The phony European refugee crisis

Now that I've got your attention with that headline, let me explain what I'm talking about.

It's not that refugees from Syria, Iraq, Libya, or even further south in African are phonies in person, or their reasons for leaving their old countries are phony.

It's arguable that part of the grudging European acceptance of the refugees — a grudgingness most notable in the UK and David Cameron — is the phoniness.

(That sets aside the issue, as shown in this piece about Germany taking temporary border measures to try to force the hand of other E.U. states, how "Europe" ultimately remains a concept more than anything else.)

Hundreds of thousands of refugees are hitting Europe, yes. That said, before the Great Recession made opportunities here in the U.S. less attractive, millions of migrants — some whom might well be identifiable as refugees — hit American lands from Mexico, and increasingly, from points further south. (Mexico itself is near zero population growth by birthrate, like the U.S.)

And, while we've had our share of clamor about the largely Hispanic influx of illegal immigration, it's arguably nothing like that of Europe.

Let's start with some additional context. Europe is about the same geographic size as the U.S. minus Alaska, per this site, which talks about making fair, geographic-based comparisons between Europe and America in other ways. Even if we throw out Russia and other countries of the old Soviet Union, the rest of Europe is as big as the US west of the Mississippi.

With half again as much population as the whole U.S.

And, without even going into the issue of legal vs. illegal immigration, as for actual, documented, United Nations-referred refugees? The U.S. has taken 70 percent of the world's share in the last five years. (To be fair, I should note that, as the Chronicle fails to note, our invasion of Iraq created a lot of those refugees.)

Now, some Europeans might argue that means they have no room. On the contrary, Europe has no deserts, no semi-deserts like the Western high plans, and while it does have the Alps and their extensions, the US has both the Rockies and the Sierras, among other things. And, if we're throwing out Russia, Europe has no North Dakota, eastern Montana or northern Minnesota in terms of winters, either.

To put this in terms of population densities, Hungary, a mainly flatland Central European country, might be taken as "representative." Ohio, a mainly flatland state in the non-mountainous, non-desert part of the U.S., not the most dense, and fighting Sunbelt migration, might be compared.

And, the have almost equal population densities at around 110 people per square kilometer. (So does France, with a mix of densely urban areas and the densely-rural-like Central Massif.)

In short, Europe can handle the refugee "flood." It can do so at least as easily as the United States. U.S. states like Minnesota, with less high-density use land than Hungary, have in the past taken significant numbers of Hmong and Somali refugees.

Why California's #HSR is dumb

NOTE: This article has been updated to reflect further information international HSR as well as that in California.

I love the idea of high-speed rail, and in the U.S., California is well positioned. Its two big metro areas are spaced far enough apart for HSR to make a lot of sense over conventional rail. Easy extenders can go to Sacramento and San Diego.

But, right now, there's a HUGE problem. Wayyyy too many stations in between the two metro areas. I love the idea of HSR, but, if you can never get a train up to top speed, your specific plan is el stupido, Golden Staters. Modesto, Merced AND Stockton? You can't get the train up above Greyhound speed. Ditto for the Palmdale stop. Going northbound, once HSR gets through Cajon Pass, let it roll all the away to Fresno.

And other locations? Gilroy for HSR? Tulare? You've got to be kidding. There's no population base at either site. I suspect that the routing AND the number of stops are all "political gravy." Well, tough shit. You drive, take a bus, or take a local train from Tulare to Fresno, or whatever, to ride HSR. Palmdale? Not on a direct line between SoCal and Fresno. After Santa Clarita, no stops until Fresno.

Now, not all these stations may be used for every train, tis true. But, the state government's HSR agency needs to be clearer about that, as well as about tentative ticket costs and other things. And trust me, I"ve looked both there and Wikipedia. That said, the state's map says Tulare is "regional," but doesn't explain more what that means. And Gilroy is NOT listed as "regional."

This applies to HSR in other locales. In Texas, a "triangle" of Dallas, Houston and Austin would work well. But, the Dallas-Houston train can't stop at College Station, nor the Dallas-Austin one at Waco. DC-NYC would work, but that train can't stop in Philly. Florida? First, no way to do a Miami-Tampa line without even more damage to the Everglades, is there?

High-speed rail, whether here, the U.S. or Europe, has some specific needs. Stations must be at least 150 miles apart; else, standard rail is just fine. Realistically, 200 miles or so is better. Stations shouldn't be more than 500 miles apart, or else you're less efficiently competing with air travel. And, terminal cities need to have a minimum population density, an issue The Economist addresses well. More on all of this below the fold.

Yay, we're No. 11 here in America

The United States, on a combination of five major metrics used by Newsweek, with consultation from people like Joe Stiglitz, ranks No. 11 out of 100 nations on the globe. And, it's probably not going to get better immediately.

That said, as on other, similar surveys, small, homogenous countries like Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and South Korea outrank us on many things. But, given where most EU member nations rank, taking the EU as a whole, it would quite possibly outrank the U.S., too.

At the same time, leave it to Newsweek to tell a mainstream media lie about how, really, no really, the United States isn't an empire:

America spends more on defense than the rest of the industrialized world combined, not because it is inherently militaristic, but because the United States is the enforcer of the international system.

And, as long as the MSM tells lies like this, America will be inherently militaristic, as Mark Twain knew more than a century ago.

However, Chinese autocratic "capitalism" (which is really no more "capitalistic" than the U.S.) isn't a model for the rest of the world, either. Rather, "old" Europe may not be so sclerotic:

To put it bluntly, European businesses are kicking America's ass, as well as Japan's and China's. And the rest of the BRIC nations besides China. And, the earlier core EU of Western Europe could actually pick up the pace more. Picture EU expansion as being, other than the Greek debt crisis, something like how NAFTA was really supposed to work here in the New World, but didn't, primarily due to American big business greed, callousness and more.

And, since French President Sarkozy hosts the G8 and G20 later this year, has been making noise about more financial reform, and the EU in general has done more than just make noise about other regulatory tightening in the last couple of years, Obama had better sit up and take notice.

Anyway, here's how we stack up against 99 other countries on five metrics.

'Old' Europe ain't so sclerotic:

Far, far, far from it.

To put it bluntly, European businesses are kicking America's ass, as well as Japan's and China's. And the rest of the BRIC nations besides China. And, the earlier core EU of Western Europe could actually pick up the pace more. Picture EU expansion as being, other than the Greek debt crisis, something like how NAFTA was really supposed to work here in the New World, but didn't, primarily due to American big business greed, callousness and more.

Take note of the poll in the right-hand rail. A couple of months ago, I would have been ready to believe the worst about the Greek debt problem and vote more conservatively. Not now.

And, since French President Sarkozy hosts the G8 and G20 later this year, has been making noise about more financial reform, and the EU in general has done more than just make noise about other regulatory tightening in the last couple of years, Obama had better sit up and take notice.

I wouldn't be surprised if, by 2015, the euro is not a default tertiary global currency, with the EU accepting that, but deliberately keeping the currency from being a full-fledged secondary currency.

So much for ‘high-unemployment old Europe’

Can we finally put this hypercapitalist rightist American myth to rest? Here’s the reality: Topping things off, “hard to fire people” German is two percentage points lower in unemployment than the US. The UK is also lower; France is even.

Beyond that, this is comparing apples to oranges, in several ways.

First, European countries don't calculate unemployment the same way the US does. I don't know about today, but, a decade ago, Germany counted you as unemployed if you were working for a temp agency, even if it was full-time work. (At that time, Manpower was the single largest employer in both the US and the Federal Republic, since you work for the temp agency, not the company with which it is contracting.)

Second, due to the amount of people the US incarcerates for drug crimes, and the amount of people it pays to arrest them, try them, keep them incarcerated, etc., we'd have even higher unemployment without our draconian drug laws.

Third, many European countries have "universal service" upon graduation from high school, or the equivalent thereof. This is military service for many who do not conscientiously object, etc. It doesn't count as employment. In the US, with its professional army, though (please, not "all volunteer," its "professional") the men and women in uniform count as employed. Right now, if we weren't fighting multiple wars in a recession, we'd have even more unemployment.

So, actually, it's not that unemployment in "old Europe" is the same or a bit lower than here; if you compare apples and apples, it's probably a lot lower than in the high-unemployment USofA.

The US unemployment rate hitting 10.2 percent underscores this even more.

Shale natural gas coming to Europe

The same shale-drilling techniques that are used in Texas and Pennsylvania could soon find a home in Germany and Italy. These and other western European countries would love to be less dependent on Russian gas supplies.

Is socialism dead in Europe? Ehh, probably not

First, America’s MSM likes to whip out a story like this every once in a while, just out of knee-jerk reflex.

You’ll note that, first of all, it doesn’t even discuss Eastern Europe outside the former East Germany. Nor does it discuss Scandanavia.

Next, it cites whatever analysts it does to claim globalism has made Socialism irrelevant. Neoliberal bullshit, in other words.

Third, it gives scant attention to what it is forced to admit, that Socialism appears dead because conservative parties have co-opted more and more of its ideas.
-End-

Obama the impotent

As more than eight months of Barack Obama’s presidency have passed, The Guardian’s Steven Hill surely speaks for much of Europe’s left of center in labeling The One as “inpotent.” In a Europe more secular than America, I guess the tune “Kumbaya” isn’t recognized. And, in a Europe where parliamentary (or quasi-parliamentary, in France’s case) political systems drive real party differences, the strategy of Kumbaya isn’t recognized, either.

The impotence isn’t just on national healthcare. It’s on financial regulation, that remains more embryonic than Obama’s healthcare policy. It’s climate change legislation that itself could legitimately been pushed through the Senate by the reconciliation process, but wasn’t.

Who can blame the European left for seeing Obama as impotent, even as self-emasculating?

That’s especially true when, beyond national healthcare systems already in place, on new issues such as financial regulation, Europe has answers already ready to offer, as Hill’s column documents, and on both right and left, has taken a stronger stance on global warming.

After questioning just how much, or little, bloodied, Obama really is as a politician, Hill — probably representing a large chunk of European intelligentsia on both sides of the aisle — blames the quasi-undemocratic American political system — and rightly so.

Euro-Russian astronauts did NOT simulate Mars trip

The six European and Russian volunteers who spent about 100 days in an isolation capsule claiming to simulate a trip to Mars did no such thing.

The journey is six months one way. Then, it’s either stay there for just a few days, or else about a year, unless you want a less safe, and longer than six months, return trip.

The New York Time, which has much more, also talks about the six as having simulated a trip to Mars, although it does provide the qualifying information, later in the story, about an actual trip to Mars which says the six simulated nothing, though future plans call for a 500-day confinement.

Chinese environmentalism boosted by protectionism

Or, how the US is doubly screwed, by itself, by the WTO, as Chin refuses to let U.S. and European companies work on solar or wind power products.

But, we don’t have to put up with this crap, legally; China has never signed relevant WTO side protocols on government procurement, contra a promise way back in 2001.

However, we do have to, in a sense, since our debt is hostage to China. Europe, on the other hand, has more room to play; will we see a call for sanctions against China?

Europe, Turkey to build new gas pipeline

It looks like the past actions of Vladimir Putin, combined with the new muscle-flexing of Dmitry Medvedev, have simply become too much for a Europe not wanting either one of them controlling the natural gas spigot next winter.

Brown looks across pond to outfox Sarko

It’s been clear for several months now that French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown have been vying for supremacy in leading Europe’s response to the global recession and financial mess.

Well, Brown has now decided to play the “special relationship” card with President Barack Obama.

Good luck with that. Somehow, I suspect Sarko won’t be happy at all, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel is probably less than fully happy.

Could McCain win increase European anti-Americanism?

Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland has exactly that worry.

He says previous anti-Americanism has actually been anti-Bushism. But, he says a McCain victory, especially with Mayor Whazzup™ as his vice president, would lead to more serious reactions.

Suddenly Europeans and others will conclude that their dispute is with not only one ruling clique, but Americans themselves. For it will have been the American people, not the politicians, who will have passed up a once-in-a-generation chance for a fresh start.

From there, he talks about other Euro-worries that necessitate reading the book of Matthew.

For example, Europeans possibly using a McCain victory to tut-tut the U.S. as incapable of transcending racism? Err, what about the second-generation Turks in Berlin and second-generation Algerians in Paris? The Euro-left might need to pull out a log or two.

And, in chiding Americans for the “politics of personality” (and rightfully so), how did you feel about Bill Clinton? Or what all drives your Obama feeling?

But, Freedland’s peroration is spot-on:

If Americans reject Obama, they will be sending the clearest possible message to the rest of us - and, make no mistake, we shall hear it.

We shall see.

Genetic Europe painted by numbers

New genetic research and mapping is providing a welter of information about genetic groupings and mappings within Europe.

A few tidbits:
1. The research indicates and supports theories of three major prehistoric migrations into Europe
2. The Italians have a bit more genetic isolation than much of Europe, with the barrier of the Alps presumed why;
3. The Finns have even more isolation, with the explanation they started from a small, isolated core population that ballooned; speaking a non-Indo-European language may have helped, of course.

Big lie of omission on U.S. vs Euro birthrates and illegal immigration

And, I’m pretty sure it’s deliberate, which makes it a LOT worse. On page 6 of his NYTimes Mag story “No Babies?”, Russell Shorto (sorry, no e-mail addy for him, but here is a generic one for the magazine) compares America’s relatively robust birth rate of 2.1 to European countries, which range from 1.9 all the way down to 1.3, with 2.1 being the “break-even point.” (Italy could lose half its population, not counting immigration, in less than 50 years.)

Anyhow, here’s the start of the erroneous nutgraf on page 5:

“Europeans say to me, How does the U.S. do it in this day and age?” says Carl Haub of the Population Reference Bureau in Washington. According to Haub and others, there is no single explanation for the relatively high U.S. fertility rate.

WRONG.

It’s an explanation of two parts that neither Haub nor author Shorto may want to tackle, though.

Take a look at the CIA factbook. Mexico, the primary source of our immigration, especially of the illegal variety, has a birthrate of 2.37. Guatemala, possibly the top Central American source of illegal immigrants, has a fertility rate of 3.59.

American-born residents in the U.S. have a fertility rate of below 2.0.

Indeed, it looks like Shorto actually tries to HIDE the immigration explanation on page 8, discussing the higher birthrate in Great Britain vs. continental Europe:

The British situation today seems a far cry from “lowest low,” but it doesn’t mean that immigration is the answer to low birthrates. The actual numbers, according to several authorities, are discouraging over the long run. By one analysis of U.N. figures, Britain would need more than 60 million new immigrants by 2050 — more than doubling the size of the country — to keep its current ratio of workers to pensioners, and Germany would need a staggering 188 million immigrants in the same time period. One reason for such huge numbers is that while immigration helps fill cities and schools and factories in the short term, the dynamic adjusts over time. Immigrants who come from cultures where large families are standard quickly adapt to the customs of their new homes. And eventually immigrants age, too, so that the benefit that incoming workers give to the pension system today becomes a drag on the system in the future.

Ahh, but, what if the immigrants keep coming? Obviously, that’s what’s happening to our south.

The second part of the explanation of “how we do it” also gets ignored — the difference between ethnic groups among American natives in birth rates, as well as the difference in socioeconomic classes, tied with the bigger income gap here than in Western Europen.

Oh, no Mr. Short and Mr. Haub, the explanation is quite easy. You just don’t want to talk about it.

The attack of the 1,000-foot rising trees

It’s no horror movie.

Instead, it’s the potentially horrible upward march of trees due to global warming.

Over the past 100 years, trees in six western Europe mountain ranges have climbed about 1,000 feet up the mountainsides.

“This is the first time it is shown that climate change has applied a significant effect on a large set of forest plant species,” said Jonathan Lenoir, a forest ecologist at AgroParisTech in France, who led the study.

But, while the strategy provides relief, it isn’t permanent. Not only is there an ultimate dead-end at the tops of mountains, the relief may not be that stable.

Read the whole story for more.