Skip to content

Creative Bush Bashing

The New York Times Blog The Lede (HT: David) describes a press release from Germany's Environment Minister Gabriel (Social Democrats) as "creative":

In a statement released today, Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel described Mr. Bush's speech on Wednesday as disappointing. But the statements harshest words were put in the title of Mr. Gabriel's critique, according to Reuters: "Gabriel Criticizes Bush's Neanderthal Speech. Losership, Not Leadership"

Comparing any unpopular leader to an ancestor of Man is hardly original, though far more expected from the likes of Kim Jong Il of North Korea rather than a government with warm ties to the U.S. Mr. Gabriel's kicker, however, seemed in a league of its own. Losership, Not Leadership? That's a new one, according to Google.

UPDATE: Mr. Gabriel was criticized in March for polluting the atmosphere. He used a government plane to fly back from the Spanish holiday island of Mallorca for a cabinet meeting in Berlin, writes Spiegel International (HT: Bashy).


No Trackbacks


Display comments as Linear | Threaded

bashy on :

I believe it was Gabriel who had aplane pick him up from vacation.Took him to a meeting, then flew him back to vacation. so, who cares what he thinks.

Zyme on :

It doesn´t take such incidents to stop caring about his thoughts. He is a political balloon full of hot air with a face printed above.

Don S on :

Ummmm, right. I thought you were praising him for a moment there, Zyme. ;) This guy sounds liek a blivet to me. What's a blivet you may ask? Simple. A blivet is 200 kilos of excrement in a 100 kilo bag. Jürgen Trittin was a blivet also, I think. Is it part of the job description for the 'Environment Minister', you think? ;)

jabgoe on :

What does it mean? It only means that the blog's author's maximum research attempts are settled with a google search. Something google doesn't find has to be new. In this special case he might be right, but generally speaking it's a very poor news gathering policy.

Joe Noory on :

Not new? It's dated Thursday.

David on :

Gabriel may be on to something in associating President Bush with Neanderthals. It was war and climate change that doomed the Neanderthals. Bush's embrace of war and his policies that have only exacerbated climate change are bad for the species (homo sapiens) and the planet. We need a higher order of leadership.

Joe Noory on :

Really David? Other than anecdotes, [url=]where's your proof[/url]? Or are you just going to accept some sort of repeated received wisdom? A few weeks ago, I chatteed with a German school teacher with a PhD who referred to Glogal Warming as "that thing you created", as if there never was a factory in Europe, as if they never mined or burned coal, as if they weren't the biggest industrial polluters only eclipsed by the Soviet sphere, etc. Have you ever looked at satellite images of North America and Europe? The US makes Europe look like a denuded parking lot. But Noooooo.... that doesn't matter, does it - a point I tired to make a few months back to an Austrian engineer trying to pitch some overpriced HVAC interlock rubish was telling me how proud he was of his work in Germany. Why? Because they had gotten their heating energy costs to that of the US state of Minnesota, a state where the mean temperature in winter is at least 10C lower than it is in any population part of Germany. Obviously he was trying to pitch his precious overpriced rubbish which would need to be imported from across the ocean with a guilt-trip that would only work on someone who would struggle with non-subjective reasoning. Haven't you ever wondered why the biggest thumpers of extreme greenie-ness are a lot less likely to have a science or engineering background instead of a social science or lit degree?

Kevin Sampson on :

'It was war and climate change that doomed the Neanderthals.' That is one THEORY. To present it as an established fact borders on dishonesty.

Reid of America on :

Until Germany and the EU meet their Kyoto commitments they are hypocritical to criticize the US. According to the UN Kyoto will be a net benefit economically. Why isn't Germany and the EU expanding their economies through CO2 reductions? As I see Germany and the EU are international environmental criminal nations for not meeting their commitments. The American people don't take the EU seriously on global warming because they talk big but don't deliver. I would say Germany and the EU suffer from environmental impotence. The spirit is willing but the flesh prefers modern life.

Joe Noory on :

[url=]Indeed[/url]: [i]· Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%. · Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%. · Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%. · Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.[/i] [url=]indeed...[/url]

Fuchur on :

Wait a second: Germany actually is one of the few countries that are on the best way of reaching their Kyoto commitment. Germany vowed to reduce its emissions until 2012 by 21% compared to 1990, and has already reached a reduction of about 18%. Granted, a lot of this has to do with the demise of the GDR, but hey. Therefore, Germany without doubt has bragging rights. But of course I agree that it's hard to believe that reduction of emissions should help the economy. Of course, there is some stimulus because firms working in fields related to "climate control" (or whatever you want to call it) will profit, but for everybody else, it just makes production more expensive.

Joe Noory on :

That wasn't the point of the communique though - the point directed at the U.S., not any measure of success that the FRG had. In fact the only way it could be generally outwardly directed in respect to German success in that area is if you see America as the "everything" out there of the subject of criticism. ...which it isn't. I look forward to seeing a similar missive directed at the Chinese or Indian governments. One other thing you may notice: not only is the emmission data so narrowly interpreted so as to not include absorption, the only places emmissions could genuinely drop are in places where industrial output is stagnating and the population is dropping or aging its way out of the industrial workforce. The GDR shutting down was just that: a reduction of human activity. By any real measure, very few of the gains are being achieved by "green economy" initiatives, and the air grew cleaner since the late 80s through regulation having nothing to do with the regulated curbing of CO2 which has barely started.

Fuchur on :

[i]That wasn't the point of the communique though[/i] It was Reid's point. I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. Gabriel criticized Bush's speech and Bush's climate policy. That's it: no more, no less. He didn't claim that Germany's policy is perfect, he didn't claim that everthing is Bush's fault, he didn't claim that everything is America's fault. However, undeniably the US produces about one quarter of worldwide climate gas emisssions, and has one of the highest outputs per person. So please don't act as if attacks on American climate policy are totally random and not based upon nothing but evil anti-Americanism. [i]the only places emmissions could genuinely drop are in places where industrial output is stagnating[/i] Says you. Others say differently. The US has at least managed to slow down its emissions growth without hurting its economy. How is that possible if the only way to reduce emissions is economic stagnation?

Don S on :

Possibly because the goal is an 80% reduction, Fuchur? Difficult to imagine that kind of reduction and avoiding a global depression. Much less any economic growth. Bu7t hey. After the die-off (WWIII?) perhaps we'll have room for a little economic growth for those remaining....

franchie on :

sound like that has started already : [url=]food rationing[/url]

Pat Patterson on :

Of course Neanderthal man still exists. Have you guys all forgotten about Alley Oop and Oola?

Don S on :

Not nearly as 'creative' as his predecessor Jürgen Trittin, who firmly assigned responsibility for Hurricane Katrina to President Bush. Poor Herr Gabriel - he has to surpass THAT?!!!! Hard to do- but he's obhviously trying....

Joe Noory on :

Gotta love that [url=]Jürgen Trittin[/url], eh? THe idea that there is a world view out there that can convince people that a political ideology can cause hurricanes is rather amusing. It's also reminiscent of the methods by which cult programming works... training people to see external events as a trigger to a pre-positioned feeling (usually negative) to exert from them a desired response followed by some sort of emotional reward. It's a sort of slap and tickle for the fans of mass pathology out there.

Fuchur on :

Oh, puh-leeze. It has been pointed out numerous times that Der Spiegel failed to mention the teensy little detail that Trittin had written his article at least a day before the catastrophe hit in New Orleans. At that time, general opinion was "Yawn, another hurricane season. Same procedure as every few years.". Only the next day, the levees broke, and a big nuisance turned into a major catastrophe. In view of that, I found Der Spiegel's wannabe outrage pretty dishonest. It was just a cheap attempt to boost its English edition by playing on American anti-Germanism. And, no: Trittin never said that Bush was responsible for Katrina. (And just for the record: I didn't like Trittin, I don't like Gabriel and I don't care about climate change. But I also like facts.)

Joe Noory on :

You're forgetting about the unceasing repetition of that very Weltanschauung - the notion that hurricanes, and by some, the Asian Tsunami, were caused by American caused Global Warming. [i][url=]New Orleans, LA--Aerial views of damage caused from Hurricane Katrina the day after the hurricane hit August 30, 2005.[/url][/i] [url=]September 01, 2005[/url] “Katrina’s Real Name is Global Warming” [i]In Germany, Environmental Minister Jurgen Tritten sparked a political firestorm [b]this week[/b] when he penned an article in a German newspaper saying “Greenhouse gases have to be radically reduced worldwide. The US has, up until this point, had its eyes closed to this emergency.” He linked Hurricane Katrina to global warming and America’s refusal to reduce emission.[/i] The hurricane had already spent 10 days [url=]menacing islands[/url] in the Caribbean. This was a redux of several previous hurricanes, but it was never trotted out into the legitimate media when it ocurred with the same frequency and severity when the president's name was Clinton and not Bush.

David on :

BREAKING: Pat's boy breaks yet another record. From USA Today (Tues. April 22): "WASHINGTON — President Bush has set a record he'd presumably prefer to avoid: the highest disapproval rating of any president in the 70-year history of the Gallup Poll. In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, 28% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing; 69% disapprove. The approval rating matches the low point of his presidency, and the disapproval sets a new high for any president since Franklin Roosevelt. The previous record of 67% was reached by Harry Truman in January 1952, when the United States was enmeshed in the Korean War."

Pat Patterson on :

David-Congrtulations you have succeeded in becoming just one more irrelevant and tiresomely dishonest crank. And yet I will not judge Sen. Obama by the nature of some of his minor supporters as that is simply not fair nor the American way of doing things.

Pat Patterson on :

Plus don't forget it was one of the earliest Gallup polls that had Gov. Dewey leading Pres. Truman till the day after the election. Very prescient!

Add Comment

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.

Form options