Target Centermass

Day: April 23, 2005

  • Oui or Non, EU Constitution Will Persist

    Even if the French vote down the European Union’s proposed constitution, which may well happen next month and would theoretically doom the proposal, its supporters in the EU have a plan to carry on with the ratification process.

    The key to their “Plan B” is to insist that countries due to hold votes later this year – or even next year, like Britain – carry on regardless of the result in France until all 25 member states have been given a chance to ratify the treaty.

    On the surface, there is no basis for holding further referendums if the French vote No. The draft European Union constitution must be ratified by all member states, and a French No should effectively kill the treaty.

    However, the EU was not built by letting details like No votes sway its founding fathers from their mission. After the Maastricht Treaty was voted down in Denmark and Ireland, both countries were invited to vote again, and finally voted Yes.

    “No means no” has no meaning to the EU. Instead it means keep plying the subject with drinks until the subject slurs yes or passes out. Either is taken as acquiescence and means that the EU can have its way and then proceed to its next target.

    Faced with 21 consecutive opinion polls showing the No camp ahead in France, pro-constitution EU leaders have begun asserting that there is a moral, political and even a legal obligation to carry on voting – an argument aimed squarely at Britain.

    Reversing his previous categorical assurances that a referendum would be held in Britain come what may, Tony Blair is now hinting at a change of course. He said on Monday that if France were to reject the constitutional treaty on May 29 there might be nothing for the British electorate to vote on.

    Jean-Claude Juncker, the prime minister of Luxembourg, whose tiny nation holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, said: “The French vote is important but I don’t believe it should stop the ratification process under way in other countries.”

    A vote that should, in theory, derail the constitution is “important but” not enough to stop the process. Trust me, in the eyes of the EU supporters, no votes in all 25 countries would be a “hurdle but” nothing that couldn’t be overcome.

    Senior eurocrats have started murmuring that Britain and other waverers are obliged to continue the ratification process.

    Their argument is founded on an obscure declaration tacked on to the end of the draft constitution that says that if, by December 2006, four fifths of the 25 states have ratified the treaty but “one of more member states have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification”, then “the matter will be referred” to a summit of EU heads of state and government.

    Ah yes, the little-known codicil that will allow them to place non-ratifying countries on double-secret probation.

    Françoise le Bail, the chief spokesman of the commission, yesterday insisted that such a summit could only gauge the true depth of EU support for the constitution if voting continued, making that clause “the tangible element, if you will, that seems to suggest that the process of ratification should continue to the end”.

    Her analysis is not shared by all EU governments. One EU diplomat said: “It’s obvious that if the French vote No there will be an immediate discussion between the governments. If President Chirac says the French won’t vote twice, then the idea that other countries are going to go on to ratify is laughable. For one thing, how exactly do you go about winning a Yes campaign in another country, if the French have made clear they are going to veto the constitution at the end?”

    It is my opinion that this diplomat has not read the writing on the wall. This constitution will, one way or another, be ratified in its current or a very slightly modified form. The national referendums are only a formality, one especially easily overcome if the EU can get 20 yes votes by December 2006.

    This is not exactly without precedent. The United States’ Articles of Confederation required approval by all states for amendment. However, the Constitution set is own lower barrier for acceptance, declaring the Articles moot and itself the supreme law of the land at the approval of only nine of the thirteen states. The EU’s proposed constitution has set itself up for a similar maneuver, though I don’t expect the reward to be anywhere near as great for following generations who will live under its law.

  • Watsamadder with Kids These Days?

    Well, nothing really, generally speaking. It’s a question that has been bemoaned for generations and will be for generations to come. Still, that doesn’t mean there isn’t some occasional jackassery that needs questioning.

    Should women love their vaginas? Yes, especially if the women in question are hot. Should high school girls wear buttons advertising said love in school? Hell no. And Guy over at Snugg Harbor also doesn’t think so. And with conviction (don’t just skip over the beginning stuff about the hosed state of math instruction).

    There are two female high schoolers in Winona, Minnesota. Both are excelling in their studies, and up to now, were exemplary in their standings in school.

    Well, it seems one of the two, had seen the theatrical production of “The Vagina Monologues”. She came away with a very positive feeling about the play’s message, and in talking to her friend, passed those positive feelings on to her. In fact, they were both so positive about the event, they chose to wear buttons to school which said “I Love (big red heart) My Vagina”.

    There was one school official, who worked in the schools administration, took strong exception to the buttons, and reported same. There was also a teacher of one of the girls who would not let the young lady into class should she be wearing the button. The bottom line is both were told they faced suspension should they continue to wear the buttons. They have continued to do so, and countered with the administrations actions being in violation of, you guessed it, their “constitutional right to free speech.”

    It seems the ACLU has also started to take an interest in this, which should send red flags (no pun intended) up about what should be the correct way to deal with this.

    In my perfect world, here is what should be done. (And would have been, done in real life, 40-50 years ago.)

    Guy goes on to explain and justify his ideal solution to the matter. The weakness of Guy’s stance is that it’s based upon real-life experience, tried-and-true educational practices and common sense. These are all things viewed as mere impediments to be overcome by the ACLU and, unfortunately, many of today’s judicial rulings. Go read and feel free to chime in on his comments.

    But, hey, enough about kids at school. How about those afterschool video game sessions? Well, lucky for them there’s the game Narc, wherein they can learn that doing drugs can assist in fighting crime.

    In the first-person video game “Narc,” published by Midway, you play an undercover police officer busting drug dealers.

    Except in this game, your cop character can take the drugs he confiscates — and the illicit substances can enhance performance.

    Narc’s publishers at Midway say the game is all about choices, and the consequences of those choices. The following is an excerpt of a statement released to CNN by the company’s chief marketing officer, Steve Allison:

    “The drugs in Narc affect game play — addiction, and crime and punishment are predominant themes in the story. Ultimately, the players who choose to take drugs will face consequences; they will experience the highs and lows of this culture, but following this path will ultimately lead to failure.”

    […]

    “I would normally say ‘just say no’ to drugs, except in this case they’ve been replaced for power-ups. If you were playing Super Mario Bros., a ‘magic mushroom’ would make you bigger and more powerful. Here, it’s kind of the same theory,” says video game reviewer Scott Steinberg.

    Marijuana, as you light a virtual joint and take a long drag, causes the screen to become a hazy green. The drug slows time for criminals in the game, allowing your cop character to chase down and arrest them easier.

    LSD helps differentiate friend from foe, so your character knows whom to confront; allies grow wacky court jester heads, and enemies become devil-headed cartoons. Trippy music and psychedelic colors accompany your computer-generated acid trip.

    Other drugs in Narc include speed, ecstasy and crack. Crack, after the distinct sound of someone huffing on a pipe, gives players a one-shot-one-kill skill. Your crackhead cop character suddenly becomes an expert marksman.

    Drug use may give you super powers in the game, but abuse can cause addiction. Protodone — the game’s version of methodone, can curb your cravings. Otherwise, addiction can lead to withdrawal.

    But unlike real-life, you can kick your virtual habit after a few skillful clicks on the game controller.

    Great lesson. I guess it’s a good thing an M-rating will keep all kids from playing this beauty. Wait, the M-rating is actually just an enticement, but we won’t deal with that reality.

    As an aside, today’s video games may seem more real and graphically far superior to the old-school games of my youth, but they really do seem to lack a key element the old games possessed — fun.