« German Minister: Sure, Bush caused Katrina | Main | Donations for Katrina Victims »

Comments

Good conversation overall. Just a reminder: Keep it civil and on topic. This is not the appropriate time for pettiness. Off topic items should be emailed, not left as comments. Thanks and keep up the good work commenters.

I was watching an interview of Rev. Jackson (yes, that one) on CNN and apparently he is a fan of Trittin. His response to one of the questions was that "because of the carcinagens in the ozone, this was worse than it should have been." He also played the race card, of course -- which, after all, was the purpose of the interview in the first place. He tried to imply that these "poor people" were stuck in New Orleans because that's where the "slave ships dropped them off" so many years ago.

What's frustrating to me about all of this is that a completely FALSE and ONE-SIDED story is going out to the world about what is going on here. The US is not a third world country and is responding as rapidly as circumstances allow. Things are, and have been, happening behind the scenes not only to help New Orleans, but across the entire multi-state devastation area -- things that no one is seeing or hearing about thanks to our BIASED MSM.

First, the media is keeping track of this in days since Katrina hit. As anyone with half a brain knows, the timeline for New Orleans' disaster didn't start until Tuesday when the flooding started (until the flooding started, Katrina had actually caused minimal damage to New Orleans). By Tuesday evening, it became obvious to all that a major disaster was unfolding (the operative word being unfolding -- current tense). Limited aid appeared almost immediately in the form of the Coast Guard, which has been rescuing people pretty much non-stop since then (the city government, other than the whining mayor, was no where to be seen). WITHIN THREE DAYS, the National Guard (led by a General sent by George Bush, something the mayor grudgingly gave Bush credit for in a radio interview) has shown up in force with supplies and manpower (I guess someone finally waved that magic wand to make them magically appear).

What is frustrating is that no one is covering "behind the scenes." The National Guard did not show up magically in three days. You can bet that a fairly massive "mobilization and movement to New Orleans" process took place over the two days prior to them showing up in New Orleans (remember, these are citizen soldiers, many of whom were affected themselves by the hurricane). Even General "John Wayne" Honore, as NO's mayor called him, said that it was very difficult getting there because of all of the obstacles in their way on the ground.

Another frustrating thing is when "interviewees" say something like, "The World Trade Center was handled better than this." Puh-lease! There is no comparison whatsoever between the effort required to address the disaster that struck TWO BUILDINGS (yeah, I know, plus a few more surrounding buildings) in the middle of a FULLY FUNCTIONING CITY in one of the most heavily populated parts of our country and the effort required to handle the MULTI-STATE devastation from hurricane Katrina and the almost complete FLOODING of an ENTIRE major US city.

Then, the Black Caucus held an interview, I guess to play up the race card some more. One of their spokespeople said, with a look on her face and in a tone that made it seem like this was such an obvious solution, "Why don't they send cruise ships to New Orleans. Then people will have shelter, recreation, A PLACE TO PLAY..." Well NEWSFLASH: the federal government has already done that, sort of. A hospital ship and several naval vessels had been dispatched to New Orleans almost immediately after the flooding started. We all know, of course, that ocean-going ships are big and do not travel as fast as planes, trains, or automobiles. So, although they have not arrived yet, and thus give the impression that nothing is being done, they were sent days ago. No magic wand will get them there sooner. Of course, no one bothered to rebut those comments and "suggestions" -- certainly, no one in the MSM. It would have been so simple for someone to have said, "That's already been done." But, no. The message that got sent was that the government can't think of even the most obvious solutions.

For those commenters in the past who have asked for it, these are (unfortunately) fine examples of how the BIASED US MSM utterly and completely conveys a FALSE and ONE-SIDED story to the rest of the world. I can only imagine the conversations I'll have with my Spiegel-reading German friends next week after they get the "real story" from Spiegel.

ARGH!

Germany's (and Europe's) biggest (tabloid) newspaper BILD today: "Germans are ashamed of Trittin"

There is no refernce to it at the online version of BILD. But the IHT wrote about yesterdays version:
But Trittin's comment, while headline grabbing in Germany, provoked as much outrage as approval."Instead of standing by the Americans as they try to get to grips with the hurricane catastrophe, our environment minister Trittin shows the world the face of the ugly German"
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/02/news/europe.php

Ah, Spiegel, you almost had me there. This headline caught my eye:

IT'S NOT JUST NEW ORLEANS
Destruction across the US Gulf Coast
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,372618,00.html

I was thinking, "right on." Maybe they're not so blind after all. So, I started reading the article. Everything seemed okay until I get to this sub-headline:

"The National Guard Is in Iraq"

One paragraph that follows says (I should add that earlier in the article they mention how isolated the various hard-hit communities in Alabama are):

"As frustration with the situation grows, so too does anger at the government. "Where are they when you need them?" Betsy Foreman shouts out. "No one comes and no one helps." When it's suggested to her that the US Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Guard have mobilized tens of thousands of troops, she snorts and says abruptly: "The Guard is in Iraq!""

And, there you have it. Betsy Foreman, apparently some sort of expert, has definitively announced to the world (well, Germany, at least) that there is no National Guard in Alabama to help -- they're all in Iraq.

What was it I said earlier? Oh yeah:

ARGH!

Well, it's not just me. Where I live here, CNN International is the only English-language source of news on our cable system.

From Roger L. Simon's blog:

"September 02, 2005"

"CNN Masochism"

"I don't know why I do it (maybe because they're only game in town) but listening to CNN during the Katrina crisis continues to be a gruesome experience. We hear a litany of criticism of the administration and everybody else involved in the rescue program, but barely one single concrete suggestion about how things could be done better. It's like attending a Conclave of the Fatuous. Notable among them this morning Kyoto time - Ron Brownstein of the LATimes."

"New Orleans and the MSM"

"Even coming from the position of ignorance that I am in - typing this post from close to the other side of the world from New Orleans in Kyoto, Japan - I feel that The Anchoress is correct in her superbly written analysis of the hurricane catastrophe and the press, specifically CNN. I am able to watch CNN,nby far the most common American television outlet outside the US, in my hotel room - and it is a wretched display of biased and reactionary journalism indeed. They started blaming the administration, as The Anchoress shows us, almost before anyone knew what was really happening (assuming that we do now).

"I think CNN would turn Noah's flood into a partisan attack on George Bush. Even such a hardened politico as James Carville had to tell their brain dead reporter to shut up and deal with the reality in front of him, rather than casting blame. What is wrong with these CNN people? What culture do they come from? Their lack of moral and psychological sophistication is truly stunning.

"When I see this kind of reporting, I know we are doing the right thing at Pajamas Media in trying to organize the blogosphere, just a little bit, as the beginning of an antidote."

[sigh]

So it all comes back to Bush? What a thoughtful and original piece of deductive thinking there. The continuing pedestrian obsession, but then with what I am reading in Der Spiegel I can see it is consistent with what the German media is preaching.
In America, which is still years behind Europe (but catching up) in its growing Socialistic mindset, not all solutions must come from the central government.

You can simplistically blame Pres Bush, or you could educate yourself on how America really works and understand that there is an elected Mayor who is responsible for taking care of planning and running the city, the Mayor of New Orleans is Ray Nagin (D). What did he do to prepare his city for this catastrophe? Then there are seven elected parrish officials who are responsible for planning and running the larger county, Orleans Parish. What did they do to prepare their parish for this catastrophe? Then there is the state Governor Kathleen Blanco (D), who is responsible for planning and running the State. What did she do to prepare the state for this catastrophe? Then there are 14 state representatives (11 dems) and 2 Senators, (1 Dem) who are responsible for representing the states interests in the federal government. What did they do to prepare their state for this catastrophe?

You are probably right on the question of accountability. All of these elected officials hold responsibilities at their various levels that one has to willfully ignore before shamelessly pointing a finger and blaming the federal government for being incompetent. Since 80% of these elected officials are democrats (Gov, LtGov, Attorney General, Treasurer, commissioner of Agriculture and Forestry, commissioner of Insurance . . . .) they will, no doubt, continue to "blame Pres Bush" and deflect attention from their own seeming culpability in this disaster. Then they will slink away with their fingers crossed hoping to God everyone buys into their cheap and sleazy accusations and hoping to God no one thinks any more or deeper about it than a number of people here did.

The federal governments responsibility should be to coordinate 50 states disaster relief programs through FEMA and to help fund portions if applicable. The President spoke the day after the hurricane and pledged federal assistance. Just like in the tsunami relief efforts earlier this year, as the magnitude of this disaster becomes better known, the assistance has grown from millions to billions.

http://www.planning.org/growingsmart/pdf/states/louisan.pdf outlines Louisiana state department and commission responsibilities for various aspects of planning and running the state government's business.

http://www.goca.state.la.us/swa-pdf/report20042005stateplan.pdf The state plan for conservation and restoration.
Granted these are not the detailed documents but they make the point that Louisiana's democrat leadership knows it is their responsibility and are cynically playing politics for the media. I would say it is the state officials who; 1) have failed their constituency, or 2) have had all their good planning and valiant efforts overwhelmed by the magnitude of this catastrophy.


The next grand canard floated by the "progressives' at the DNC and their fellow travelers in the American MSM and in the European medias is the reason why there are "no National Guard patrolling the lawless streets of New Orleans" is because none are available due to their all being 'sucked up in Bush's War for Oil in Iraq!" If any of these "compassionate" loudmouths knew the National Guard activation process they would know it normally takes two to four weeks. Instead the National Guard is showing up in 4 to 5 days. 22,000 on the streets or on their way as we speak! How many would be enough to satisfy this specious accusation? I am willing to bet no amount . . . ever!
There aren't enough troops in Iraq . . . there aren't enough troops in New Orleans . . . lions and tigers and bears !!! Oh my!

The third grand canard the democrats and main stream medias on both continents are attempting to create is an issue of race. That these folks are not being taken care of because they are black. But with:
- 67% of the city population being African American,
- Mayor Nagin (D) is African American
- New Orleans Police Superintendent Richard Pennington (D) is African American.
- 11 of 14 Council members are African American
- 31 African American legislators sit in the Louisiana Legislature (32.5% of state pop)
- 1 of their State Senators is African American
With all of this African American leadership up and down the New Orleans political spectrum, are the DNC and MSM saying that African American leadership, with all of their clout and access, are choosing not to help the African American community in New Orleans? Or are we once again simply witnessing the "soft bigotry of low expectations" by our "we care more than you care" progressive liberal democrat brethren?

With hundreds of miles wide swath of destruction visited upon the breadth of the American gulf states have you asked yourself .. . . . why is all the footage concentrated in New Orleans? Ah, because "that is where it is the worst!" you say? Well, actually, factually, $$ amounts, etc . . . no! That is not a true statement.
A truer set of statements would be that is where people were the least prepared, that is where the largest percentage chose not to heed the government warnings and evacuate, that is where people are now behaving the worst. The truest statement in this sorry spectacle is . . . that is a narrow very picturesque slice where certain people with agendas can get specific video to make their myopic and self-serving political point.
Now, I don't know the racial make up or party affiliation of the folks whose lives have been destroyed in Alabama or Mississippi but I do know it will be hard to continue this preferred facade of a "racial or socioeconomic element" in the relief efforts if they show more photos of the eastern, upwind, more devastated side of the hurricanes path that struck in Alabama and Mississippi, where apparently people prepared, people heeded the evacuation warning, and people are not behaving like thugs and animals!!!
Yep, inspite there being much, much worse damage, there apparently is not much in those locations for the MSM to use to make their preferred point of all this being the result of Bush's "slashing this," or "not signing that" or "taking us into an elective war on a lie!"

Oddly enough, for the Europeans context, as usual provides some interesting insight on their knee jerk Anti-Bush point.

http://www.cnn.com/WEATHER/9707/21/european.floods/index.html http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9707/27/germany.floods/index.html http://www.cnn.com/WEATHER/9707/25/europe.floods/index.html

The worst disaster in a century they say? And yet, using their own logic, in the face of natural disasters, "there seems to be no effort in determining what could and should have been done to prevent the disaster..." from happening again a mere five years later?
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/08/14/floods.prague/index.html. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2193167.stm
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/europe.floods/
I am also certain that, German "experts were aware of these Dutch measures" of flood control. Was any official held accountable after this repeat "worst flood of the century," failure a mere five years after the original "worst flood in a century?" Or are the European governments and the EU "ones in which no one ever gets punished for not doing their jobs." The EU didn't increase the request for relief funding into the billion euro realm until two weeks after the disaster. Is this proof of European leaderships incompetence and their being "convinced that the relief efforts were going fine?" Or oddly enough, did they too start out promising millions to put a mark on the wall in recognition of the need and, as they understood the magnitude of the disaster and need, increased the amount?

I honestly think it is impossible to plan for every possibility for every disaster that might happen. But I am certain that as soon as the German/Euro authorities understood the extent of each flood, and as soon as mother nature complied, they got control of the situation, provided aid and comfort to those requiring it, assisted or repaired the damage to the homes and infrastructure, and then used the lessons learned to update their planning for future similar disasters? Which is, oddly enough, what will happen in New Orleans!

Interestingly, they are criticizing the American president for doing exactly what German/EU leadership did when you were struck by a natural disaster. Proof of the emotional basis, hence, the speciousness of their point?
It is comical and a redundant question but, what would you all do if you didn't have the Pres Bush/NeoCon/Ami boogieman! to blame for all the woes in, what appears to me to be, your very small and cramped world view?

Tyranno

Trittin has replied. Just not to SPIEGEL: but to FR
"At a time when everybody assumed that New Orleans had been spared the worst, I followed the invitation of the FR to write an article about the connection of climate policy to the catastrophe. In the article, I rejected the notion that climate change could be solely responsible for such a hurricane. [...] You can't blame a text written on Monday for not reacting to events of Tuesday and Wednesday. Had I known the entire extent of the catastrophe, I would have first occupied myself with the question of how these people could be helped and how to get New Orleans [...] habitable again. And after all that, then it's about the question I posed on Monday: How can you prevent that there will be more and more events like this that create such misery for people and that are increasingly becoming worse?" (my translation)

You might also want to note that, in the original article, Trittin did not link Katrina with Bush: clickme
"No-one can prove that climate change is solely responsible for a single storm like this. But three things are scientifically provable: natural catastrophes are occuring more frequently and are becoming more violent. Climate change increases the possibility of storms and floods happening in North America and Europe. And: people are contributing to the climate change by polluting the air with greenhouse gases.
There can be only one consequence: greenhouse gases must be radically reduced, worldwide. So far, the US have closed their eyes to this neccessity. [...] The American President is closing his eyes to the economical and human damage inflicted to his country and world economy because of natural catastrophes like "Katrina", ergo, because of lacking climate protection."
(my translation)
Now, you might not agree with his theories about climatic change and the conclusions he takes these theories to. I don't. And yes, he does attack Mr Bush's environmental policy. He's not even very nice about it, all but saying that Bush is not sensible. He goes on to explain how Americans are responsible for a much higher percentage of carbon-dioxide emissions than Europeans, proportionally. He cites examples of countries and organisations and groups and people agreeing with his view (which, in his mind, is the correct one). Yada, yada, yada. Nothing the Germans (or the world, for that matter), haven't heard before. He's been saying stuff like that for years.
But he does not say that Bush caused Katrina because he didn't sign the Kyoto treaty. Neither does he say that, had Bush (or Clinton, or whoever) signed it earlier on, the catastrophe might have been avoided. He doesn't even imply it. Sure, he could have explicitly said that changes (in whatever direction) in climate policy are long-term only. But why state the obvious?

Note from David: It's a waste of time to argue with folks like St.Roch who try to interprete away the obvious: that Trittin (and his green followers) want to link Katrina-type hurricans to Bush's policies. It's an insult to Trittin's intelligence to argue otherwise.

I admit that I'm going to vote for the Greens in two weeks. I don't have a choice. I would really like to vote for the "real" Conservatives, if there were any Conservatives left in the Union's upper echelons. Adenauer and Erhard are probably rotating in their graves right now, seeing what Kohl has done to their country and what Merkel will do. (Schröder has made a lot of mistakes, yes. But I think he's finally gotten a grip on himself in the last year or so, bitching by his own party notwithstanding.)
It doesn't really matter whether I vote or not, because Merkel is going to be the next Chancellor, either of a Black/Yellow coalition or a Great Coalition. But at least this way I can say I didn't help her being elected.

However, that doesn't have anything to do with what I quoted. I don't even like Trittin. I said I don't agree with him on matters of the greenhouse effect. But the Trittin-bashing you're doing isn't any better than the Bush-bashing and Americans-bashing you accuse the German media of (sometimes rightfully).
What you present on this site, David, is your skewed view of Trittin's statements, and only your view, by deliberately not translating passages that do not fit with the message you believe Trittin wanted to get across. You're not alone in that, of course. SPON is happily agreeing with you in this, for reasons of their own. So does BILD, which I will leave uncommented. Before I read what he actually said, even I thought that Trittin's statements were pretty moronic and tasteless.
But now I have read the article. And the response to the accusations (a response which you don't feel like mentioning on your site, strangely; would that have been "a waste of time", too?). What I tried to do is present a different side to the argument. I'll try to clarify:

Of course Trittin believes that the increasing occurence of natural catastrophes is due to global warming. He also believes that we - that is, the world - should start right now to change things for the better, so that it doesn't become even worse. He's been trying for years to "convince" Bush that his policies are wrong (no matter how stupid it is to believe a lowly environmental minister could change the American President's mind by repeating the same arguments every few weeks in German papers). Sure. I'm not saying he doesn't. But he does not fault Bush for this one specific hurricane called Katrina, which is what you claim in your first angry retort on August 30 and imply in the follow-up on September 1st.

To recap, what Trittin has actually been saying in his first article:
1. Katrina probably happened because of, or was at least strengthened by, global warming.
2. Global warming is evil and should be stopped.
3. We should start right now by reducing CO2 emissions.
4. If we do so, we decrease the possibility of more devastating hurricans like Katrina sometime in the future.
5. Bush is a moron if he doesn't think so. (No, he didn't say that. David believes that's what he meant. Ok, I'll go with that.)
Has he said that Katrina wouldn't have happened if Bush had been more concerned about climate protection? Nope.
Has he said that, if Bush doesn't change his mind, sometime in the future the people of the world will feel the terrible consequences of this decision? Not in so many words, but yes, that's what he believes.
Does that mean that he's linking Katrina-type hurricans to Bush's policies? Yes, it does, if you mean hurricanes and other catastrophes in the far future. Global warming has been going on for more than a hundred years. It might take another hundred years for changes that are implemented right now to take effect. Or they might work a lot faster, I'm not an expert. But even the biggest idiot should realize that the environment is not going to be improved overnight if it has been polluted since industrialisation began on a massive scale. (Please note that he could be wrong. I am aware of the theories that global warming is a natural phenomenon and human influence - CO2 etc. - so small that it doesn't matter. However, Trittin doesn't think so. Bear that in mind when thinking over the conclusions he reaches.)
So he thinks that Bush is responsible for the destruction of New Orleans, right? No, he doesn't. Environmental programs are long-term. Katrina would probably have happened anyway even if Bush (or Clinton) had signed the treaty and fulfilled it. Trittin does not deny that, and neither do his "green followers".

And what has he said in his second article?
1. He never claimed what everybody seems to think he did (see above).
2. Despite allegations to the contrary, he is deeply sorry for the blow that has been dealt to the affected Americans.
3. When he wrote the first article, things didn't look so bad. It seemed as if Katrina would pass New Orleans without doing any damage the Americans couldn't handle or didn't expect.
4. Had he known the extent of the catastrophe, or, in other words, had he written the article on Tuesday or Wednesday, he wouldn't have written it the way he did.
5. His point, however, remains: to prevent things like this from happening in the future, the world has to eliminate man-caused global warming. One of the main pollutors (not the one, but one of many) is America.
6. He hopes that the destruction caused by Katrina will eventually "open the eyes of many Americans" (i.e., have them believe in his worldview), ultimately, of course, those of the President. (No, he doesn't say that either. But it's what I think that he thinks.)

By the way, anyone who says that Trittin deliberately phrased his first comments relatively harshly (which he did) to win over undecided voters is insulting Trittin's intelligence, and that of many readers. Most readers of the FR are already very likely to vote left, they don't need encouragement. And even if he counted on the outrage following his comments (which, again, I don't think he did) to carry his message beyond FR readers, he must have been incredibly stupid not to realize that, in the current atmosphere, most of the popular media outlets would pull him to pieces despite any "Bush-bashing", however remote.
Most Germans are stupid and believe what their favourite papers and their favourite TV channels tell them. If BILD and SPIEGEL and WELT and SPON tell their readers that his comments are just further proof that the man should be voted out of office, that's what the people believe. Especially with the already unpopular Trittin.
...
It is a pretty creative way to commit political suicide, though...

Sorry for the triple-post, but you'll like the reason: I have to correct myself. You do link to Trittin's response in your third update. Well, you (or Ray, I don't know who did it) link to SPON summary that is a lot more biased than my translation, and, of course, roundaboutly says Trittin is talking bullshit. "continues to remain silent on the flood vicrims" is also true, I suppose, if you interpret it referring to an interview with SPON.
So, sorry for accusing you of deliberately denying your non-German readers Trittin's answers. I'm not above admitting I'm wrong when I'm wrong.

You can't blame a text written on Monday for not reacting to events of Tuesday and Wednesday.

What about the events of Saturday and Sunday?

Doug:
>>What about the events of Saturday and Sunday?<<

Allow me to quite the same text you quoted from:
"At a time when everybody assumed that New Orleans had been spared the worst..."
Yes, the storm had already caused a lot of destruction when Trittin wrote the piece. He even mentioned that in his first article. But did it look like the worst catastrophe ever to have happened to the US in recent memory? Were there thousands of dead people? No. I agree that he could have phrased his statement as a little less cold. All loss of life, however small, is tragic. But is it fair demanding that this man be fired? On Saturday and Sunday, Katrina was yet another ordinary hurricane. Hurricanes happen, they are a fact of life in America. Hurricanes destroy a lot, yes. Hurricanes often kill a few people, yes. Both things happened with Katrina. None of these things was really unusual. It wasn't until later that the damn thing turned really bad.

You yourself have linked to Robert Kennedy's blog. That guy is an American. He's said pretty much what Trittin has said, pretty much on the same day, pretty much without any seeming concern for the (then few) victims. He didn't seem to think the number of Katrina victims (to that point) all that extraordinary, or he wouldn't have made a damn joke at the end of his article!

St.Roch

I don't understand how you're trying to defend, or make sense out of the undefendable. It's true that Trittin made the statements before he knew the extent of the crisis.

Other than that, Trittin is a totally irresponsible and immature minister. Claiming that Katrina is or could be one of the results of not signing Kyoto is something no minister of a responsible country should ever do. He acts like a party ideologue, not like a mature politician. He made an amazingly stupid statement (it doesn't matter at what point in time!), which can not be sustained by any facts or stretch of imagination. He should pay for his stupidity and his job should be taken by someone else. He might be the king of the Pfand-Dose, but world events are out of his league. He should go because he is a deplorable figure; his Katrina statements are just the icing on a cake that's been rotting for too long time.

I can only add that RFK Jr. IS a party ideologue. I would hold the German Environment Minister to a higher standard.

WhatDoIKnow:
>>I don't understand how you're trying to defend, or make sense out of the undefendable.<<

And I don't understand how you can have read my explanations and still believe that Trittin is "Claiming that Katrina is or could be one of the results of not signing Kyoto". Really. I don't. Consider me a stupid German in need of enlightenment and explain to me, slowly, how you can read "Bush is responsible for Katrina" into Trittin's statements.
I'm not defending Trittin's coldness. I'm not defending Trittin's worldview. I'm defending the unfair accusation that the man's making Bush directly responsible for this particular hurricane.

Again: Yes, of course Trittin says that hurricanes that happen in the future (not next year, or the one after that, but in 50 or 100 years) might be caused be extensive global warming. Since he believes that CO2 emissions are the cause for global warming, of course he's implying that Bush - who, in Trittin's eyes, is responsible for not throttling the emissions of his country - will be responsible, at least in part, for the violence of such a possible future hurricane. Yes. I'm not defending that.

I imagine Trittin sitting at his desk writing the article and thinking "Oh, that goddman Bush, why doesn't he do anything? Doesn't he realize that this hurricane would have done much less damage if our ancestors had put climatic protection policies into effect? Doesn't he realize that, if he doesn't start following Europe's good idea, more hurricanes like this one will happen? Why can't he see that? I only want to help his people! All people! The planet belongs to all of us!"
He doesn't simply say that CO2 emissions cause global warming. He believes it. And since he's a Green, who are by default relatively internationally inclined (you can destroy nuclear reactors all you like in your own country, if one of your neighbour's reactors explodes near the border, you're fucked as well), he wants all of the world to benefit from his ideas to save the environment.
He may be wrong. Even stupid. Ok, I've got no problem if people have another opinion of him. I would agree that he's not the brighest Green ever. But I think it's unfair to see him as a malicious anti-American who's fishing for voters on the right fringe. Because I really don't see him this way.


Doug:
>>I can only add that RFK Jr. IS a party ideologue. I would hold the German Environment Minister to a higher standard.<<

Oh? I had the impression he was pretty popular in the States (Kennedy, not Trittin). Or at least I've heard his name mentioned quite frequently. He's one of the few not-already-retired Democrats whose names I recognize.

@St Roch.
you said..
And since he's a Green, who are by default relatively internationally inclined (you can destroy nuclear reactors all you like in your own country, if one of your neighbour's reactors explodes near the border, you're fucked as well), he wants all of the world to benefit from his ideas to save the environment.


If Trittin is so opposed to nuclear power, why doesnt he go after the French? the french produce much if not most of their electricity from nuclear power..
but yet the German Greens have not said much about it..
they have complained about the big bad oil gobbling USA.. SUVS, Kyoto, b lah blha blha

doppelmoral..? und wie...
of course the french are the German§s allies against the evil empire USA...
moral hypocrisy

@St Roch.
you said..
And since he's a Green, who are by default relatively internationally inclined (you can destroy nuclear reactors all you like in your own country, if one of your neighbour's reactors explodes near the border, you're fucked as well), he wants all of the world to benefit from his ideas to save the environment.


If Trittin is so opposed to nuclear power, why doesnt he go after the French? the french produce much if not most of their electricity from nuclear power..
but yet the German Greens have not said much about it..
they have complained about the big bad oil gobbling USA.. SUVS, Kyoto, b lah blha blha

doppelmoral..? und wie...
of course the french are the German§s allies against the evil empire USA...
moral hypocrisy

@St. Roch -
Oh? I had the impression he was pretty popular in the States (Kennedy, not Trittin). Or at least I've heard his name mentioned quite frequently. He's one of the few not-already-retired Democrats whose names I recognize.

It's a famous political family. If you're born a kennedy, you're born popular among Democrats. I think that the Kennedy you're most likely to be familiar with though is Senator Ted Kennedy, brother to president Kennedy, although you might have heard of the lesser-known RFK Jr. RFK Jr. didn't get into elected office, but he's a lawyer who's been very much involved in environmental causes (in a "for thee, not for me" kinda way).

amiexpat:
>>If Trittin is so opposed to nuclear power, why doesnt he go after the French? the french produce much if not most of their electricity from nuclear power..<<
You have answered your own question:
>>of course the french are the German§s allies against the evil empire USA...<<

Doug:
>>I think that the Kennedy you're most likely to be familiar with though is Senator Ted Kennedy, brother to president Kennedy<<
Hm, no, sorry. I don't think I have.

>>although you might have heard of the lesser-known RFK Jr. RFK Jr. didn't get into elected office, but he's a lawyer who's been very much involved in environmental causes<<
Ah. Yes, that might be where I know him from.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

May 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31