Here's an idea for job creation. How about no payroll tax for two years?

I'm sure Mr. Herman Van Rompuy is a good man. He was the Prime Minister of Belgium. Now he's the president of Europe. If that sounds rather vague, that's because it is. He was selected by EU recently through a rather un-transprent process. The decision was announced after a closed-door dinner of the EU leaders. It's still not clear what the presisent of Europe will actually do. Or why this posts exists in the first place. Up to now it seems like a lame attempt at imitating the United States. But the United States is, well, the United States - one country with a shared sense of nationhood, where the people vote for the president. The different and often feuding European countries can hardly claim a shared sense of nationhood, and Mr. Van Rompuy wasn't elected through a European Union-wide general election.

So what happens when there's some international crisis and President Obama wants to contact the "leader" of Europe. Does he call Mr. Van Rompuy? (is there a red phone line between the two of them now?). And what would Mr. Van Rompuy do? My guess is, he'll pass on the call to the real president of Europe - Angela Merkel. And what does that make him? See the title of the entry.

By the way, the EU leaders have also selected Catherine Ashton, a British trade commissioner and member of the House of Lords, as the Union's High Commissioner - its equivalent of a foreign minister. Foreign ministers represent countries. How can Ms. Ashton represent Europe when it's really not a country? Surely the different countries in EU have different agendas, and they have their OWN foreign ministers to pursue those agendas. A president often, and the foreign minister always, represent their country to other foreign political entities to advance its national interests. Does Europe really have "national interests" for which it needs a president and a foreign minister? I have a feeling all that this will achieve is having two nice secretariats for Mr. Van Rompuy and Ms. Ashton, where lots of people will enjoy cushy sleepy jobs. Hardly good use of taxpayers' money.

Should President Obama have taken on Fox news?

No.

There's a proverb in Punjab: "A man is known by his enemy". Is Fox Obama's enemy now? It makes Obama look small and Fox bigger than a, well, news channel. As Nixon told Pat Buchanan, "Never shoot down." A president, who will remain president for at least three more years, should be dealing with issues, not persons, personality, or news channels. If any news outlet reports something distorted or simply wrong, it can easily be refuted through presentation of facts, figures, and arguments without making it a personal battle .

Test

...well, he never left the ground, of course. Most people figured out early on that it was a hoax. The question is, is this family's strange quest for publicity an isolated event, or the sign of a greater malaise in our society. Is this what we have come to? These people are not only greedy (or maybe even sick), but they shamelessly used their own children to...well, only they know for what. They wanted a reality show deal, we hear. So now everyone wants to be a reality show star. How many Falcons have to be exploited and how many dreams lost before we realize that there's no easy road to success and publicity does not equal a life well lived?

Lots of good articles and posts on this already. Here's one vy Frank Rich in NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/opinion/25rich.html?em