The European Commission has set up a task force to oversee the implementation of austerity measures and structural reforms, according to documents seen by Kathimerini.Make no bones about it, this team of 25 is the new Government of Greece,
The task force, an initiative of European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, is to have two headquarters - in Athens and Brussels - and direct contact with Barroso’s office and that of Prime Minister George Papandreou. The Athens office will be the point of reference for all visiting inspectors currently offering technical advice to different ministries.
An additional 25 officials, members of the new task force, are to start arriving in Athens in the second half of August.
According to sources, the decision to create the task force was prompted by the government’s failure to implement measures pledged in exchange for the first 110-billion-euro bailout in May last year. Greece’s creditors - the EC, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund - clearly deemed that a foreign task force would help push through a new slew of measures approved.After all if the Greeks vote against the measures being demanded of them this new body seems to have the power to overule them.
Astonishingly the Commission has decided that the person to run this new Government will be a German, Horst Reichenbach. The decison to take a long time Commission official who hails from Kiel, will no doubt be greeted by the Greeks with all the equaminty that such a decision requires.
After all there is no bad blood between the two nations.
I can only guess that this was done to placate Mrs Merkle. I cannot be persuaded that Barroso would be so cloth-eared himself.
63 comments:
For a revealing account of the Greek Problem see http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/raging-against-them/
May we anticipate a headline when he cannot get the job done:
"Reichenbach falls"?
Will this EU team be wearing Wehrmacht feldgrau or black leather overcoats?
Kiel is a place, Keil is a chock or a wedge.
Merkel is Chancellor
Horst Reichenbach joined the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development on 31 August 2005 as Secretary-General......Mr Reichenbach was born in Kiel in 1945 and is a national of Germany. He is married, with three children. Mr Reichenbach holds a master degree in economics from University of Western Ontario, in London, Canada (1971), a diploma in mathematics (1970) and a PhD. in economics from Kiel University (1974), where he occupied the position of scientific Officer from 1971-1975.
Prior to joining the EBRD, Mr Reichenbach was Director General of Enterprise and Industry at the European Commission, in Brussels, where he worked for 30 years.
Career at the European Commission
* 1975-1986: Official working in Directorate General (DG) for Economic and Financial Affairs (DG Ecfin) (1975-78); DG for Regional Policy (1978-80) and in the Cabinets of C. Tugendhat (1981-84) and C. Ripa di Meana (1985-86)
* 1986 -1994: Head of Unit in DG for Coordination of Structural Instruments (1986-87) and DG Ecfin (1989-94) and Deputy Head of Cabinet of K.H. Narjes (1987-88)
* 1991-1997: Acting Director in DG Ecfin (1991-94); Director in DG Budget (1994-95); Head of Cabinet of M.Wulf-Mathies (1995-97)
* 1997- 2005: Director General in DG Consumer Policy and Health Protection (1997-99); in DG Personnel and Administration (1999-2004) and in DG Enterprise and Industry (2004 -05)
So he's qualified to do the job......probably Britain had no Indian or Pakistani Officials to spare since they are busy working for Little Georgie Osborne to rescue their former Colonial Masters from Impending Penury !
We told you so:
The Euro - Ending in tears.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL8JUElL0ws
hapy day
I have always expanded that metaphor to say that becoming a Christian may be like entering an entrance hall, but becoming a Catholic is to find that the 'side room' you've chosen is the lobby of a great country mansion, and the next step is to go up the grand staircase and enter the mansion itself--with countless rooms full of splendid furniture, antiques, paintings and works of art--not to mention the sumptuous gardens and grounds...
Therefore 'Mere Christianity' must include a church of some sort, and Lewis admits this in his introduction. He explains that becoming a Christian is rather like entering the hall of a large house, and then you have to choose which side room (or denomination) to belong to.
However, even given the Protestant assumptions, one cannot even 'get saved' or 'accept Jesus into his heart' unless the gospel is preached and the invitation given from and through members of the Church. Evangelism cannot take place in a vacuum
In other words, the gospel has to be proclaimed from within the community of faith. As Catholics we uphold the truth that an essential part of the Christian experience are the sacraments and the steward and administrator of the sacraments is Christ himself working through his body the Church
The only way for this to be possible is for the core of Christianity to be an individualistic relationship with Jesus Christ. But is this the core experience of Christianity? No, because even if the personal relationship with Christ is vital, it cannot be mediated authentically to anyone outside the ministry of the Church
Whether such an enterprise is possible is debatable. After all, how can you have 'essential Christianity' without a church of some kind
Thus Lewis wants to get past 'all that denominational stuff' to get down to the heart and soul of the Christian faith.
They are a necessary aspect of Christianity that is man made and disposable.
In many ways this is a laudable approach and one which fits with the typical Protestant ecclesiology (although my more sarky friends say, " 'Protestant ecclesiology' is a contradiction in terms.") Be that as it may, the typical Protestant says that all denominations and congregations are provisional
The 'mere' in Lewis' title represents what he was trying to communicate: Lewis wanted to avoid denominational arguments and get down to the core of the Christian faith. He wanted to write a book to help people understand and accept the essence of Christianity.
I wrote More Christianity as 'a friendly explanation of the Catholic faith for Evangelical Christians.' Of course, the title puns on C.S.Lewis' famous book Mere Christianity and does so in a way that is not just a smart aleck pun.
That's the sort of 'sharing' I'm in favor of, and all this sentimental clap trap about 'wasn't it wonderful that the little boy shared his peanut butter and jelly sandwich and so inspired everyone else to share their lunch too!" Makes me want to puke.
I want Padre Pio bi locating and St Theresa of Avila levitating and St Bernadette seeing the Blessed Virgin and then her body not corrupting. I want St Agnes dying for her virginity and Fr Jogues, who was granted a dispensation to celebrate the Mass with no fingers because they had been chopped off and eaten by the savage Iroquois Indians who he insisted on going all the way back across the Atlantic to minister to.
I don't care a button for a religion of good works and 'sharing'. I want full blooded miracles please. I want religion to be about the hope of heaven and the fear of hell and angels and demons and the glory of the saints
It replaces the wine of the faith with Coke Zero--something sweet, but which doesn't have calories or caffeine and doesn't even quench your thirst properly. Explaining away the miraculous in religion actually changes it from being religion at all. Who wants a religion without the supernatural? Religion without the supernatural is just a set of table manners.
This sort of platitudinous demythologizing is just about the most nauseating thing anybody can do with Christianity.
Eventually one of the snobs said, "And what do you think about this Miss O'Connor?" Flannery (who all evening had been intimidated and silent) said, "If it's only a symbol to hell with it."
It reminds me of the story about Flannery O'Connor who was having dinner with some posh writer folks in New York City and the hostess said she thought the Eucharist was 'a symbol'
and the well meaning liberal preacher, through his words, had not taught them to share their lunch or anything else. Instead they only came away thinking how dumb the preacher was, and "if that is all there is to the gospels you can keep it."
claimed that some pastor or priest or teacher had tried to shovel this stuff on to them and the weird and wonderful thing is, everyone who agreed that they'd heard this lame brained 'demythologizing' of the miracle thought how stupid it was
so over the years I have asked people whether they'd heard such a sermon and what they made of it.
I don't know where it was that I first heard some goofy liberal clergyman explain that the 'real miracle' of the feeding of the 5,000 was that everyone shared their lunch. I was brought up with red blooded Christianity and had never heard such poppycock before in my life,
The persecution of homosexual people is the same as the segregation of the African Americans. They supported slavery with verses from the Bible too. This prejudice and injustice in the name of religion must be stopped--even if force is necessary.
This could, of course, be brought more speedily to the right conclusion by having their tax exempt status revoked. Why should the American tax payer subsidize homophobic, polygamous and bigoted groups? Why should old, out of touch white men like Warren Jeff and the Pope in Rome get special treatment?
I would stand up and defend the freedom of religion with my dying breath, however it is the religious fundamentalists like Warren Jeff and the Pope in Rome and the Taliban in Iraq who give religion a bad name. The sooner they default on their debts and go out of business the better it will be for those who wish to live by a higher creed of tolerance and admiration for all.
The problem in all of this is religion. I am not myself a religious man, but I respect those who are devoutly religious like Jane Fonda and my ex wife Nancy and her new partner Georgie
When will the forces of law and order crack down on the intolerance and bigotry and decadence of people like Warren Jeff who flaunt the law and re-make marriage according to their own whims?
Then they demand "religious freedom" and would force the noble laws of this land into new and strange configurations just to please themselves. When will this intolerable tyranny of the few over the majority cease
It is just like the religious fundamentalists to make up their own rules, bring in religion and demand that everyone else accept their strange beliefs and repugnant customs.
Who does he think he is defining marriage according to his own terms? Marriage is an institution established by the government in order to control the beastly urgings of men like Jeff. What is worse is that he seeks to invoke God's blessing on his cult like 'family
Which leads me to the case of the notorious polygamist in Texas named Warren Jeff. Here is a man who has trampled on the sacred institution of marriage by having multiple wives in his disgusting Mormon harem
What if Flo meets a wonderful person and a fourth might join us?" Steve joined in quietly and said, "And why couldn't we all get married? After all, we love one another and all we ask is to have our love blessed."
They gazed at one another constantly and Eddie said, in a moment of rare impassioned candor, "I don't see why this beautiful love we have couldn't be expanded further.
They described their open relationship as 'polyamory' and explained that the three of them were hopelessly and happily in love with each other. I must admit that I had tears welling up in my own eyes as I witnessed their true happiness
At the wedding reception I happened to share a table with a delightful threesome. Eddie and Flo had been trapped in a conventional marriage when Eddie realized he was bi-sexual and fell in love with Steve. Instead of leaving Flo, Eddie invited Steve to move in to their home and before long Flo realized that she was also in love with Steve
Can true love be so restricted by man made rules? No. Surely love is free, not bound by man made rules and regulations. That homosexual couples should wish to find new expressions of marriage is surely a good and wholesome thing.
Therefore, who do these religious fundamentalists think they are to restrict marriage to one man and one woman for life? This is not love. This is a sentence of life imprisonment
It doesn't make us. We define marriage by who we are, not by who someone else expects us to be. Marriage, after all, is built around the beautiful love we have for one another
In conversation with Gene I began to realize is that marriage is a cultural construct. We make marriage
I was privileged to meet Gene-- a friend of Georgie's who turned out to be the Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire. Everyone was calling him 'Vickie' and having a terrific time together.
There was no freedom of religion for Nancy and Georgie on their wedding day. Instead Georgie (who is Church of England) arranged for a wonderful service of blessing in the local Episcopal Cathedral. It was truly a rainbow event with all of Nancy and Georgie's collection of delightfully eccentric friends present.
They say that their faith is all about love and tolerance, but there was no love and tolerance for Nancy and Georgie on their special day. And where, I may ask, has the American tradition of freedom of religion gone?
They say that their faith is all about love and tolerance, but there was no love and tolerance for Nancy and Georgie on their special day. And where, I may ask, has the American tradition of freedom of religion gone?
There was not a dry eye in the Justice of the Peace office when Nancy and Georgie finally made it formal. Some of the tears, however, were not tears of joy. Nancy is a devout Catholic and she knew her so called 'Christian fellowship' would reject her new choice in marriage
As you may have guessed, Georgie is a delightful Englishwoman. With her tweed jackets and jodhpurs she cuts a dash on the riding circuit, and when they first met at the English pub in downtown Manhattan Nancy was smitten.
It is with great joy, therefore, that I witnessed last month in the State of New York the marriage of two of my friends. My ex wife Nancy and her English partner Georgie Samsonite finally tied the knot.
Marriage is one of humanity's great institutions, and as the father of the bride usually says in his wedding speech, "Who wants to live in an institution?" All joking aside, I am myself a great supporter of the institution of marriage. I have been married three times and found each one of those experiences to be fulfilling and enjoyable.
Now that would be radical! Scrap the hymn singing schtick altogether and do what the rubrics say? Actually have a choir or schola to sing the Introit, the Psalm, the Gradual and the Offertory? If we did that you know what would happen?
Their refusal to sing is their unconscious way of telling the priest to stop foisting hymns on them all the time and to simply have the choir sing the Introit, Gradual and Offertory and have a decent organ with a fine organist play grand music to walk in and out by.
Catholics don't like public displays of affection. They're more reserved and they don't go in for all that 'me and Jesus' emotional stuff. C'mon. The hymns they do sing are very emotional--sentimental even
I mean there are a few people who sound either like a cat scratching a chalkboard or a drunk bullfrog, but most people can sing. Look around at the ball game. People sing the national anthem and pep songs well enough
Nobody ever taught these people how to sing. They're shy. They're insecure about singing. Protestants are brought up with singing hymns all the time. They're used to it. Nonsense. Everybody can sing
Hmm. Maybe you've got something there. Then again, maybe you don't. Maybe what you think is them being 'contemplative' is not contemplative but complacent.
They don't mean to be negative or not to participate, they are just participating more by listening and watching and paying attention to God's presence in a nice contemplative, laid back way. So what's wrong with that?
Hymn singing is essentially Protestant. Catholics have an instinct against it. That instinct has to do with the nature of liturgical worship. They sense that the hymn somehow doesn't fit with the action of the liturgy so they just instinctively opt out.
. Catholics don't like to use books and hymn sheets to read words. They like to respond with the stuff they have memorized.
Catholics don't sing hymns because they're a hard hearted bunch who don't really love Jesus. Hmm. No doubt that applies to some Catholics, but not all. In fact most of the people I know who go to Mass regularly love Jesus pretty much. Sorry, that won't stick either.
Post a Comment