« Gerhard Schroeder Spreading Christmas Joy in China | Main | "The West Needs Blood on its Streets" / "Der Westen braucht Blut in seinen Straßen" »



--we must begin work on a second climate protection treaty and include the USA, and incidentally China and India as well. If we don't include the USA, multilateralism is only halfway."--

Assholes - why do they think we didn't sign it the first time?

The 2 largest, most polluting countries in the world weren't in it. 1/3 of the world's developing population wasn't covered.

" And one also can't dream away the fundamentally anti-American, anti-conservative foundations and roots of the Green party."

And what are those roots, one wonders? I know how it promotes itself. But there does seem to be a family resemblance to communism.

This is not so much an attempt to bait loyalists of the Green Party as it is an expression of honest curiosity.

German greens, German reds, German magentas. Regardless of their color of the day, their words are those of Germany's favorite son, Karl.

Eine DPA-Meldung lautet wie folgt:

"Verbraucherministerin Künast (Grüne) hat sich für die Einführung von islamischem Religionsunterricht an deutschen Schulen ausgesprochen. "Warum soll man nur die Inhalte der Bibel, nicht aber des Koran vermitteln?", sagte Frau Künast der "Berliner Zeitung"."

Die Grünen eben, immer wieder ein grandioses Vorbild, wenn es um Integration von vermeintlichen Minderheiten und dem Dialog der Kulturen geht. Ein Konglomerat von Antisemiten, Antiamerikanern, Antiwestlern und generell eine Partei, die für meine Begriffe unwählbar ist.

"If we don't include the USA, multilateralism is only halfway."

Heh, you've got to get your translations right before you can ridicule them: The German "Ohne die USA einzubinden, bleibt der Multilateralismus halb." does not talk about "we" or "Europeans". A correct translation would have been "Multilateralism is only halfway if IT doesn't include the USA." Can't argue with that.

"Never. But John Kerry wouldn't have done so either. We have, however, managed, against the blockade of the hegemonial power USA, to realize Kyoto and to push through environmental policy internationally. That is a breakthrough. With Kyoto the climate catastrophe is still a long way from being averted. The international climate policy is growing ever more important - we must begin work on a second climate protection treaty and include the USA, and incidentally China and India as well. If we don't include the USA, multilateralism is only halfway."

Nothing demonstrates more clearly than Kyoto that, for the Greens as well as the rest of the European leftists, the pose is everything, and the reality, nothing. When it comes to greenhouse emissions and climate change they just keep on lying. In the first place, the obvious reasons the US rejected Kyoto are never mentioned in Europe. Among other things, it would have required only the US to make any serious sacrifices, and would have ignored the fact that using 1990 emissions as a baseline was grossly unfair because, 1) The US economy, unlike the European, had not been anemic during the 1990's, 3) The US could not rely on closing down heavily polluting and bankrupt industries in the formerly Communist east to meet its goals, and 3) the US, unlike Europe, had no access to massive new easily accessible sources of less polluting natural gas. In the second place, the leftist elite in Europe, passionately fond of striking heroic public poses as our defenders against the "Day after Tomorrow," can't bring themselves to admit to the public that Kyoto would have had a null effect on global warming. At most, it would have reduced greenhouse emissions by less than one half of one percent. No credible simulation has ever shown that this would have any effect on climate change whatsoever. A much better strategy would be to promote nuclear power, but we all know the green position on that. Once again, their addiction to the role of saviors of humanity, this time from the non-existent bogeyman of the China Syndrome, has insulated them against getting a grip on reality and actually doing something useful against climate change. Wind farms are another potentially effective way to reduce greenhouse emissions. They are now economically viable, with slower moving blades that are much less deadly to birds. Guess who's leading the fight against them? Surprise! In the US, arch-liberal Teddy Kennedy is leading the charge against them, because they would spoil the view from his Massachusetts beachfront property. He's hardly the only leftist who is whole-heartedly in favor of renewable energy as long as the facilities aren't built in his back yard.

Regardless of the state of relations between the US and Europe, we can be certain of two things: 1) The Greens will continue to strike ostentatious poses as the saviors of humanity from the disastrous climate changes of the "Day after Tomorrow," and 2) Nothing they do will have more than a cosmetic effect in actually averting climate change. They are not interested in saving humanity. They are interested in appearing to save humanity.

"Bush will centrally attack societal liberalism. And he will continue on the path on which the social responsibility of the state is only just very small."

Can anyone explain Bush's new mega-billion dollar prescription drug entitlement to me in the context of that remark?

That is what the Greens truly fear. They see themselves as the leaders of a cultural war against conservatives, Republicans and the United States. The conflict is an old and familiar one: It revolves around what role government should play in people's lives. The Greens want a paternal, cradle-to-grave welfare state. They want big government to play a central role and they are not ashamed to say so. They desperately fear privatization and market-based competition of any kind. And yes, they see the success of the United States and the Republicans as a threat to everything they stand for. That is why they earlier called upon all Europeans to do "whatever it takes to get Bush voted out."

na und?

@ AF:

How does your translation change the fundamental argument? My point was that the Greens are admitting that if the USA is not included, it isn't entirely multilateral. It is only halfway multilateral. Whether we take your translation or mine, the point is still clear.

---Ray D.

I found this to be very interesting. What this really addresses is a core fundamental difference between the US and much of Europe, especially “old Europe”.

That difference is the “core” concept of the role of the government in people lives. In Europe there are many who believe, think and want the state to play an ever-increasing larger role in people lives. This really is the concept of the social welfare state. It is the group over the individual. We can see this by the suffocating array of laws, regulations, rules and taxes that govern almost every aspect on a person’s life. Over time, this has resulted in an eroding of not only individual responsibility but also of individual initiative. This is reflected in the PEW report from 2003, which found that more than 60% of Germans felt they had no control over their futures.

In the US, the vast majority of people think smaller government is better and correspondingly fewer laws, regulations, rules and taxes.
This is not to say one concept is better than the other or to say one is not better for one nation than it is for another nation.

I for one do not think the US well ever embrace a social welfare state to any degree that is now seen in Europe. Having said that about the US, I for one am not sure what options the Europeans and especially those who are citizens of “old Europe” have in their efforts to continue their current social welfare state. I would seem some like the Greens and the left of the SPD actually want to increase the size and breath of the existing social welfare state. What Europe and Germans must ask themselves is can the existing welfare be sustained?

The man's an idiot. The U.S. does not have an "anti-kyoto blockade", they just don't want to sign on themselves, just like China and India.
We don't care who signs it. I'm amazed he didn't try to tie it to AbuGreib, some murderer who is facing the electric chair, pop tarts, and Cher...

Basically all the Kyoto treaty is, is a system of transfers of payments from nations with higher CO2 output to lesser ones. It does not factor in concepts like the efficiencies created by the industries emitting them, absorption, or even healthy societies that have population growth.

And if the US internal debt was really some sort of problem to this man, it would obviously be a bigger problem to us here. IT ISN'T.

Hegemony is what you have if you don't permit elections, not when you win them.

(04.12.2004 ) Tagesspiegel

Hauptstadt der Henker

Zwischen Seen, Wäldern und Pferdekoppeln: Nirgendwo auf der Welt wird so oft die Todesstrafe vollstreckt wie in Huntsville, Texas

Von Malte Lehming, Huntsville


Wie kommt der nur auf das Thema?

I'm at a loss. It seems that Germany doesn't understand where the US is, I guess they never did in light of Kyoto and the ICC. I spent way too much time yesterday reading and then posting on the UN report, which is reflected in your post. My guess, the US may well pull out of UN financially by 6/04, unless there are drastic changes, then I must wonder what the rantings will be?

Whoops, meant 06/05! (Hey I'm getting older and the years are getting away from me!)

Kathianne, the US is not going to pull out of the Un, imho, because:

1] It's good to have the veto.

2] We have otherwise got them where we want them.

3] There's no real need to waste the time and political effort. What good would it do?

4] Its not worth the domestic political risk for the Administration/Republican Party.

5] A US withdrawal could possibly start a significant world panic given ignorance, disasterizing, and the chicken-little syndrome, leading perhaps to an economic downturn and possibly a congealing of anti-US military coalitions.

6] It's not Bush's style. He's going to pay homage to the Un, also keeping our enemies closer, while at the same time placing himself above it - rightfully so.

The Un is a kind of useful idiot for highlighting the ills of Socialism, Communism, Despotism, World Government, and Elitism to say nothing of its own racism, greed, pretense, narcissism, hypocrisy, etc.. It plays a part in the "values war", showing how having none does not work, including even its lack of classical scientific rules. The Un needs to be showcased.

I don't think the US will pull out of the UN. I think however that it will cut way back on the ammount it contributes money wise. It makes no sense to be the largest contributor when all the ankle biters attack. Yea I know the US is behind on it UN dues, even with that the US is still the largest contributor of UN funding. Germany and France hardly register compaired to Japan and the US in UN contributions.

Europe's dependance on nuclear power made it relatively easy to embrace Kyoto -- in 1996 France got 72.7% of its total energy supply from nuclear power compared to only 21.7% for the U.S., most European countries fall somewhere between those figures.


"Die Grünen ... ein Konglomerat von Antisemiten, Antiamerikanern und Antiwestlern" - Sehe ich auch so; aber die Grünen, die sich ja gern als weltoffen, links-liberal und hochmoralisch sehen, sind viel zu selbstherrlich, um zu erkennen, wie nahe sie mit diesen drei Haltungen eigentlich den bräunlichen Paleokonservativen sind: "Der Deutsche Weg"/"Kein Blut für Öl" (war während der Ruhrbesetzung von den Völkischen Kräften gegen Frankreich bzw. das kapitalistische GB gemünzt) sind da vielsagende Indikatoren. Auch die als antiautoritäre Erziehung getarnte Bildungs-/Bildungsbürger-Feindlichkeit, auch die als Dritte-Welt-Solidarität getarnte Kapitalismus-Feindlichkeit, auch die als Umweltbesorgnis getarnte Technikfeindlichkeit (Heidegger) im Namen der Scholle (Deutscher Wald) riecht ein wenig nach völkischer Ideologie: Vom Zusammenhang altlinker Esoterik/Feminismus und Neu-Germanentum/Hexenkult im Zeichen einer Ablehnung judeo-christlicher Traditionen nicht zu reden.

Ich sage nicht: Die Grünen sind Nazis; aber sie sind dem braunen Sumpf bei weitem nicht so fern, wie sie selbst das offenbar glauben.

Oder eine andere Bezeichnung: Ökofundamentalisten, die sich zum Ziel gesetzt haben, anderen Menschen vorzuschreiben, wie sie leben sollen, auch wenn das bisweilen so klingt, dass wir schon bald wieder in der Steinzeit leben dürfen. Das fängt bei Umweltthemen an, bei denen es darum geht, die halbe Republik mit Windmühlen zuzupflastern. Und das erstreckt sich weiter über Gesundheitspolitik, was ernährungstechnisch als unbedenklich eingestuft werden kann bis eben gegenwärtig zu der Debatte um die Einführung eines muslimischen Feiertags als Zeichen des guten Willens und demonstrativer Belohnung von Terroranschlägen im Namen des ungemein friedlichen Islam. Schuld ist immer der imperialistische Westen, der Kapitalismus, die Globalisierung, die Juden, und selbst wenn ein paar arme Irre sich in die Luft springen, weil ihnen Allah versprochen hat, im Paradies warten Jungfrauen auf sie, dann wird das eben auch in der Bundesrepublik entsprechend prämiert. Eine bezeichnende Art und Weise, die Wirklichkeit zu verklären, die prinzipiell und tendenziell seines Gleichen sucht. Und so finden sie sich schließlich auf Demonstrationen in Reihe und Glied zusammen, SPD wie Grüne, PDS, NPD und DVU, um gegen das böse Amerika und für die Errichtung des Kalifats auf deutschem Boden zu demonstrieren. Der Dritte Weg ist gefunden, endlich wächst zusammen, was zusammen gehört. Rot und Grün ergibt bekanntermaßen Braun.

The comments to this entry are closed.


The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

June 2022

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