ITSSD Reports: US Fed Must Respect US Taxpayers & Garnish Wall Street Bonuses & Golden Parachutes for Bail-Out Plan to Work

[See: Garnishment actions on wages and bank accounts, at: http://www.fair-debt-collection.com/searches/garnishment.html ]

[See: Attachment - Legal Definition, at: http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/attachment/].


[ See: Attachment - Legal Definition, at:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/attachment ].


[See: Attachment, at: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a086.htm ].


[See: Bankruptcy Preference, at: http://www.moranlaw.net/preferences.htm ].


[See: Michael Korybut, How Preferences Are Treated Under the New Bankruptcy Law, The Secured Lender (Jan/Feb 2007), at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5352/is_200701/ai_n21281735/pg_5?tag=untagged ].


[See: Fraudulent Transfers (And How To Avoid Them), at: http://www.rpifs.com/protection/apfraud.htm ].


[ See: Fraudulent Transfers and Bankruptcy Considerations, at: http://www.assetprotectionbook.com/ch6.htm ].

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/fury-at-25bn-bonus-for-lehmans-new-york-staff-937560.html

Fury at $2.5bn bonus for Lehman's New York staff


By David Prosser


The Independent UK


Monday, 22 September 2008


Up to 10,000 staff at the New York office of the bankrupt investment bank Lehman Brothers will share a bonus pool set aside for them that is worth $2.5bn (£1.4bn), Barclays Bank, which is buying the business, confirmed last night.


The revelation sparked fury among the workers' former colleagues, Lehman's 5,000 staff based in London, who currently have no idea how long they will go on receiving even their basic salaries, let alone any bonus payments. It also prompted a renewed backlash over the compensation culture in global finance, with critics claiming that many bankers receive pay and rewards that bore no relation to the job they had done.


A spokesman for Barclays said the $2.5bn bonus pool in New York had been set aside before Lehman Brothers filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States a week ago. Barclays has agreed that the fund should continue to be ring-fenced now it has taken control of Lehman's US business, a deal agreed by American bankruptcy courts over the weekend.


[U.S. EXECUTIVE GREED AT EXPENSE OF AMERICAN AND OTHER TAXPAYERS!! LEHMAN EXECUTIVE BONUSES & GOLDEN PARACHUTES SHOULD NOT BE PROTECTED BY BANKRUPTCY FILING IN ANY COUNTRY - SHOULD BE CONTRIBUTED BY EXECUTIVES TO BAIL-OUT THE U.S. TAXPAYER and PAY SALARIED WORKERS WHO ARE OWED THEIR PAYCHECKS!!]


Barclays is paying $1.75bn for the US operation of Lehman and is keen to retain its best staff. It said it had made no promises to individual staff members about how much they will receive but that the bonus fund would be paid out. In addition to the $2.5bn cash pool, Barclays is also in negotiations with about 30 executives it considers to be Lehman's best assets and plans to offer them contracts worth tens of millions of dollars. British employees of Lehman described the bonus payments as a "scandal" as they waited anxiously yesterday to see whether a deal could be struck with buyers circling the bank's European operations.


Many of Lehman's UK staff are particularly angry about the US payouts because it has emerged that in the days running up to the bankruptcy, some $8bn in cash was transferred out of the account of the bank's European business into accounts at the New York head office.


There is no suggestion any of this cash was used to supplement the bonus fund, but partly as a result of the transfers, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), the administrator to the European business, initially found it impossible to guarantee salaries would be paid. The September wages of thousands of European staff were only secured in the middle of last week, when PWC negotiated a £100m loan to fund the payments. PWC wrote to Lehman Brothers' head office in New York last week, requesting the repayment of the $8bn, but a spokesman said yesterday that the administrator had received no formal response.


The row will increase pressure on the Government to tackle perceptions that City pay is out of control. Speaking on The Andrew Marr Show on BBC1 yesterday, Gordon Brown said Britain would review financial services awards following the credit crisis. "There's been a great deal of irresponsibility," the Prime Minister said. "There's an element of the bonus system that is unacceptable."


[THIS IS THE FIRST THING UK MINISTER GORDON BROWN HAS SAID THAT WE AGREE WITH!!!]


However, Adair Turner, who formally takes over today as chairman of the Financial Services Authority, the UK's chief City regulator, warned it would be very difficult to police individual pay deals.


[NONSENSE - A COMPANY THAT IS BANKRUPT IS SUBJECT TO THE OVERSIGHT OF ITS CREDITORS, ESPECIALLY WHERE THE CREDITOR IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!]


"I think it would be really exceptional in any industry to have direct regulation on what different people are paid, I don't think that's appropriate and I don't think that would be workable," he said.


[IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR REGULATORS, IN A TIME OF CRISIS WHICH TRIGGERS A GOVERNMENT BAIL-OUT, TO OVERSEE AND REGULATE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION IN EXCESS OF EARNED WAGES - THAT INCLUDES BONUSES, GOLDEN PARACHUTES, & STOCK OPTIONS, WARRANTS, ETC. (WORTHLESS HERE WITHOUT A GOVERNMENT BAIL-OUT!!]


"What is appropriate for regulators to do, is the need to ask searching questions about the nature of people's remuneration and to ask questions of institutions as to whether they are paying out bonuses before they are really sure whether the profits are really there."A spokesman for the TUC said the US payouts were unfair. "It looks like those that will suffer the most from the Lehman Brothers' collapse are those at the bottom of the corporate chain while many of those at the top will be looked after," he said.


Critics of the UK's attitude towards City pay also pointed out that the US has much stronger litigation laws. For example, advocates acting for Lehman creditors in the US said over the weekend that they might sue Richard Fuld, the investment bank's chief executive, who was paid $34.4m last year, in an attempt to force him to return some of the money.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[THE DEMOCRATS, NOT THE REPUBLICANS, HAVE IT RIGHT ON THIS ONE!! BUT THEY SHOULD ONLY FOCUS ON EXECUTIVE BONUSES & GOLDEN PARACHUTES TO PRESERVE THE RESPECT AND POCKETBOOK OF THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER - KEEP OUT FOR NOW ALL OTHER LESSER DEMANDS.]


http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/hc-finance0922.artsep22,0,6758548.story

Dems Try To Shape Bailout: Seek Pay Limits For Execs, Oversight, Homeowner Aid


By LORI MONTGOMERY And DAVID CHO


Washington Post


September 22, 2008


WASHINGTON — - Congressional Democrats considering the Bush administration's emergency plan to shore up the U.S. financial system on Sunday countered with their own demands for limits on executive pay for firms getting bailed out, stricter oversight of the program and provisions for struggling homeowners.


Democratic leaders have broadly embraced the administration's proposal to spend up to $700 billion to take troubled assets off the books of faltering firms and are not questioning the need to give the Treasury Department expansive authority to halt the meltdown in world markets. But by attempting to limit executive pay, they risk alienating key Republicans who object to such restrictions and delaying passage of the rescue plan, which in turn may stir renewed fear in the markets.


Sunday night, the Federal Reserve said the two remaining investment banks, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, now will be classified as regular commercial banks. That means that they will be subject to a broad and intensive set of government oversight rules that apply to regular banks. It also means that there are no remaining stand-alone investment banks.There were five investment banks at the beginning of the year, but Bear Stearns was bought by commercial bank J.P. Morgan in the spring, Lehman Brothers has gone bankrupt, Merrill Lynch is being acquired by Bank of America, and now Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are becoming commercial banks.


Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was working Sunday night to press House leaders to strike an agreement on the bailout bill by early this morning, according to sources. No deal with the Senate appeared close Sunday night.


Sources familiar with Treasury's thinking said Sunday night that the department is also continuing to monitor troubled financial firms and may have to intervene in the markets again this week, before Congress acts on the bailout, to address specific flash points.


Democrats sought to add oversight provisions and taxpayer protections to the proposal, which amounts to the largest government intervention in the private markets since the Great Depression. "We will not simply hand over a $700 billion blank check to Wall Street," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement.


Under the proposal drafted by House Democrats, the Treasury would be required to force faltering firms that want to sell their troubled assets to the government to "meet appropriate standards for executive compensation." Those standards would include a ban on incentives that encourage chief executives to take "inappropriate or excessive" risks, a mechanism to rescind bonuses paid for earnings that never materialize and limits on severance pay.


The Democratic measure also would require the Treasury to use its status as the new owner of billions of dollars in mortgage-backed assets to reduce foreclosures by forcing banks to rewrite loans for distressed homeowners and to forgive a portion of their debt. And it calls for a strict regimen of oversight, including independent audits and regular reports to Congress.


The proposal was presented to Treasury officials during marathon negotiating sessions this weekend over the bailout plan. House Republicans sent Treasury a separate set of demands, including the suggestion that a joint committee of Congress be created to oversee the program.


And Senate Democrats Sunday were still assembling a list of provisions they hope to add, including new powers for bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages on primary residences, an idea House Democrats said Sunday that they had abandoned.



[THIS IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE TIME FOR A LAUNDRY LIST TO ADDRESS THE WISH LIST OF POLITICIANS. ACTUALLY, HISTORY REFLECTS THAT, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was not adopted to protect consumers, although one of its most celebrated provisions was the establishment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which guarantees bank deposits of up to $100,000. The law was enacted during the first 100 days of the Roosevelt administration to rescue a banking system which had collapsed, wiping out the life savings of millions of working people, and threatening to bring the profit system to a complete standstill.


[IF THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED (and now debated) RESTRUCTURING / BAILOUT LEGISLATION IS TO RESTORE THE TRANSPARENCY, INTEGRITY AND STRENGTH OF THE U.S. FINANCIAL SYSTEM BY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, ENSURING MARKET LIQUIDITY, THEN THE KEY EXECUTIVES, PARTNERS & PRINCIPALS OF THESE 'SAVED' WALL STREET FIRMS MUST SACRIFICE THEIR PROMISED BONUSES, EQUITY-KICKERS/INCENTIVES & GOLDEN PARACHUTES. THIS IS ESSENTIAL TO PRESERVE MARKET LIQUIDITY AND THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM AT LARGE. FURTHERMORE, THE U.S. GOVERNMENT MUST ENSURE AGAINST THE 'OFFSHORING' OF SUCH COMPENSATION MONIES TO NON-U.S. SECRET BANK ACCOUNTS NOT SUBJECT TO U.S./ INTERNATIONAL TRANSPARENCY RULES.].

Though lawmakers had promised to work across party lines and between chambers to speed the rescue plan to passage by Friday, that process was not working smoothly.


[DEMOCRATS SHOULD NOT GRANDSTAND AT EXPENSE OF AMERICAN TAXPAYER. ONLY DEAL WITH THE ESSENTIALS SUCH AS ENSURE THE GARNISHMENT OF EXECUTIVE BONUSES & GOLDEN PARACHUTES!!]


Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said it's still possible to meet the deadline. But "this is of such import, if it takes a little longer to get right, then so be it," Dodd said. "I'm all for moving as quickly as we can, but I'm far more interested in getting it right."


On the Sunday morning television talk shows, Paulson said he has asked his counterparts in other nations to consider establishing similar programs.


On Sunday, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he would travel to New York on Wednesday to discuss what he called the "first crisis of the global economy." Brown said a "global regulatory system" should be established to govern a world where national borders often have little meaning. He added that Britain "was paying a price" for problems that started in the United States.


[GORDON BROWN, THE SOCIALIST, OF COURSE, WOULD PREFER A GLOBAL REGULATORY SYSTEM CENTERED IN THE UNITED NATIONS THAT IS MODELED AFTER CONTINENTAL EUROPE'S FINANCIAL SYSTEM.]


Though lawmakers on Capitol Hill were not working in unison, they were voicing similar concerns Sunday about whether the bailout plan includes enough oversight and protections for taxpayers.


The administration's proposal would give the Treasury secretary sweeping authority to purchase assets from any financial institution, whether headquartered in the United States or abroad, over the next two years. It would place no limit on when the assets could be sold. And it would allow the Treasury secretary to spend up to $700 billion without oversight or review by other federal agencies or the courts.


"It's the biggest amount of money with the least amount of detail I think I've ever seen in my life," said Douglas Elmendorf, a Brookings Institution economist who has worked in the Treasury Department and at the Federal Reserve. "The secretary does whatever he wants and spends whatever he wants."


Lawmakers across the spectrum are demanding more oversight of the bailout. House Democrats have the most specific proposal, which would order the Government Accountability Office to establish a permanent outpost within the Treasury to monitor the bailout program. That office would have unfettered access to the activities and financial documents of the rescue program, and would be required to submit reports to Congress every 60 days.


Many lawmakers also want additional protections for taxpayers. House Republicans, for example, have asked that any profits generated by the sale of the bad assets be used to reduce the budget deficit and not for any other purpose.


Where the parties appear to diverge is over Democrats' demand for government authority over the paychecks of executives whose companies participate in a taxpayer bailout. House Republicans opposed the idea, aides said, and Sen. Richard C. Shelby, R-Ala., a key figure in the debate, said Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation" that he thinks compensation should be set by corporate boards.


[SENATOR SHELBY IS OUT OF ORDER, OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND IN BED WITH WALL STREET EXECUTIVES, IF HE AVOIDS HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE!!].


Speaking on the same program, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said voters would protest a program that appears to permit corporate executives to pocket taxpayer dollars."It would be a grave mistake to say that we're going to buy up the bad debt that results from the bad decisions of these people, and then allow them to get millions of dollars on the way out the door," Frank said. "The American people don't want that to happen."


[WHILE WE DISAGREE WITH REPRESENTATIVE BARNEY FRANK ON MANY ISSUES, HE IS RIGHT ABOUT THIS ONE. AMERICAN TAXPAYERS MUST BE PROTECTED AGAINST THE GREED AND LARGESSE OF WALL STREET EXECUTIVES AT THIS MOST CRITICIAL TIME!!]

What Aspect of the Irish 'NON' Do the Brussels & Paris Philosopher Kings Not Understand?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/14/editorial-check-of-the-irish/


Check of the Irish



Editorial

Washington Times

July 14, 2008

Pronunciation:
\ˈnō\
Function: adverb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English nā, from ne not + ā always; akin to Old Norse & Old High German ne not, Latin ne-, Greek nē- — more at aye
Date: before 12th century

>1 achiefly Scottish : not b—used as a function word to express the negative of an alternative choice or possibility
>2: in no respect or degree —used in comparisons

>3: not so —used to express negation, dissent, denial, or refusal <no, I'm not going

>4—used with a following adjective to imply a meaning expressed by the opposite positive statement no uncertain terms

>5—used as a function word to emphasize a following negative or to introduce a more emphatic, explicit, or comprehensive statement no, it's gigantic

>6—used as an interjection to express surprise, doubt, or incredulity7—used in combination with a verb to form a compound adjective 8: in negation no>

[See: Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/no ]

The sky over Europe is not falling. That's the bottom line of Ireland's rejection Thursday of the Lisbon Treaty.

Of the 27 European Union member states, Ireland, the only to require a popular referendum, has usefully tested an otherwise very insulated, elite-driven expansion of EU power. It has rejected the best-laid plans of Commissioner Jose Manuel Barroso and allies. At this point, the EU should realize that its long-term prospects require it to acknowledge the legitimate objections of real, actual voters. This, of course, was the same lesson that went unheeded in 2005, when France and the Netherlands issued comparable "No" votes to the EU Constitution, killing it.

In the runup to Thursday, Mr. Barroso announced with much drama that "There is no Plan B," warning of "a very negative effect for the European Union" before an audience at the European Policy Center, as if he meant it. This, it turns out, was bluster. Now he says: "I believe the treaty is alive and we should now try to find a solution."

The intended solution, which could only be described as a "Plan B," is to press on with the Lisbon Treaty anyway, with some Ireland-only modifications.

Mr. Barroso wants Ireland to resubmit the treaty for a vote once its opt-out clauses are in order. The approach suggests a belief that a treaty that fails its only popular vote faces no questions of mandate or long-term viability. The willful obtuseness here is the real danger to the EU's prospects.

[SO MUCH FOR INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS & POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION!! EUROPEANS BEWARE!! THE BRUSSELS BUREAUCRATS WILL CRAM DOWN ANYTHING THEY WISH IF THE IRISH SUBMIT TO THIS KIND OF INTIMIDATION!!!]

Any political institution that aims for longevity must develop a healthy respect for the public will. The best ones are grounded in it. The sad truth of the EU is that its leadership has never been willing to do this. It openly disdains "the rabble." Mr. Barroso and allies try to avoid public input wherever possible, conducting end-runs around non-elite checks on their authority. They failed to learn the lessons of France and the Netherlands three years ago. This week they fail yet again.

The EU will survive, as will the integrated European economy. The real casualties this week are the credibility of those who made the direst of predictions on Wednesday but little more than 24 hours later were found pledging to carry on as if nothing had happened.

[UNFORTUNATELY, THE PHILOSOPHER KINGS OF MODERN BRUSSELS HAVE FAILED TO LEARN THE TRAGIC LESSON OF THE PHILOSOPHER KINGS OF ANCIENT ATHENS.]

[See: Eva Brann, Plato's Impossible Polity, A review of Plato's Republic: A Study, by Stanley Rosen

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1322/article_detail.asp .]

["...So, first, who is this philosopher-king for whose benefit the Republic has a metaphysical center? Open the book to its middle by page count and there he is (or she, as Socrates explicitly says)—the central human figure of the dialogue, whose introduction will raise a huge wave of derision. Rosen rightly emphasizes a crucial aspect of these philosophers: they "depend upon the existence of Ideas"; their "most important qualification is to 'see' the Ideas." Accordingly, Rosen has not only explained very clearly in various places what a Platonic idea is—minimally, a formal structure necessary for identifying and speaking about things—but he has also set out lucidly what is problematic about it. He emphasizes that these structures are conceived as patterns or models, and Part III begins with a very illuminating discussion of the several meanings of Plato's term paradeigma. Thus, philosophers have non-sensual patterns to look to. But then the question is: how does that make them fit to be kings? Rosen thinks that Plato has shown only that philosophers are lovers of ideas but not at all how the ideas bestow the practical knowledge required for kingship. I would respond that the Socratic position is that to know the ideas of Courage, Temperance, and Justice is to be courageous, temperate, and just—surely a good beginning for the life of a ruler. The source of the being, growth, and knowableness of the ideas themselves is that notorious Good. It too is, I think, a defensible preoccupation for those who are to govern. Socrates presents it in a simile, a verbal image (eikon). The Good is like the sun in its being and power—except that it has no being, for it is "beyond being" (509 b). Rosen reasonably asks us to accept the idea of the Good as "intrinsic" to the intelligibility of human existence. But then he balks at the one metaphysical feature assigned to it, its "beyond-being."Yet the Good is not quite sufficiently delineated as perhaps "a set of properties of Platonic ideas," nor put aside as "too cryptic to be amenable to an entirely satisfactory explanation." The ancient tradition is that "The Good" was a name for "The One," the comprehending source of unity, the principle of "one-out-of-many," not itself a being but the unity of all beings. It is the very principle of our republic: "E pluribus unum." That is why the philosopher-kings must come to behold it; far from being useless, it is the knowledge of communities, whether of ideal beings in their ontological context or of human beings in their private friendships or in their civic associations. For the philosopher-kings, even if they have, by my notion, no city but only themselves to rule, are yet friends and fellow-citizens. Don't those of us who still teach the liberal arts (the very arts set out in the Republic's curriculum for philosopher-kings) hope to educate citizens in just that way, by asking them to think about what it means to be together as a community emerging from individuals?"]

Recurring Bouts of Eco-Nausea Triggered by False Facts, Celebrity Hypocrisy, Prophecies of Armageddon, Politicized NonScience & Lost Economic Freedom

http://www.newsweek.com/id/143703/output/print

I’m So Tired Of Being Green

One recent poll showed that American consumers are increasingly unlikely to spend money on energy-efficient goods and services.


By Susan H. Greenberg


NEWSWEEK


Jun 28, 2008


I'll admit it: I am a lapsed recycler. When confronted recently with an empty jar of peanut butter, rather than soak it in hot water to remove every last smear before placing it in the recycling bin, I simply tossed the jar in the trash can (and quickly covered it with greasy paper towels to avert the wrath of my eco-fanatic husband). In my mind, I made a quick and highly unscientific calculation: saving the planet from one little plastic jar wasn't worth my time or the hot water necessary to clean it.

I may be wrong about that. But the fact is, I don't know what to believe anymore. I'm sick of everyone from Al Gore to the guy who mows my grass telling me to "go green."


I'm tired of sifting through the "eco-safe" claims of products as diverse as cleansers, cars and cookies: recycled, recyclable, reusable, organic, all-natural, environmentally friendly, environmentally preferable, environmentally safe, biodegradable, compostable, ozone-friendly, zero-carbon, carbon-neutral … the list is limited only by the imaginations of the marketing geniuses who developed it.


We are drowning in so many vague, dubious or breathlessly hyped assertions that sometimes it's easier just to throw the sticky peanut-butter jar away.


"Confusion creates inner shock," says Suzanne Shelton, CEO of the Shelton Group, a U.S. marketing firm that monitors America's environmental pulse. "And when consumers are confused, they just do nothing."


I am not alone in my green fatigue. The Shelton Group's latest study, Energy Pulse 2007, revealed that between 2006 and 2007, Americans' enthusiasm for energy-efficient products and services fell across the board. [See: Energy Pulse® 2007:Where American Consumers Stand on Renewable Energy, Conservation and Energy-Efficient Products, Services and Homes, at: http://www.energypulse.org/comprehensive.php ; National Survey: Consumers Face ‘Green Fatigue’ Focused on Price as Much as ‘Greenwashing’ - Energy Pulse 2007, Shelton Group Press Release (Oct. 9, 2007) at: http://www.energypulse.org/PDFs/EP07-GreenFatigue.pdf ; ].


[“In the past few years, consumers have been bombarded by the marketing messages of companies jumping on the green-friendly bandwagon,” said Suzanne Shelton, CEO of Shelton Group, which independently sponsored the study. “People are becoming much more inquiring about the bill of green goods being sold to them – not only in terms of ‘is it as ‘green’ as what they say it is?,’ but also ‘does it matter enough to me to pay extra’?” According to Shelton, ‘energy-efficient’ is consistently equated to ‘more expensive’ in the minds of consumers. “What consumers are often fatigued about in 2007 is the price differential – or at least the perceived price differential,” Shelton said. “But saying ‘save money’ when advertising an energy-efficient product isn’t necessarily good enough. Our research shows that consumers want proof..."].


Among its findings: the number of green or energy-efficient activities consumers said they participated in—such as recycling or riding a bike to work instead of driving—dropped from an average of 3.63 in 2006 to 3.0 last year. Furthermore, the number of respondents who considered energy efficiency "important/extremely important" in deciding whether to buy a product fell from 72 to 67 percent. "We are really seeing a backlash to the whole green thing," says Shelton. "We've tested environmental messaging for some clients lately, and we get a lot of eye rolls and deep sighs. We hear things like 'I'm so tired of the green label being slapped on everything,' 'I'm so tired of being guilted into being green'."


A new field, eco-psychology, has even arisen to help people cope with their mounting "eco-anxiety"—worries not just about the planet's health but also about their own environmental inadequacies. Melissa Pickett, a self-proclaimed eco-psychologist and president of the SoulWays Center for Conscious Evolution, believes it's only a matter of time before insurance companies recognize it as a treatable psychological ailment. "I compare it to PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder]," she says. "Years ago, there wasn't a label for it. There isn't a diagnostic label [now] for green fatigue or eco-anxiety. At some point there probably will be."


We can only hope to live so long. The growing sense of green fatigue stems in part from the feeling that no matter what we do, it will never be enough. I own a Toyota Camry hybrid, have replaced roughly a third of our light bulbs with compact fluorescent ones —though I should confess I've changed a few back to incandescent because the time delay and cold light drove me crazy—and recycle fairly religiously, hard-to-clean containers notwithstanding. Yet judging from the daily news, the earth's predicament grows only more dire: Ethiopian runner Haile Gebrselassie has pulled out of the Olympic marathon because of Beijing's toxic pollution. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently found that 345 of 700 American counties monitored had air quality considered unsafe to breathe. "The discussion about changing our light bulbs, about washing our laundry on a lower setting, all seem to be very petty approaches to what is being described as a great climate catastrophe," says James Panton, cofounder of the Manifesto Club, which is committed to preventing ecological disaster without limiting human potential. "Changing a light bulb isn't the way forward."


So what is? Environmental experts seem to agree that the best way to jolt consumers out of their green daze is to instigate reforms from the top down, like putting a price on carbon and including airline emissions in CO2-reduction targets. "If there were stronger infrastructural changes, then you would have a clear lead from the political and economic leadership of our society, and you won't have that kind of fatigue," says Tim Baster, executive director of the U.K.'s Climate Outreach and Information Network.


[IN OTHER WORDS, THESE BUREAUCRAT-GURUS ADVOCATE IN FAVOR OF TOP-DOWN PROSCRIPTIVE REGULATION WHICH INSTRUCTS PEOPLE CONCERNING WHAT THEY CAN & CANNOT DO. THIS OBVIOUSLY WOULD LEAVE LITTLE TO CHOICE OR CHANCE - SO MUCH FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS!!]


"It's individuals who get demoralized. There has to be collective action." It takes a village to recycle a peanut-butter jar. [LONG LIVE SOCIALISM!!]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/have-you-got-green-fatigue-402971.html

Have you got green fatigue?

You recycle and buy local – but the earth's still warming and the ice cap's still melting. If you're starting to feel apathy creeping in, you're not the only one.


By Hugh Wilson


The Independent UK


20 September 2007


Recent environmental messages have made such an impact on a friend of mine that, a couple of weeks ago, he broke a four-year prohibition and walked back into Burger King. "Intensive beef production, clone town Britain, just so much blah," he said, by way of explanation. "Nobody else really seems to be doing much about it, so why should I bother?"


My friend is the embodiment of one of the great fears of the environmental lobby. Fifteen years ago, the term "compassion fatigue" indicated a general disillusionment with fund-raising concerts and famine appeals. The cause was too hopeless, governments too apathetic, and individuals too impotent. Slowly, and for similar reasons, the term "green fatigue" has started to creep into the dinner-party conversations of the composting classes.


And, if anything, with more reason. Environmental campaigners worry that individuals see their actions as largely irrelevant when set against the enormity of global climate change. While famine appeals parade a simple, striking message – send a tenner, save a child – no such easy cause and effect exists for global warming. By contrast, the solutions to climate change seem hugely complex and controversial.


"The problems we face are of a magnitude no one has seen in at least two generations," says Alex Steffen, the executive editor of WorldChanging, a website and book that promote innovative solutions for sustainable living. "The scale of the actions people are being told to take by green consumerism groups and businesses, on the other hand, are so small as to seem meaningless. I think that more and more people see this widening gulf and lose hope."


And if we're not all losing hope just yet, many of us are becoming increasingly cynical. To campaigners, that's not surprising. As Steffen suggests, businesses have turned environmentalism into a marketing strategy. A new term, "green-washing", describes companies that paint a superficial green gloss on conventional business practices. When firms such as BP and Wal-Mart parade their environmentally friendly credentials, scepticism is not only inevitable, says Steffen, it's "a necessary antidote".


At least the green lobby can count on celebrities to spread the message. Unfortunately, the message too often seems to be, "do as I say, not as I do". Celebrity is an intrinsically unsustainable condition. The reaction to the Live Earth concerts – which prompted as much debate on the carbon footprint of the A-listers who'd been chauffeured in for the occasion as the campaign they were there to endorse – showed the insidious spread of green fatigue.


It could have been worse. In the States, Sheryl Crow's "Stop Global Warming College Tour" was panned for stipulating parking for three tractor-trailers, four buses and six cars. John Travolta recently urged the British public to "do their bit" to combat global warming after flying in on his private Boeing 707, and got trounced in the press for his efforts. None of this is likely to keep the public on side in the long run – and countering climate change is likely to be a very long run indeed. [GREEN HYPOCRISY BREEDS CONSUMER SKEPTICISM & GREEN FATIGUE.]


Even the pronouncements of more committed celebrities can seem, well, a little misjudged. A new book, edited by the socialite and former model Sheherazade Goldsmith, the wife of the Ecologist editor Zac, advises concerned greens to keep geese and make their own goat's cheese. As my sceptical friend said: "The goose can stay on the balcony, but I doubt you'd call it free-range."


Of course, many celebrities and businesses now offset their carbon emissions by paying for trees to be planted in sustainable forests or investments made in green energy projects. But "magic bullet" solutions to climate change are quickly losing their sheen. Recent investigations – including a widely trailed Dispatches programme on Channel 4 – question the effectiveness of carbon offsetting and suggest that it might even be counterproductive.


Some environmentalists worry that carbon offsetting promotes the idea that if you throw a few quid at the problem you can carry on as normal. According to Michael R Solomon, the author of Consumer Behaviour: Buying, Having and Being: "Consumers are always going to gravitate toward a more parsimonious solution that requires less behavioural change. We know that new products or ideas are more likely to be adopted if they don't require us to alter our routines very much."


Unfortunately, most environmentalists agree that altering our routines quite fundamentally is the only real way to save the planet. Meanwhile, another "magic bullet" solution – and one that would also allow many of us to carry on pretty much as normal – is coming in for unexpected criticism: a recent study has suggested that any widespread uptake of biofuels in Europe could decimate Asian rainforests.


What all this adds up to, experts fear, is a recipe for disillusionment and – eventually – disengagement. Psychologically, we're primed to walk away from problems that are too complex to understand and too difficult to solve, and we'll break into a run if we think cynical marketers and self-publicising celebrities are jumping on a green bandwagon. And green campaigners who think a deluge of apocalyptic information will cut through our cynicism are probably mistaken.


"In an information-filled world, people screen heavily what new information they let in, and I suspect that the run-of-the-mill global-warming story is just not crossing the threshold," says the climate scientist Dr Susanne Moser, the co-author of Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change. By run-of-the-mill, she means those all-too-familiar stories about melting ice shelves or endangered species. "Thinking about a global, complex, challenging, and potentially very dangerous and disastrous thing and not knowing what to do about it makes us go numb or into denial."


The antidote to numbness and denial is a sense of progress, of things getting better. But in the fight against climate change, progress is hard to come by. Moser uses the analogy of a diet. How long would you stay on a diet that demanded stringent effort over a prolonged period and promised only that that your weight gain might slow down a bit? Let's face it, it wouldn't make the cover of Grazia.


She also admits that "we have terribly failed our audience" by focusing on apocalyptic scenarios and complex science. Instead, one key factor in keeping people enthused in the fight against climate change will be local, collective action, she says.


"Why do people go to Alcoholics Anonymous, or to Weight Watchers? Because in a group of like-minded people they have the support, accountability, peer pressure and the shared experience of others to help make the change. They also have opportunities to come together, check on progress, and get support around setbacks. That's what we need for climate change – to recover from our fuel addiction."


Progress on a small and local scale – such as saving a beloved local shop, voting in a councillor who will push green issues, or increasing local recycling rates – and even a desire to keep up with the Joneses ("if everybody's ditching the gas-guzzler, I'll do it, too") are far more effective motivators than media-inspired guilt and vague fears of an uncertain future, she adds.


Alex Steffen also believes in the need for a local, community focus. But he says that we need to be honest about the scale of the changes that have to be made, and to counter green fatigue by imbuing the fight against climate change with an almost heroic spirit.


"I don't think we need to sugar-coat the challenges we face," he says. "We just need to ask people to rise to their real potential, and see that this is our moment for greatness. If we create a sustainable future for everyone, it will be an accomplishment as great as winning the Second World War.


"Many environmentalists assume people won't do anything more than small steps, and hope those small steps will build the political will for more substantive changes. But history has shown a thousand times that "regular" people are capable of extraordinary courage, dedication and ingenuity when asked to answer the call. It's time we put out that call, rather than another marketing pitch."


The small actions that can make a big difference


* You've heard it before, but changing to energy-efficient light bulbs really can make a difference. Lighting uses 20 per cent of the world's electricity, the equivalent of burning 600,000 tons of coal a day. Phasing out old bulbs would avoid the release of 700 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year.

* Shop local. If your food shopping amounts to £100 a week, that's £5,200 a year that could be going into the pocket of a local butcher, grocer and baker, rather than the supermarket till. Imagine if 100 people in your area had the same idea.

* Is recycling really worth it? Yes. Recycling one glass jar saves enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for four hours. Glass can be reused an infinite number of times. Think of all the jars recycled in your street in a year.

* Recycling a ton of paper saves 17 trees and 7,000 gallons of water.

* Turning your thermostat down by two degrees can save 2,000 pounds of carbon every year.

Just imagine if everyone in your family and everyone in your office did it.

The Irish People Have Spoken: NO EU TREATY; EU Commission & US Democratic Congress BEWARE!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7453560.stm

Ireland rejects EU reform treaty

BBC News

June 13, 2008


Voters in the Irish Republic have rejected the European Union's Lisbon treaty in a vote by 53.4% to 46.6%.


The poll is a major blow to leaders in the 27-nation EU, which requires all its members to ratify the treaty. Only Ireland has held a public vote.


The European Commission says nations should continue to ratify the treaty, designed to streamline decision-making.


Irish PM Brian Cowen said he respected the vote but it had caused a "difficult situation" that had "no quick fix".


Leaders of the No campaign said the vote was a "great result for Ireland".

An earlier, more wide-ranging EU draft constitution failed after French and Dutch voters rejected it in 2005.


'Uncharted territory'


The Irish No campaign won by 862,415 votes to 752,451. Turnout was 53.1%.



Mr Cowen said: "The government accepts and respects the verdict of the Irish people."


He said he would work with other EU leaders to try to find an "agreed way forward" but that the bloc was in "uncharted territory".


At the end of the day, for a myriad of reasons, the people have spoken Dermot Ahern, Justice Minister "Ireland has no wish to halt the progress" of the EU, he said.


A referendum was mandatory in Ireland as the country would need to change its constitution to accommodate the treaty.


European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said he had spoken to Mr Cowen and agreed with him that this was not a vote against the EU.


"Ireland remains committed to a strong Europe," he said.


"Ratifications should continue to take their course."


France and Germany quickly issued a joint statement expressing regret over the Irish result.


British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said the UK would press on with ratification, saying: "It's right that we continue with our own process."


[THIS IS THE TYPICAL BRUSSELS/GERMANY/FRENCH RESPONSE: WHO CARES WHAT THE PEOPLE SAY?? THEY WILL LEARN THAT WE KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR THEM! WE SHALL EDUCATE THEM THROUGH REGULATION... See, e.g., UK Labor Party Willing to Give-Away Country's Sovereignty to EU; Does the US Democratic Party Wish to Do the Same for America??, ITSSD Journal on Pathological Communalism, at: http://itssdpathologicalcommunalism.blogspot.com/2008/04/uk-labor-party-willing-to-give-away.html ; Why Europe’s National Politicians Sign Away National Sovereignty , ITSSD Journal on Economic Freedom, at: http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-europes-national-politicians-sign.html ; Brussels' and Gordon Brown's Contempt for the European People, ITSSD Journal on Economic Freedom, at: http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/brussels-and-gordon-browns-contempt-for.html ; Forner UK Prime Minister Tony Blair Was Determined to Modify Public Behavior Through Claude Helvetius’ ‘Education Thru Legislation' Program, ITSSD Journal on Pathological Communalism, at: http://itssdpathologicalcommunalism.blogspot.com/2008/01/forner-uk-prime-minister-tony-blair-was.html ; Roger Helmer - UK Member of EU Parliament - "Straight Talking" Newsletter Dec. 2007, ITSSD Journal on Economic Freedom, at: http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/roger-helmer-uk-member-of-eu-parliament.html ; 11/6/07 E-mail Correspondences Between Roger Helmer UK Member of European Parliament & Lawrence Kogan, ITSSD CEO, ITSSD Journal on Economic Freedom, at: http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/11607-e-mail-correspondences-between.html .]


Spain has said a solution will be found but Czech President Vaclav Klaus said ratification could not now continue.


Mr Barroso said EU leaders would have to decide at a summit next week how to proceed. He called for the EU to continue focusing on issues of interest to people like jobs and inflation, energy security and climate change.


This is democracy in action... and Europe needs to listen to the voice of the people Declan Ganley, Libertas.

But BBC Europe editor, Mark Mardell, says this is a multiple crisis for the EU - a crisis of rule change, of legitimacy and of morale.


In the end, he says, the Lisbon treaty could be declared dead: some parts of it would be implemented without a treaty, others abandoned, others put in a new treaty when Croatia joins the EU in a couple of years time.

Declan Ganley of the anti-treaty lobby group Libertas said: "It is a great day for Irish democracy." He added: "This is democracy in action... and Europe needs to listen to the voice of the people."


The No campaign was a broad coalition ranging from Libertas to Sinn Fein, the only party in parliament to oppose the treaty.


Gerry Adams, the president of Sinn Fein, said: "People feel secure at the heart of Europe, but they want to ensure there's maximum democratic power."


Confusion


Correspondents say many voters did not understand the treaty despite a high-profile campaign led by Mr Cowen, which had the support of most of the country's main parties.


[ACTUALLY, THE VOTERS WELL UNDERSTOOD THE EU TREATY. IT WOULD DENY EUROPEANS THEIR NATURAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW & THE EU TREATY WOULD ALSO ATTENUATE THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS THROUGH MORE REGULATION & TAXATION. THE IRISH TO NOT WISH TO BE RULED BY BRUSSELS-BASED, SOCIAL WELFARE-STATE-DRIVEN 'PHILOSOPHER KINGS'.]


Jose Manuel Barroso said the EC respected the vote but had hoped for another outcome.


Mr Cowen accused the No camp of "misrepresentation", saying voters had voiced concern about "issues that clearly weren't in the treaty at all", the Irish Times reported.


The treaty, which is designed to help the EU cope with its expansion into eastern Europe, provides for a streamlining of the European Commission, the removal of the national veto in more policy areas, a new president of the European Council and a strengthened foreign affairs post.


[THE EU TREATY MANDATES SURRENDER OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY BY EU MEMBER STATES VIA THE REMOVAL OF THE NATIONAL VETO...]


The treaty was due to come into force on 1 January 2009.


Fourteen countries out of the 27 have completed ratification so far.


Just over three million Irish voters are registered - in a European Union of 490 million people.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EU Brussels and National Government Elite Continue to Express Contempt for What the European People Want!!


http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91211-1318932,00.html?f=rss

EU Treaty 'Not Dead' Despite Irish Vote


Sky News


June 14, 2008


European governments have pledged to continue implementing the EU reform treaty, despite its rejection by Irish voters.


More than half those who cast their ballots said 'No' to the Lisbon Treaty, which requires the support of all 27 EU members.


The Irish Prime Minister says there will be no second referendum - which could result in the treaty being scrapped altogether.


Official results of the treaty referendum showed out of some 1.6m votes cast, 53.4% people said No, while 46.6% said Yes.


The vote means the reforms will no longer come into force on January 1, 2009 as planned. "In theory this should kill the treaty dead," said Sky's political correspondent Glen Oglaza.


"The European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso said during the course of this campaign that there is no Plan B.


"Euro-sceptics are pointing out that this was already Plan B - the failed European Constitution was Plan A.


"They want to know how far down the alphabet we are going to go."


However, Mr Barroso argued that despite the referendum outcome, the treaty was "not dead". He said he had spoken to Ireland's Premier Brian Cowen and that "he also believed the treaty is not dead, the treaty is alive".


Mr Cowen, whose Fianna Fail party supported a Yes vote, said he was disappointed but the judgment of the Irish people must be respected.


Irish PM after result announced


"In a democracy, the will of the people - as expressed at the ballot box - is sovereign," he said.
But he added: "We must not rush to conclusions. The Union has been in this situation before and each time has found an agreed way forward."


Gerry Adams, whose Sinn Fein party urged voters to reject the reform, told Sky News: "It's a very good day for Europe and a very good day for Ireland."


The 'No' vote will cause a major headache as it was designed to streamline decision-making for the enlarged EU's 27 member states.


Ireland was the only country to hold a public vote on the Treaty because it would have had to amend its national constitution to enact it.


Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Britain would continue its process of ratifying the Lisbon treaty, despite the setback in Ireland.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2122996/EU-referendum-Ireland-votes-against-Lisbon-Treaty.html

EU referendum: Ireland votes against Lisbon Treaty


By Tom Peterkin in Dublin


UK Telegraph


June 13, 2008


Irish voters have left Brussels' plans for EU integration in tatters by rejecting the Lisbon Treaty.


Even before all the official Ireland referendum results were announced, Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission, conceded that the public had voted against the Treaty.


But despite the result, he still called on other member states to ratify the Treaty. "I believe the treaty is alive and we should now try to find a solution," he said in Brussels.


Dermot Ahern, Ireland's justice minister, said: “At the end of the day, for a myriad of reasons, the people have spoken.”


The result is bad news for Ireland's leader, Taoiseach Brian Cowen, who will have some tough explaining to do when he faces EU leaders at the European Council summit next week in Brussels.


Mr Ahern said he became somewhat despondent and surprised at the opposition to the treaty in the final days of canvassing.


The minister believes high numbers of women rejected the EU deal because of fears over army conscription in a new military alliance.


At the major ballot-counting center in Dublin, Finance Minister Brian Lenihan struggled to speak to reporters as anti-treaty activists jubilantly drowned him out with songs and chants of "No!"


"This is a huge rebuff to the political establishment. It shows there is massive distrust among ordinary working people," said Joe Higgins, the sole Socialist Party member in the Irish parliament.


The decision places massive doubt over the future of the pact designed to bring more European integration.


All 27 European member states have to ratify the treaty for it to go come into force next year. So far it has been approved by 18 members including Britain, but Ireland is the only country to put it to a public vote.


The leaders of the 26 other member states watched with dismay as Ireland voted “no”, a decision that will inevitably lead to much infighting and bickering across Europe.


The main Irish political parties, including Taoiseach Mr Cowen's leading government party Fianna Fail, have fought hard for a Yes vote, with Sinn Fein campaigning against the Treaty.


Despite benefiting from £32 billion in European Grants in recent years, a low turn-out (45 per cent) of the Irish electorate discarded the Treaty, designed to streamline the EU.


The outcome was triumph for a highly-effective No Campaign masterminded by the Libertas group led by the multimillionaire Declan Ganley. Libertas argued that the Treaty would undermine Ireland’s influence in Europe, would open the door to interference in taxation and enshrine EU law above Irish law.


For Brian Cowen, the newly-installed Irish Prime Minister, the result was a disaster. All the main political parties, aside from Sinn Fein, had supported the Treaty and made strenuous efforts to win the referendum.


Mr Cowen now has to face the embarrassment of explaining to his fellow European leaders why he failed to persuade his nation to adopt the Treaty.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2008/06/ireland_snubs_the_eu.html

Ireland Snubs the EU


By Conor O’Clery


Irish voters, making up a fraction of one per cent of the population of the European Union, have rejected a crucial EU reform treaty by a narrow margin, leaving itself isolated in Europe and the European Union in crisis.


The result stopped in its tracks an accord hammered out in Lisbon, Portugal, to enable European institutions to cope with a rapid EU growth to 27 countries with a population of 495 million people.


The outcome, announced yesterday afternoon, of the referendum held Thursday dismayed and angered governments across Europe, which saw their tortuous negotiations to make EU institutions more efficient thrown into disarray.


The Lisbon Treaty had to be ratified by every country before coming into effect and EU leaders must now find some other way for European integration to go ahead. Twenty-six countries left ratification to their national governments and only Ireland, with 3.05 million voters, staged a referendum, as required under its constitution.


British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will now face furious domestic pressure to hold a once-promised referendum rather than continue to ratify the treaty through parliament. Ireland can only hope that Britain will also reject the treaty: a small country saying no is a problem for the small country, but a big country saying no is a problem for Brussels.


The vote is a slap in the face for the French Government whose foreign minister Bernard Kouchner warned Ireland on Monday that it would be very troubling “that we would not be able to count on the Irish who counted a lot on Europe's money.” Such comments, implying that an ungrateful Ireland would be cast adrift, sounded like bullying to many Irish voters.


What has left veteran European observers scratching their heads in genuine bewilderment is that Ireland of all countries should rebuff the EU, as membership of the European club has allowed Ireland to prosper mightily and to escape from the shadow of Britain, its former ruler.


The result confounded and infuriated the Irish political establishment, which had thrown all its energies into securing a “Yes” vote. The government, the major opposition parties and the biggest labor and farming unions all campaigned for ratification.


It also confounded Ireland’s leading gambling company, Paddy Power PLC, which was so convinced of the outcome it prematurely paid out winnings to people who bet on a ‘Yes’ vote, leaving the company left with “egg on our faces” as a spokeswoman put it.


Irish prime minister Brian Cowen put his personal prestige on delivering a “Yes” vote and is also left with egg on his face. Seemingly unaware how compromised the Irish political class has been by corruption allegations and failures to cope with internal problems such as a dysfunctional health service, he and other government ministers erected posters on every Irish lamp post with their portraits, urging a “Yes” vote.


Opponents of the treaty in Europe cheered on the Irish ‘No” campaign, and British newspapers circulating in Ireland, like the Rupert Murdoch-owned Times, campaigned against ratification, leading to accusations from the “Yes” campaign that Britain's Eurosceptics were waging a proxy war in Ireland.


For the anti-EU Europeans, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, never has so much been done, by so few, for so many, as the Irish have scuppered a treaty which would likely have been rejected by the electorates of several other member countries.


One reason for the “No” vote was that the 287-page document was so full of bureaucratic language that people did not know what they were voting for. The treaty proved impenetrable even to legal experts: the chairman of the independent Irish Referendum Commission, Iarfhlaith O Neill, was embarrassingly unable to answer a technical point at a press conference last week.


[EU BUREAUCRATIC DOUBLESPEAK, LACK OF TRANSPARENCY & ACCOUNTABILITY, and A SENSE OF ELITISM.]


In an ill-tempered national debate, both sides threw around accusation of lies and distortions. A free-market organisation called Libertas formed by Irish businessman Declan Ganley argued that the country’s low corporate tax rate, crucial for international investment, would be jeopardized by the treaty.


The pro-life lobby expressed fears that a loss of sovereignty could mean the end of Ireland’s strict anti-abortion law.


The minor opposition party, Sinn Fein, stirred up concerns that Ireland would lose its cherished neutrality and become part of a militarized Europe. Some voters said they thought they were voting against conscription.


Opponents also argued that Ireland’s influence in Europe would be weakened through the loss its commissioner on the European Commission, the de facto European cabinet, for five out of every 15 years.


The government rejected all these claims, and pointed out that every EU member country would lose their commissioner for similar periods. But as Irish radio presenter Pat Kenny put it, the “No” campaign had all the best tunes.


Anticipating the outcome, the Irish Times thundered its disapproval on Saturday in an editorial headed “Are we out of our minds?” Seeking an explanation for a likely defeat it reflected on “a strange public mood out there that is anti-establishment, anti-authority and anti-politician.”


Ireland’s foreign minister Micheál Martin admitted the result showed a disconnect between EU institutions and its people. Martin, who has to face his fellow EU foreign ministers on Monday to explain what happened, admitted “There was a general sense we were giving away too much power.”


Ireland may try again as it did with a previous EU treaty when it held two referenda in 2001 and 2002 to get a “Yes” vote, but such a move would only confirm the argument that European democracy means everyone agreeing to what the bureaucrats decide.


Conor O'Clery is former chief foreign correspondent of The Irish Times, Ireland's leading national newspaper.

Universalizing the U.S. Constitution and its Accompanying Bill of Rights, Which Together Remain the Only Truly Enforced Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1210866222.shtml


ITSSD Response to:


Global Governance vs. Liberal Democracy? We are Going to Have to Choose, by John Fonte


OPINIO JURIS


May 18, 2008


Global Governance vs. Liberal Democracy? We are going to have to choose
by John Fonte


I want to thank Peter for inviting me to participate in this discussion. It has been very useful and clarifying. I will close with a few thoughts. Peter's book addresses what will become the major issue of world politics in the 21st century and I'm grateful for his efforts. He has made a strong descriptive case (as has Alex and others), but, in the end, we are all moral human beings interested in the normative.


What we are talking about is the ultimate normative question of politics going back to Plato and Aristotle: who shall govern? For many among Western elites the big idea of the coming century will be how do go beyond the nation-state and national citizenship and create some new form of global governance. In my view (and I realize I'm in a minority in this discussion) global governance (as it has been articulated to date) presents a direct challenge to the legitimacy and authority of the liberal democratic nation-state in general and to American constitutional sovereignty in particular. It is not possible, in my view, to have the new forms of post-national global governance (that have been described in our exchanges) and have, at the same time, constitutional democratic government. At the end of the day, we must choose global governance or liberal democracy?


I choose liberal democracy and its only real historical home, the liberal democratic nation-state as the highest political authority, above any international institution or laws. This is a universal principle and American foreign policy should apply this universally, speaking not simply for American democratic sovereignty, but for the democratic sovereignty of other liberal democratic states as well in arguments over, for example, the International Criminal Court (ICC). Particularly, we should speak up for and protect those democratic nation-states that are under pressure from transnational institutions and forces such as Israel and the Czech Republic (non-ratifiers of the ICC). I will be addressing these issues in my forthcoming (2009) book, Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves or be Ruled by Others? (Encounter Books). Thanks Peter. 05.15.2008 at 11:43am


(link)Ron Moss (mail) (www):

Of course global governance presents a direct challenge to the nation-state, just as the formation of tribes presented a challenge to clans and the formation of nations presented a challenge to tribes. It does not present a challenge to democracy. The question is how are Human Rights best served? Individual Human Rights must be the foundation of all governance. The world has become globalized but is not governed globally. We are a world community, like it or not. How can we address climate change other than on a global basis? How can we allow the free flow of capital without global accounting and disclosure standards? How can we protect oppressed peoples other than on a global basis? As the US Constitution says, each human being has rights that no government can take away. No sovereignty, global or local, should be recognized that deprives human beings of their rights.

5.15.2008 2:17pm


(link)nightstallion:

Absolute nonsense. There is no single good reason why the US, Israel and Czechia should not ratify the ICC Statute, period.
5.16.2008 6:39am


(link)Lawrence Kogan (mail) (www):

I believe that Mr. Fonte is correct in his assertion that Americans are not ready or willing to concede the obsolecence of the nation state in furtherance of greater global governance. In fact, they are more likely to object to such a movement than is being represented by the globalists.


I previously engaged in a dialogue with Peter Spiro about the hierarchy of law within the US. I insisted that a treaty is of the same legal significance within the US as is a federal statute (i.e., a legislative promulgation of Congress), and that both are lesser in legal significance than is the U.S. Constitution. In other words, in the case of a conflict, the US Constitution trumps both a federal statute AND a treaty. This truism is absolute insofar as the Supreme Court has ruled that a treaty, like a federal statute, cannot contravene the Constitution and its Bill of Rights and remain legally valid for purposes of US law.


Of course, Peter, being a revisionist, disagrees with this outcome. And, based on his prior statements to me, he endeavors to reinterpret US case precedent and the original intent of the US Constitution (particularly its federal treaty-making clause) for the purpose of facilitating greater US legal harmonization with foreign national and international laws.


There are a number of reasons why the citizens of the U.S., boasting the world's oldest functioning representative democracy, truly a republic, should be reluctant to subject themselves to the evolving bureaucratic institutions of global governance that lack significant checks and balances and public accountability. Chief among the reasons why Americans should resist integration within such institutions, is that such institutions do not recognize, reflect and embody the primacy of natural individual rights, as embodied and incorporated within the U.S. Constitution, its accompanying Bill of Rights and the U.S. Declaration of Independence.


The ICC, like most other international institutions, is at best a compromise between the competing common law vs. civil law institutions of Anglo-American and Continental legal systems. And, we can all see how 'well-functioning' and respectful of individual rights the emerging EU regional Continental legal system is, especially considering how the European national and regional politicians have handled the EU Constitution/EU Treaty issue. In a nutshell, the politicians along with the national and regional governmental bureaucrats trampled on the individual rights of European citizens by misrepresenting the nature of the new treaty, following the prior failed public referenda in 2005. Fortunately, Giscard D'Estaing publicly admitted that the Treaty was merely a subterfuge - a restated and reorganized EU Constitution that the politicans and bureaucrats were trying to cram down the national legislatures without public consent - rule BY law (or rule of MEN).


This continuing disrespect for the rule OF law is symptomatic of European Continental law. While they give lip service to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other lofty instruments, they do NOT practice what they preach. For example, European scholars readily admit that under the Continental legal system, guilt is presumed before innocence in the event of an alleged violation of civil or criminal law (e.g., one need only review the bases and modus operandi undertaken in the recent antitrust raids in Europe), whereas under the Anglo-American system, the opposite is true (i.e., the government must show 'probable cause' to issue a warrant). Also, European scholars readily admit that exclusive private property rights are 'negative' rights under the Anglo-American legal system (i.e., contra the rights of other property holders and of the government,) whereas, under the Continental legal system, property rights are deemed as 'positive' rights subject to governmental override when government considers them to be inconsistent with the public/social interest. Hence, European scholars acknowledge that property rights in Europe are ATTENTUATED. I would be pleased to provide Peter with the growing scholarship in this area if he requires a bit of persuasion.


The UN/EU philosophy of climate change as the sin qua non justification for greater global goverance perhaps reflects the greatest attempted mass fraud on the human race ever conceived since the Marxist and Nazi eras. When one looks closely at the emerging regulatory instrument of choice i.e., the nontransparent and overly complex GHG emissions cap &trade system, one can clearly see how no specific emissions reductions achieved by particular emitters can be guaranteed, how the major GHG brokerages on Wall Street and in London's financial district will be the ones to make most of the money, and how energy, goods and services prices of consumers on both sides of the Atlantic will significantly rise, all in the name of 'global governance'. The whole purpose behind a nontransparent regulatory instrument such as this is 'burden sharing' - UN/EU speak for wealth redistribution.


While the world has become more integrated and the interests of diverse peoples have become more closely aligned than ever before, this does NOT suggest that only ONE analyis, ONE solution and/or one set of 'standards' is called for. Nor does it suggest that the only model of governance to address global issues is that of a massive supranational global regulatory welfare state that incorporates values found within EU Continental law and cultural preferences that place the individual secondary to society. Despite my disagreement with Mr. Moss's and Mr. Spiro's proposed global governance prescriptions, I do agree with Mr. Moss' statement concerning the US Constitution. "As the US Constitution says, each human being has rights that no government can take away. No sovereignty, global or local, should be recognized that deprives human beings of their rights."


Now, if globalists wish cover up these and other distinctions in order to 'sell' their brand of Global Governance, they should be well aware that there a number of us out there who will continue to point out and press them on issues that must first be resolved before the US engages in any further global integration. Americans must be educated by Congress about what is at stake. If the globalists are as confident about their new world system as they claim to be, then they should be willing to put their words on the public record for Americans to see. Americans must be ensured that they are to retain at the very least the same rights and opportunities to which they are entitled under the US Constitution and its accompanying Bill of Rights, which was and remains the only truly enforced Declaration of Human Rights. Nothing less would be acceptable.

The U.S. Constitution and its accompanying Bill of Rights remains the only bulwark against the creeping international laws and bureaucratic institutions of the supranational global governance movement. Since that movement seeks to establish the primacy of the global public good over the private good, it would behoove us all if we were to help Americans to quickly become reacquainted with these founding documents and the European history (i.e., the Enlightenment Era) from which they arose.

5.18.2008 12:39pm

European Dream Only a Fantasy, as Europeans' Quality of Life Falls Precipitously

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/business/worldbusiness/01middle.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


For Europe’s Middle-Class, Stagnant Wages Stunt Lifestyle


By CARTER DOUGHERTY and KATRIN BENNHOLD


New York Times


May 1, 2008


LES ULIS, France — When their local bakery in this town south of Paris raised the price of a baguette for the third time in six months, Anne-Laure Renard and Guy Talpot bought a bread maker. When gasoline became their biggest single expense, they sold one of their two cars.


Their combined annual income of 40,000 euros, about $62,500, lands Ms. Renard, a teacher, and Mr. Talpot, a postal worker, smack in the middle of France’s middle class. And over the last year, prices in France have risen four times as fast as their salaries.


At the end of every month, they blow past their bank account’s $900 overdraft limit, plunging themselves deeper into a spiral of greater resourcefulness and regret.


“In France, when you can’t afford a baguette anymore, you know you’re in trouble,” Ms. Renard said one recent evening in her kitchen, as her partner measured powdered milk for their 13-month-old son, Vincent. “The French Revolution started with bread riots.”


The European dream is under assault, as the wave of inflation sweeping the globe mixes with this continent’s long-stagnant wages. Families that once enjoyed Europe’s vaunted quality of life are pinching pennies to buy necessities, and cutting back on extras like movies and vacations abroad.


[THE EUROPEAN DREAM WAS AT BEST A FANTASY, AT WORST, AN OUTRIGHT LIE]


Potentially more disturbing — especially to the political and social order — are the millions across the continent grappling with the realization that they may have lives worse, not better, than their parents.


“I have this feeling that there is a wall in front of us,” said Axel Marceau, a 41-year-old schoolteacher living outside of Frankfurt. “We’re just not going to get any further.”


His concerns are well-founded. A study by the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin found that the broad middle of the German work force, defined as workers making from 70 to 150 percent of the median income, shrunk to 54 percent of the population last year, from 62 percent in 2000.


Mr. Marceau’s father had a teaching job that afforded the family upward mobility, from owning a home to fancy ski vacations. But today, Mr. Marceau said, a new class of bankers, executives and other high earners has taken over. “I feel like we’ve been in a slow process of losing to the people up top,” he said.


“No one thought during the 1980s that they could possibly belong to a group of people who slide down the social scale,” said Markus Grabka, an economist at the institute for economic research. “No one had existential angst of the sort you have today.”


To be sure, Europe’s middle class is still larger than the number of people at risk of falling into poverty — and, by many measures, more protected than the American middle class. But policy makers worry that could change as the European economy starts to feel the drag of an American slowdown and high inflation.


[OF COURSE, EUROPEANS BLAME THE AMERICANS FOR THEIR OWN POLICY FAILINGS]


“The problem,” said Julián Cubero, chief economist for Spain for BBVA, a leading Spanish bank, “is that if your salary rises more slowly than the cost of products you buy on a daily basis, you feel poorer every day.”


That simmering concern turned into anger last week in Britain. Striking teachers closed schools for the first time in two decades, protesting pay packages that did not keep pace with the soaring cost of living. Proposed raises were about 2.5 percent, while food has risen 7 percent and oil costs have surged 20 percent in Britain since this time last year.


The teachers’ rallying cry was just the latest to echo across the Continent.


German workers from several industries waged a series of strikes last month demanding a greater piece of the economic pie after years of being asked to make salary concessions — flexibility that, some economists argue, has helped a leaner, meaner Europe stave off recession so far.


In France, where purchasing power has replaced unemployment as Public Enemy No. 1, unions representing workers from teachers to factory workers have taken to the streets in protest.


This month, thousands of European workers converged on the capital of Slovenia, which currently holds the European Union’s rotating presidency.


[PERHAPS, THESE WORKERS SHOULD RELY LESS ON SO-CALLED UNION BENEFITS, AND CONCENTRATE MORE ON SELF-HELP. RELIANCE ON OTHERS BREEDS RENT-SEEKING AND LESS THAN OPTIMAL PERFORMANCE]


Quantifying the squeeze on Europe’s middle class is tricky; there is no universal definition of middle class, and national agencies differ on how they calculate purchasing power, making cross-border comparisons difficult.


Tallying inflation is simpler: Since 1999, prices have risen 22.5 percent in the 27 member states of the European Union, and 18.8 percent in the 15 countries that use the euro.


Much of the declining purchasing power of European workers can be traced to those numbers, and to policy decisions and economic developments over the last decade when globalization began to reshape Europe and the world.


[THESE ARE SEEDS OF ANTI-AMERICANISM - AMERICA IS BEING IDENTIFIED AS THE CAUSE OF GLOBALIZATION. IS EUROPE'S SOLUTION TO GLOBALIZATION THE NEGATIVE MALTHUSIAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL GLOBAL GOVERNANCE IT IS NOW PROMOTING AT THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHER MULTILATERAL FORA???]


In Germany, Europe’s largest economy, the decline in purchasing power began in 2000, when employers started wresting wage concessions from unions, or simply shifting jobs to Eastern Europe and China.


[CORRECTION, GERMANY AND ITALY STARTED INVESTING IN CHINESE FACTORIES DURING THE 1990'S, ESPECIALLY IN THE TEXTILE, CERAMICS, CASTING AND OTHER LABOR-INTENSIVE MANUFACTURING SECTORS.]


Inflation-adjusted incomes rose from 1 percent to 2 percent in the late 1990s, but more than one million Germans lost full-time jobs during and after a recession in 2000 and 2001.


Subsequently, workweeks got longer without extra pay, and from 2004 through 2007, inflation outpaced income increases for the average family.


In France, the 35-hour workweek kept average annual pay increases below 1 percent for nearly a decade, said Robert Rochefort, the director general of Credoc, an organization in Paris that researches living standards. But French hypermarkets — big-box supermarkets that dominate the retail market — kept prices high, he said.


Spain generated thousands of jobs by pumping up the housing market, but has undergone a joblessness jump since the turmoil in real estate markets while wages have been consumed by inflation.


“When I started working at 23, I earned almost the same wage that I earn now,” said María Salgado, a 37-year-old director of television documentaries living in Madrid. Fourteen years ago, her monthly salary of about 1,200 euros ($1,873), bankrolled a full social life.


No longer. “The well-to-do middle class has become the tight middle class,” she said. “I’m surprised we haven’t started a revolution.”


Instead, Ms. Salgado cut her fish purchases to once a week, switched to supermarket brands and away from health-food stores, and halved her visits to the psychotherapist. She spends some weekends with her children, Violeta, 9, and Juan, 4, at her ex-husband’s parents’ home in the countryside — a stressful arrangement, but one that enables her to avoid expensive weekends in Madrid.


“Violeta asked me, ‘Mama, are we poor?’ I said, ‘No, we’re not poor,’ ” Ms. Salgado recalled, laughing. “But the middle class used to live well. And if you have lived well, it’s hard to live so badly.”


Stagnant pay and soaring prices have hit Italy hardest. Recent statistics from the country’s main shopkeepers’ union showed consumer spending was down 1.1 percent in January from a year earlier, the biggest drop in three years. Leisure and recreation spending fell 5.5 percent.


Francesca Di Pietro, a secretary, and her partner, Gianluca Pompei, a project manager, are part of that trend. Since their son, Mario, was born nearly two years ago, they have spent little on entertainment.


“I’ve become anxious about unexpected expenses,” Ms. Di Pietro said. To stretch their monthly income of about 2,500 euros ($3,900), the couple has been getting hair cuts at the local beauty school, packing a lunch for work, buying secondhand clothes in market stalls and vacationing at campsites instead of hotels.


They have abandoned their dream of living in central Rome, from an outlying neighborhood.


“I look at people on the bus and they seem sad and beaten down,” said Ms. Di Pietro, referring to Italy’s malaise. “We’re 40 years old. We should be feeling more combative, but really all we feel is frustrated.”


Some European governments are promising relief, but their ability to curb inflation or raise pay is limited.


Italy’s warring political coalitions both ran in last month’s elections promising to lighten the financial burden of average Italians. Their proposals ranged from eliminating unpopular real estate taxes to subsidizing dental care.


In France, the administration of President Nicolas Sarkozy is, among other things, looking into charges of price gouging by food merchants.


German leaders are considering lower taxes. It may not be enough.


Frustrated unions are taking tougher stances in wage talks. Public sector employees, as well as workers in the steel and chemical industries, have recently won wage increases.


“The idea that ‘I will sacrifice to save my job’ is dying,” said Ralf Berchthold, a spokesman with Ver.di, the largest services union in Germany. “People are ready to fight now.”


Carter Dougherty reported from Frankfurt, and Katrin Bennhold from Paris. Victoria Burnett contributed reporting from Madrid, and Elisabetta Povoledo from Rome.