Time to Buy That Monopoly Set

From UPI via the Washington Times

When the Euro was first created I told my friends that I was going to buy a copy of Monopoly and replace the money with Euros. I didn't expect to be able to do it right away, and I must say, I am impressed at how long the Euro-elites have managed to keep up the charade. However, I could never make myself believe that a currency founded on the concept of "European Unity" had a future as anything but a joke. Historically, unity in Europe has always been short lived and come at a heavy cost.

A dozen years ago "European Unity" became a catch phrase for every American anxiety about our nation's future in the post-Soviet era. Even then I would chuckle every time someone around me would use it. It seemed to me as if grown people were discussing the virtues of the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. The EU never seemed like a threat to me, precisely because when used to modify "Unity" or "Union" the word "European" is clearly synonymous with the word "not". The EU was and is only a symbol of the unwillingness of the Euro-elite political class to acknowledge that the Soviet Empire fell because the very concept of the socialist model was fatally and utterly corrupt.

"Mais no!" they exclaimed, there is a "third way"! We can have our Utopian fantasy if instead of tanks and torture we enforce it with the most rediculous, unresponsive, bloated bureaucracy since the Byzantine Empire. It seemed for a time that they could accomplish this by subverting the soverignty of several states in the name of the common good and thus the EU founded. It has never worked as advertised preciesly because Europeans are about a prone to unite as rams in the spring.

The bigger problem is that socialism is plainly unworkable. Even if (especially if?) staffed entirely by over-educated Gaullists the internal contradictions of socialism guarantee the system's corruption and ultimate dissolution. What troubles me most about this exercise is, what will happen to whom before "ultimately" arrives?

Anyhow, I'm looking for a Monopoly set with an appropriately-sized bank tray.

UPDATE (13-Apr-05 3:22 PM): When the New York Times is less than optimistic about a people's commitment to the socialist nostrum du jour, something is afoot.

The Last Great Man of the 20th Century

That's what Mark Steyn called Pope John Paul II and I must agree.

I'd been tempted to post on this topic many times but it goes against my two primary posting guildlines and they are: 1. That I don't like to post on a topic about which I feel I have nothing new to add. I'd rather just let those who've already said it quite well have the last word, and 2. I don't blog about me and I don't want to start.

Saying anything I have to say on the topic means talking about myself (in terms of my faith) to establish appropriate context. Nevertheless, I must at least note the man's passing. The passing of so monumental a figure in world history warrants straying from the guidelines, just a little.

...and Pope John Paul II was exactly as Steyn describes. He was already a great man by the mid-eighties. He just managed to outlive his only contemporary. While I am not a Catholic, it is undeniable that having such a good man as head of the Catholic Church was to the general good of the world.

Double points for precision go to Mr. Steyn. The Pope was indeed the last great man of the 20th century; Mrs. Thatcher is still with us.

The Vertebrate Option

Plenty has been written in speculation of whether senate Republicans will ever work up the personal fortitude necessary to modify Senate rules to stop the minority's denial of floor votes to conservative judicial candidates. At somepoint someone coined the term "nuclear option" to describe the majority making a change to the rules. In this view, civilization itself rests on the constancy of Senate rules, but only as long as Democrats aren't in the majority. In that case rules changes are par for the course.

I must assume that the purpose of coining the term "nuclear option" is to create a rhetorical situation in which senate Republicans are made to feel as if they must provide an extraordinary level of justification for changing what the holy Democrat party has engraved. As usual, Senate Republicans have accepted this propaganda at face value and proceeded to do just that.

I'm sick of this. Let's call it what it is. Making it explicit that judicial nominations get the benefit of a floor vote by majority consent is not "nuclear" does not destroy some foundational notion of our government, it does not undo representative government, and most of all, it in no way contradicts the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution. No, the majority setting the rules of debate in the Senate is the tradition, is an exercise of representative government and is indeed Constitutional.

The majority should eliminate this ambiguity of the Senate's rules without apologizing to the minority and without adopting their rhetoric. This I call "the vertebrate option". If we can't do that much, then I'd say Buschbaum's classic work is a prophetic description of the early 21st century Republican party.

Back at the Desk

Like a lot of people, post-election I felt somewhat spent. In addition, I felt the need to go pretend the whole mess we call the political scene could go away for a while. It didn't. So I am figuratively back at the desk [and fighting the passion for using too many commas]. I won't try to catch up with everything, rather I will resume posting about things as it strikes me to do so.