It has been interesting to watch the reaction in Ireland to the discovery that there has been horse meat mixed into some burger patties sold here.
Of course, there is always cause for concern when something shows up in your food which wasn’t meant to be there. The idea that the authorities cannot tell you for sure what is in your food and where it came from is, to say the least, worrisome. On the other hand, there is something reassuring that authorities did, in routine inspections, manage to pick up on what seem to be traces of non-beef DNA.
But the concern and outrage went beyond quality control procedures. As I heard one fellow on the radio argue it, many people consider it immoral to eat a horse. For a lot of people, it is as distasteful as eating a dog or a cat is for most westerners.
The contamination also extends to the United Kingdom, and I can truly understand the upset over there. The English nearly worship their horses, as you can tell from watching equestrian events at the Olympics and movies set in the English countryside.
Personally, in the case of the Irish, I suspect that it also has to do with the idea that, when horses wind up on the dinner table, there are fewer of them around to wager on.
I confess to being just a bit amused by the brouhaha. It brings back memories of the year I spent in Bordeaux as a student. In the student cafeteria, we got served horse meat about once a week. It wasn’t half bad and was prepared not unlike a burger patty. In our self-conscious student Franglais, we Americans dubbed them cheval burgers.
I ate a lot of things in France that I hadn’t been accustomed to previously. I never warmed up much to cow brains, tripe or blood sausage. I used to envy the Moslem students on the days they served us boudin, as the sausage was called. To accommodate their religious beliefs, they were served ravioli instead. I asked to get the same thing, but the imperious food staff wouldn’t serve anyone ravioli if they couldn’t make a credible case that they were Moslem or Jewish.
One thing that most of the other Americans couldn’t stomach was cow’s tongue. For some reason, the very idea of it put them off. Maybe it was the sight of the taste buds on top. Me, I had no problem with it because, by that point in my life, tongue was one of my favorite things. It was a regular appetizer at the Basque restaurants I used to frequent in East Bakersfield with my family and with my best friend Eric.
The Basque tongue I had was always sliced very thin and pickled. The tongue I had in Bordeaux was cut thicker and had a completely different, thicker kind of sauce over it. It was different than I was expecting, and that disappointed me. But I happily ate all of it, which disgusted the other Americans.
Basque food was one of the two types of cuisine I missed the most during that year abroad. The other was Mexican. I could find Basque restaurants in Bordeaux, but the food was nothing like the food I had had in Bakersfield. Mexican food, on the other hand, was nowhere to be found. During the entire year, I found only two self-described Mexican restaurants in Europe. One was in Madrid, and all I remember about it was the food was extremely dark and hot. The other restaurant was in London, and it was actually a bit better than the Madrid one, but not by much.
In the 1990s, when I went back to Paris after many years, I was amused to find there were actually Mexican-theme chain restaurants. The best Mexican restaurant I have found in France to date is in Cannes.
Mexican food was not the only thing I was missing during my student year in France that I found in Madrid. Following rumors, some American friends and I sought out a bar that had the feel of a speakeasy. It had something we had not been able to find anywhere else in France or Spain: root beer. The rumors said that it was illegal in Europe and had to be smuggled in. I doubt if that was true, but it made the root beer taste even better.
That’s a memory that came back to me last year when someone turned me on to the new “American shop” in Galway. Mainly a sweet shop, it has a section catering to homesick Yanks. There on the shelf I found—next to the Froot Loops, Hershey chocolate syrup, Kraft Macaroni & Cheese and Libby pumpkin pie filling—was good old A&W Root Beer.
I had forgotten I was even missing it.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Thursday, December 13, 2012
A Tale of Two Budgets
There was a time in my life when I thought the United States would be better off with a parliamentary system of government—instead of the presidential system that it has had for 223 years.
I expect that most people who spend much time thinking about politics have played the game that I have. It goes like this: if I were in charge of the world, how would I rewrite my country’s constitution so that things would work better? Right now a lot of people must be playing this game, as they watch the dysfunctional Kabuki theater that is the current congressional lame duck session.
If you are like me, you will be very happy when we get to the point where we don’t hear the phrase fiscal cliff every time a newscast comes on. The economist and commentator Irwin Stelzer had a better term yesterday evening on BCC radio. He said, aptly, that a better metaphor would be a fiscal bungee jump.
After spending a year in Europe as a student, I became enamored of the parliamentary system. Here are some of that system’s attractive qualities. Election campaigns are mercifully brief—mainly because usually no one knows for sure when the next parliamentary election will be until a few weeks before. You do not have divided government, as the U.S. currently has with voters electing one party to control the House Representatives and another to control the White House. If a government becomes extremely unpopular, it can be brought down and replaced almost immediately. And, perhaps most attractively, it is easier to find a political party that is in line with your own values because there are more of them.
The fact is, when we have only two parties (for all practical purposes) to choose between, most of us will find ourselves voting for the lesser of two evils because neither party will correspond exactly to every nuance of opinion that we hold on the wide array of social, economic and legal issues of the day. It’s no wonder that U.S. presidential elections tend to devolve into highly researched marketing campaigns that attempt to push as many hot buttons for the highest number of targeted voters as possible.
Eventually, however, I came to the conclusion that the United States is simply too large a country—and too complex, given its fifty state governments—for a parliamentary system to be able to work effectively. The current system may have lots of problems, but it’s hard to think of a better one.
The difference between the American and European political systems can be seen clearly in the way the U.S. and Ireland (where I currently live) are going about their budgets. While Barack Obama and John Boehner butt heads and hope that they can make the other appear to be responsible for the looming failure to ward off across-the-board tax increases and budget cuts, Ireland’s Taoiseach Enda Kenny simply presented a budget that was pre-ordained to be passed by Dáil Éireann, the parliament. Kenny only had to negotiate with members of his own party, Fine Gael, and his coalition partner, the Labour Party.
In the end, though, the practical result in Ireland is not altogether dissimilar from the U.S. going over the fiscal cliff. The Irish are looking forward to significant tax increases and budget cuts. This isn’t exactly because Fine Gael and Labour thought this would be a fine and good way to manage things. They had no choice because they were working under constraints imposed by the so-called troika (the European Union, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank), which had to bail Ireland out of bankruptcy.
At the end of the day, does it really matter what political system a country has, as long as it’s essentially democratic in nature? Won’t a society get around to doing what it needs to do under whatever system it happens to have?
The answer is probably, yes—although some systems seem more conducive to decisive action than others. But then decisive action is always easier when there is a predominant political consensus. And that is America’s problem. The country is very divided about what kind of nation it wants to be. In fact, when it comes to consensus, America has the same problem as Europe. It likes the idea of ever increasing government financial obligations to its citizens—but no one (except maybe Warren Buffett, President Obama and a few others) wants to pay for it with their own money.
Here’s a dirty little secret. The reason some billionaires, like Buffett, seem happy enough to see their tax rates go up is that they know that, despite politicians’ claims and promises to the contrary, there will always be loopholes to shelter their money—as long as they contribute wisely during election season.
I expect that most people who spend much time thinking about politics have played the game that I have. It goes like this: if I were in charge of the world, how would I rewrite my country’s constitution so that things would work better? Right now a lot of people must be playing this game, as they watch the dysfunctional Kabuki theater that is the current congressional lame duck session.
If you are like me, you will be very happy when we get to the point where we don’t hear the phrase fiscal cliff every time a newscast comes on. The economist and commentator Irwin Stelzer had a better term yesterday evening on BCC radio. He said, aptly, that a better metaphor would be a fiscal bungee jump.
After spending a year in Europe as a student, I became enamored of the parliamentary system. Here are some of that system’s attractive qualities. Election campaigns are mercifully brief—mainly because usually no one knows for sure when the next parliamentary election will be until a few weeks before. You do not have divided government, as the U.S. currently has with voters electing one party to control the House Representatives and another to control the White House. If a government becomes extremely unpopular, it can be brought down and replaced almost immediately. And, perhaps most attractively, it is easier to find a political party that is in line with your own values because there are more of them.
The fact is, when we have only two parties (for all practical purposes) to choose between, most of us will find ourselves voting for the lesser of two evils because neither party will correspond exactly to every nuance of opinion that we hold on the wide array of social, economic and legal issues of the day. It’s no wonder that U.S. presidential elections tend to devolve into highly researched marketing campaigns that attempt to push as many hot buttons for the highest number of targeted voters as possible.
Eventually, however, I came to the conclusion that the United States is simply too large a country—and too complex, given its fifty state governments—for a parliamentary system to be able to work effectively. The current system may have lots of problems, but it’s hard to think of a better one.
The difference between the American and European political systems can be seen clearly in the way the U.S. and Ireland (where I currently live) are going about their budgets. While Barack Obama and John Boehner butt heads and hope that they can make the other appear to be responsible for the looming failure to ward off across-the-board tax increases and budget cuts, Ireland’s Taoiseach Enda Kenny simply presented a budget that was pre-ordained to be passed by Dáil Éireann, the parliament. Kenny only had to negotiate with members of his own party, Fine Gael, and his coalition partner, the Labour Party.
In the end, though, the practical result in Ireland is not altogether dissimilar from the U.S. going over the fiscal cliff. The Irish are looking forward to significant tax increases and budget cuts. This isn’t exactly because Fine Gael and Labour thought this would be a fine and good way to manage things. They had no choice because they were working under constraints imposed by the so-called troika (the European Union, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank), which had to bail Ireland out of bankruptcy.
At the end of the day, does it really matter what political system a country has, as long as it’s essentially democratic in nature? Won’t a society get around to doing what it needs to do under whatever system it happens to have?
The answer is probably, yes—although some systems seem more conducive to decisive action than others. But then decisive action is always easier when there is a predominant political consensus. And that is America’s problem. The country is very divided about what kind of nation it wants to be. In fact, when it comes to consensus, America has the same problem as Europe. It likes the idea of ever increasing government financial obligations to its citizens—but no one (except maybe Warren Buffett, President Obama and a few others) wants to pay for it with their own money.
Here’s a dirty little secret. The reason some billionaires, like Buffett, seem happy enough to see their tax rates go up is that they know that, despite politicians’ claims and promises to the contrary, there will always be loopholes to shelter their money—as long as they contribute wisely during election season.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
The Not-so-great Divide
The polls had the American presidential election so close that the eventual winner remained a huge mystery through the final weeks, days and hours. That mystery has now been solved. The mystery that remains, though, is why anybody would actually want to be president—or for that matter in Congress—for the next four years.
Domestically and internationally, there are plenty looming crises that look problematic to resolve without angering or causing despair for or even endangering a lot of citizens. Of course, President Obama does not need to worry about ever running for office again, but the next four years look to be a true spiritual and psychic trial for any human leader, regardless of the political considerations.
So far, all the focus is on the so-called “fiscal cliff.” It’s hard to see how this gets dealt with except as yet one more stop-gap—simply because there is so little time to deal with it. And a more definitive solution will take more time than is available before the deadline.
But the “fiscal cliff” itself is really small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. Without major entitlement and tax reform, the country is on a trajectory toward fiscal insolvency. A bit of trimming of growth of federal spending and/or a simple four-percent tax increase on high earners will not fix that. And Obamacare, which is now on track for full implementation, will only add to the revenue/spending gap. When more consequences start occurring, like another credit rating downgrade or higher borrowing costs and/or inflation, it won’t be that much fun to be in government. Internationally, who knows what is going to happen with Iran and Israel as Teheran gets closer to having a viable nuclear weapon?
Frustratingly, the president has given precious little indication that he understands the problem or takes it seriously. The good news is that this impression is certainly more political calculation on his part than a reality. After all, he’s a very smart man. And, if we learned anything this week, we know that he has people around him who know how to count. Hopefully, they aren’t all exclusively campaign operatives.
So now that the American people have spoken, the politicians will now sort everything out, right? Well, as many pundits have been pointing out, after all the time and expense and energy and aggravation of the now concluded seemingly endless campaign, the political makeup of the government is barely changed. More than one wag has cited the old aphorism about the definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The difference now, though, is that harder deadlines are coming up, which tend to focus the mind. We can only watch and see how our representatives do.
Here’s something to ponder. The apparent lesson of the election is that the country has changed, that is has moved further left. This is undoubtedly true. Yet the same voters that gave the president a large Electoral College majority also chose a strong Republican majority for the House of Representatives. You can explain this up to a point by politicians’ tendency to draw incumbent-safe districts when they get the chance, but that doesn’t account for the Republican House dominance entirely.
There is a long history of Americans electing divided government. The usual explanation for this is that, ultimately, voters worry less about ideology than about keeping a check on the more extreme impulses of two major political parties. The problem now is that the country’s fiscal situation is getting to the point where the only viable solutions will necessarily be somewhat extreme.
Domestically and internationally, there are plenty looming crises that look problematic to resolve without angering or causing despair for or even endangering a lot of citizens. Of course, President Obama does not need to worry about ever running for office again, but the next four years look to be a true spiritual and psychic trial for any human leader, regardless of the political considerations.
So far, all the focus is on the so-called “fiscal cliff.” It’s hard to see how this gets dealt with except as yet one more stop-gap—simply because there is so little time to deal with it. And a more definitive solution will take more time than is available before the deadline.
But the “fiscal cliff” itself is really small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. Without major entitlement and tax reform, the country is on a trajectory toward fiscal insolvency. A bit of trimming of growth of federal spending and/or a simple four-percent tax increase on high earners will not fix that. And Obamacare, which is now on track for full implementation, will only add to the revenue/spending gap. When more consequences start occurring, like another credit rating downgrade or higher borrowing costs and/or inflation, it won’t be that much fun to be in government. Internationally, who knows what is going to happen with Iran and Israel as Teheran gets closer to having a viable nuclear weapon?
Frustratingly, the president has given precious little indication that he understands the problem or takes it seriously. The good news is that this impression is certainly more political calculation on his part than a reality. After all, he’s a very smart man. And, if we learned anything this week, we know that he has people around him who know how to count. Hopefully, they aren’t all exclusively campaign operatives.
So now that the American people have spoken, the politicians will now sort everything out, right? Well, as many pundits have been pointing out, after all the time and expense and energy and aggravation of the now concluded seemingly endless campaign, the political makeup of the government is barely changed. More than one wag has cited the old aphorism about the definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The difference now, though, is that harder deadlines are coming up, which tend to focus the mind. We can only watch and see how our representatives do.
Here’s something to ponder. The apparent lesson of the election is that the country has changed, that is has moved further left. This is undoubtedly true. Yet the same voters that gave the president a large Electoral College majority also chose a strong Republican majority for the House of Representatives. You can explain this up to a point by politicians’ tendency to draw incumbent-safe districts when they get the chance, but that doesn’t account for the Republican House dominance entirely.
There is a long history of Americans electing divided government. The usual explanation for this is that, ultimately, voters worry less about ideology than about keeping a check on the more extreme impulses of two major political parties. The problem now is that the country’s fiscal situation is getting to the point where the only viable solutions will necessarily be somewhat extreme.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)