is forced to dance to Washington’s tune. So, France is a non-status quo power, which wants to terminate American Unipolarity. But it cannot do so on its own. It simply lacks the size, economic power, military power, vitality, efficiency – everything which it would need for a direct challenge to the United States. There is no way for France to get into the same league as the United States. France has tried to build a European Union which would offset U.S. power, with itself as primus inter pares, but it is clear to everyone with half a brain that this project will never be a true challenger to the United States.

    That leaves to France only the option of doing of things which positively harm the position of the United States. France cannot do this overtly, because the United States can crush French militarily if it came to it. Therefore, arming Saddam is a way to covertly harm the United States to the advantage of France. The French benefit from nuclear weapons proliferating, because this has the effect of neutralizing American conventional military power. The French benefit from Saddam becoming an unassailable regional power in the Persian Gulf, as a client and covert ally of France, because this makes them a major player in the region through their ties to Saddam, and damages American interests in the region. The French might even believe that they would benefit from the provision of nuclear weapons to terrorists, so long as they were used against the United States. A nuclear detonation in New York or Washington or Chicago or all three would severely damage the United States. Destruction on this scale would cause worldwide economic disruption. But it would also render the United States a much less formidable actor, far less able to make its influence felt abroad, since it would be absorbed with police activity and reconstruction at home. This would enhance the relative power of other states at the expense of the United States, including France. Complicity in the destruction of millions of American lives is a price the senior political leadership in France would probably be willing to pay to enhance France’s political position in the world, if it could get away with it, and if its own consequent economic losses were not unendurably severe.

    Now, with the United States about to invade Iraq, all contacts between Iraq and its European trading partners and covert allies will be dragged out into the daylight. Hence the last-ditch attempt to impose a U.N. “occupation”. The game of using Iraq against the United States, if it existed, is now over. The goal of the French and Germans, with their half-baked ongoing inspections proposal, is now damage control and cover-up, to sanitize the place and prevent disclosure of their role.

    How’s that for a good old Jacksonian conspiracy theory?

    I’m not sure how much of this I believe. Brooding in my car on the Eisenhower Expressway leads to a pretty dark view of the world. My wife thinks I’m going nuts. But the behavior of the French and Germans is so far out of whack that something very ugly indeed may well lie behind it. And I have always considered the French political leadership to be a malign force. They are implacable enemies of America, not the contemptible but basically unserious “cheese eating surrender monkeys” scorned throughout the wide realms of blogistan. My sense is that the average Jacques and Marie dislike America but don’t wish us any harm. Their leaders are different.

    The documents and witnesses we will obtain when we take Baghdad are going to yield up secrets which some people would rather never saw the light of day, not all of them Iraqi. It will be time for truth, though whether that truth ever gets out to the American public is another question. (See David Warren’s excellent column on our government’s refusal to speak the truth about the behavior of various foreign countries.)

    This is all one more good reason to conquer Iraq.

    We’d better do it soon.

    Posted in War and Peace | Comments Off on Evil Secrets

    War Futures

    Posted by Jonathan on 10th February 2003 (All posts by )

    Posted in War and Peace | Comments Off on War Futures

    Deficits Bad?

    Posted by Jonathan on 10th February 2003 (All posts by )

    Johnathan Pearce cites Andrew Sullivan’s critical observations about increased federal spending under George W. Bush. Sullivan makes a good point. However, Pearce goes Sullivan one better and decries federal deficits, which are not quite the same issue.

    Deficits are actually an important constraint on federal spending. In the ideal world we would have a small and balanced federal budget, but our more likely alternatives are a large federal budget with a deficit or a large federal budget with a surplus. A surplus functions much like a silent tax increase whose proceeds will be spent by Congress (as happened in the 1990s), whereas a deficit leads mainly to additional federal borrowing — which is less destructive to productivity and incentives than are tax increases and may itself create pressure for reduced spending. Surpluses allow legislators to increase spending without incurring the political costs associated with explicit tax increases, while deficits create political pressure to spend less. The question of whether to balance the budget is not trivial, but the main goal should be to reduce the overall level of government spending. Ironically, deficits, because of their negative political consequences, may advance this goal most effectively.

    Politicians tend to like surpluses and dislike deficits. That should tell us something.

    Posted in Economics & Finance | Comments Off on Deficits Bad?

    Thanks

    Posted by Jonathan on 8th February 2003 (All posts by )

    Brian writes that us Chicago Boyz are sort of OK for a bunch of conservatives, which sounds like praising with faint damns. We’re just happy that we didn’t end up on this list, to which he also links.

    Posted in Blogging | Comments Off on Thanks

    I Don’t Like Making Predictions

    Posted by Jonathan on 7th February 2003 (All posts by )

    Last May I made a bet with the lovely Diane that the U.S. would attack Iraq before the end of 2002. While it looks like I will soon be right about the invasion, I was wrong about the timing, and timing was the issue. I blew it due to my usual excessive overconfidence.

    Meanwhile Lex has been trying to talk me into publishing my predictions for 2003. He himself has already done so in a masterful post, and I predict that many of his predictions will prove accurate. He has a good track record, especially WRT politics. (He is typically less overconfident than I am, though our respective overconfidence levels may be converging as we age.) I have a lousy track record, especially on issues that affect me emotionally. And I find that by making a prediction on any topic I tend to increase my feeling of having a stake in a particular outcome, which makes my judgment even worse. The honest best that I can usually do, prediction wise, is along the lines of: “There is a greater than even chance that X will occur if Y occurs.” But nobody wants to read predictions that sound like that. So with these caveats in mind, I am willing to make a couple of straightforwardly vague prognostications:

    – There will be surprises in the war against radical Islam. Most of these surprises will be bad.

    – Unexpected stuff will happen around the world. As always.

    – The U.S. monetary system will show an increasing bias towards inflation during the next year or two.

    That’s about the best that I can do. If anyone wants to make some money, I am available to take the other side of bets.

    Posted in Predictions | Comments Off on I Don’t Like Making Predictions

    More on the Tony Blair Interview

    Posted by Jonathan on 7th February 2003 (All posts by )

    I read about 1/3 of the transcript from the Q&A. Blair handled himself well. The interviewer and the audience, if sincere, are twits. I can’t imagine the audience is representative of majority opinion over there. It’s probably representative of elite opinion, though. I hope that I am not naive to be so optimistic. Also:

    – I was astonished by the high proportion of questioners from the audience who assumed that UN fiat takes precedence over decisions made by their own elected government.

    – Paxman’s interviewing style is great. I wish we had journalists like him here in the States. So what if he’s rude. One of the press’s most important functions is to serve as a check on government. You can’t do that if you’re always deferential. Yet journalists who ask difficult questions of politicians are exceedingly rare. They are discouraged by the j-school mentality, with its emphasis on “access” — mustn’t risk losing it by antagonizing interviewees — and guild-like hostility to reporters who rock the boat. (O’Reilly isn’t a good counterexample, because there’s only one of him and he’s easily avoided by pols who don’t want to face his questions. Also, he is often unprepared.) How long would Clinton have lasted if he had been met at every press conference by Paxman-like reporters asking him, repeatedly, if he had raped Juanita Brodderick?

    Posted in Anglosphere, War and Peace | Comments Off on More on the Tony Blair Interview

    Tony Blair on the BBC

    Posted by Chicago Boyz Archive on 7th February 2003 (All posts by )

    One of my friends in the UK send along this link to the BBC’s interview with Tony Blair about the upcoming war with Iraq. (click on the phrase “Tony Blair’s Newsnight interview point by point” for video).

    It was interesting for an American viewer who does not watch TV at all to see this. The interviewer was actually openly rude and interrupted constantly. Really boorish. I don’t think anybody should have to put up with that, let alone a democratically elected leader. But my wife, a veteran BBC viewer, tells me that is the done thing over there – harsh, cross-examination-style interviews of politicians. I also noted that the interviewer baldly misstated various facts, apparently to get a rise out of Blair, as well as taking a really insulting tone. The hand-picked audience consisted only of opponents of the war. The ideological lefties were pretty easy for him to deal with. But the “regular guy” types of questioners were much tougher.

    Blair probably lost ten pounds doing this interview. What a workout. But, God bless him, he had his facts and arguments under control and put in a terrific performance. No wonder he is PM. I wonder if he changed anyone’s mind with it?

    I have a lot respect for the British system, and the toughness and verbal facility and quick-wittedness of the British politicians who can handle this type of thing. Whenever I watch the questions in parliament, I think that most of our stuffed-shirts couldn’t handle it. Of the Presidents we’ve had in my lifetime, I think only Clinton (whom I detest) could probably have done OK, and also maybe Nixon. Those were both extremely smart and Clinton was good on the fly, and Nixon was always well-prepared. Either of the George Bushes, Reagan, Carter — no way.

    The basic tone of the show and the questioners highlights the extent to which the USA is out of step with other countries, even the relatively friendly British. One guy actually said Powell’s presentation was “laughable”, and he was serious. Another guy asked Blair if the United States was going to be subject to disarmament by the U.N., and while he was being flip, he genuinely believed the U.S. is a more dangerous country than Iraq. The crowd seemed in basic agreement with these sentiments. The contempt for America and in particular for Bush is noteworthy, and jumps out at the American viewer. It is just assumed, obvious, a given, that the United States is a moronic country led by a moronic president. It is a good thing more Americans don’t realize how despised we are even in Merrie Olde England. The response would be to reciprocate, and that would not be productive. It’s a pity these people feel as they do, but ultimately not worth worrying about when our security is at stake. If a bunch of people in the North of England don’t like us, they’ll just have to lump us. And if they don’t want to go to war with Saddam, they are out of luck with Blair at the helm.

    Blair has political courage to stick with the US on this. It would have been easier for him to bail out earlier, or never go down this road at all. Then the USA would have gone in alone, anyway, but Blair would probably have been more popular at home. He must actually believe it’s the right thing to do. He certainly projected that in the interview. He is a remarkable guy. He has an enormous amount of good will here in the U.S., whatever happens to him politically in Britain. Maybe Clinton can move to Britain and Blair can move to the U.S. Bottom line, if the war goes well, Blair will benefit politically, though to what degree I’m not sure. I think people may be resentful even if we win handily. Less uncertain is that if the war goes badly, Blair is finished. It’s a bet the ranch approach he’s taken. I suppose Gordon Brown would take over then. The Tories are a nullity at the moment.

    Besides an apparent sincere belief in the rightness of this course, there is clearly another factor at work. Blair has extraordinary access to Bush and has been privy to the war planning at the highest levels from the beginning. No doubt he has been shown in complete detail what the war plans are, since Britain is making a very major contribution. I, like many people, am hoping the war will be a swift, crushing blitzkrieg. I have lots of reason to think this will be the way the war will actually go. That Blair is so confident gives me confidence.

    We shall all know soon how well- or ill-founded Blair’s confidence is.

    Posted in Anglosphere, War and Peace | Comments Off on Tony Blair on the BBC

    Old vs. New Europe?

    Posted by Ralf Goergens on 4th February 2003 (All posts by )

    The German-French deal for the future of the EU has angered most of the other member nations and has even given rise to the hyperbolic accusation that the two countries are trying to erect a kind of new Holy Roman Empire. I think that it also was a factor that motivated the eight statesmen to write their letter of support for the American position on Iraq. Being thus isolated is embarrassing for Germany and France, but not as dramatic as many American commentators and bloggers think, just as Americans tend to take the EU itself much more seriously than it really deserves. The EU is about to expand to 25 members, which makes the costs of further integration unsustainable for many years to come, rifts in the EU or not. Having the opponents for further integration assert themselves is nothing but an expression of this reality. In a way it also is business as usual to have (mostly smaller) EU members side with the US to counter the influence of France and Germany. The small members of the EU have nothing to complain about anyway. Voting power in European Commision, parliament and council is weighted in favor of the smaller countries. Each country gets to send a representative to the Commision, regardless of population numbers, for example. Some reforms are planned, but a German or British candidate for a seat in the European parliament will still need 800.000 votes to get elected, while a colleague in Luxembourg needs less than 80.000. This bias in favor of small countries makes any talk of a French-German power-grab ridiculous. This dispute won’t endanger the existence of the EU anyway, since without it the small countries would have little sovereignty, making them unwilling to leave it. That is not to say that they would be militarily intimidated or even conquered by the larger countries, they would simply have little choice but to go along with decisions made by others. One example: The European Union effectively was a German Mark zone before the Euro was introduced; the German Bundesbank (central bank) set interest rates as it saw fit and the others (even France, Italy and some extent Britain) had to follow. The Euro meant a loss of formal sovereignty for everybody, but they finally have a say in monetary policy (not always to German delight). This concept of shared instead of formal sovereignty is central to the European Union. It also is anathema to many Britons (and by far the most Americans, of course) and is in my opinion the strongest motivation for the downright visceral hostility against the EU. That the alternative to shared sovereignty would be almost no sovereignty as far as the smaller member are concerned is rarely if ever considered. One example is Norway: They decided to stay out of the EU, but have to follow most of its rules and regulations, without being able to influence them. Denmark, an EU member, has opted out of the Euro, but at the same time has no monetary policy of its own, the Krona being firmly pegged to the Euro. Both examples have nothing to do with any malevolence on part of the EU, they simply follow from the difference in sizes. Based on all this I feel confident to say that the EU will survive and that Britain will very likely remain to a member, Anglosphere or not,. Political and cultural affinity are one thing, trade and economic another. Once the EU finally drops its silly pretense of becoming a competitor to America even a transatlantic free trade zone is not out of the question (it was seriously considered in the 90s, but the French blocked it with their veto-power). In the short term I hope to see some benefits from the more market-friendly attitudes of the Eastern European countries, once they become full members in 2004. One is a comprehensive reform of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (without quite so many subsidies), the other the abolition of the ban on GMOs.

    Posted in Europe | Comments Off on Old vs. New Europe?

    The Cost of Uncertainty

    Posted by Jonathan on 4th February 2003 (All posts by )

    The stock market looks due for a rally but it isn’t rallying. The government-bond markets, especially the U.S. one, look due for a break but they’re holding firm. The situation feels a bit like it did in the second half of 2000, when a lack of political leadership, combined with the uncertainty of the presidential election, contributed heavily to the stock market’s then-seemingly relentless decline. Time will tell if the comparison between then and now is apt, but I wish our government would take action soon against Iraq.

    Posted in Economics & Finance, War and Peace | Comments Off on The Cost of Uncertainty

    Democracy For Beginners

    Posted by Ralf Goergens on 4th February 2003 (All posts by )

    I saw this in the comment section of another blog and it’s just too good to pass up:

    The will of maybe 50 million Germans does not make a majority against more than 300 million US-Americans. So Germany should subordinate themselves to the USA and execute the US-will, if the Germans are real democrates.
    Interesting concept. China would love it.

    Posted in International Affairs | Comments Off on Democracy For Beginners

    What the Numbers Mean

    Posted by Ralf Goergens on 2nd February 2003 (All posts by )

    The losses for the Social Democrats were expected to be severe and turn out to be even worse, downright catastrophic. Schroeder’s power is strongly diminished, he won’t be able to do anything without the say-so of the opposition parties, as I expected. In my opinion this is great news. The trade unions’ ability to block reforms via their hold over the Social Democrats will be much reduced and at the very least this should shut Schroeder up, even if he won’t support the war on Iraq. With any luck he might get sick of being heckled at home and irrelevant abroad and step down voluntarily. More on that tomorrow, I’m off to celebrate.

    Posted in Germany | Comments Off on What the Numbers Mean

    Election Results

    Posted by Ralf Goergens on 2nd February 2003 (All posts by )

    So far I only know predictions but it is already clear that the Christian Democrats have won the elections in both Hessen (Hesse) and Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony). They also achieved the historically best results ever, while Schroeder’s Social Democrats suffered the worst losses and results ever. It seems that the CDU can form both state governments without a coalition partners if they want to. Update with numbers from 6:30 PM: Lower Saxony: CDU 48,0 SPD 33,2 Greens 7,5 FDP 8,4 Others 2,9 Hesse: CDU 49,9 SPD 27,4 Greens 9,9 FDP 8,3 Others 4,5 For clarification: The Greens are the smaller coalition partner in the federal government, FDP are the socalled Free Democrats, a party that stands for free market policies. “Others” are mostly extreme right-wing and also various communist parties. Another update: The numbers from 7 PM are almost the same as those from 6:30 PM Last update Changes in results are minimal, the numbers from 6:30 are pretty much the final ones.

    Posted in Europe | Comments Off on Election Results

    German State Elections

    Posted by Ralf Goergens on 2nd February 2003 (All posts by )

    The outcome of the two state elections today will strongly influence German politics for years to come. Schroeder’s Social Democrats (SPD) are set to lose them by a wide margin; as a consequence the Christian Democrats (CDU) will have a decisive majority in the upper chamber, so that Schroeder will need their explicit approval for almost all new legislation. Even more interesting is that Angela Merkel, Christian Democratic chairwoman and parliamentary whip, has stated bluntly that she too, would have signed the letter in support of GWB’s policy published by the eight European statesmen. Being Chancellor is going to be even less fun than before. If Schroeder’s popularity deteriorates any more his supporters might start looking for a replacement, the usual fate for Chancellors. What might save him is the lack of strong contenders; good for him, but very bad for the party. I’ll post election results as they come in this evening. Voting will stop at 6 PM Central European Time (noon EST, 9 AM PST). The first real results should come in about half an hour later.

    Posted in Europe | Comments Off on German State Elections

    Columbia Is Lost

    Posted by Ralf Goergens on 1st February 2003 (All posts by )

    I’m very sorry. My condolences.

    Posted in Announcements | Comments Off on Columbia Is Lost