Germans are experiencing a severe bout of "global warming": An outbreak of cold weather has already in October, for the first time in decades, brought close to -6° temperatures and a thick (up to 20cm) snow cover to large areas of the country. "This is something that happens only once in 30 or 40 years", according to meteorologist Christoph Hartmann from the German weather service. "It is the kind of weather that you experience probably only once in your lifetime", Hartmann told the newspaper Die Welt. The icy roads have caused hundreds of traffic accidents, not only in Germany, but also in the Baltic countries and Russia. The cold spell is expected to last at least until the middle of next week.
" His confidence is consistently greater than his acumen, his arrogance greater than his grasp."
Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan deservedly praises Bob Woodward's portrait of Barack Obama:
Which gets us to Bob Woodward's "The Price of Politics," published last month. The portrait it contains of Mr. Obama—of a president who is at once over his head, out of his depth and wholly unaware of the fact—hasn't received the attention it deserves. Throughout the book, which is a journalistic history of the president's key economic negotiations with Capitol Hill, Mr. Obama is portrayed as having the appearance and presentation of an academic or intellectual while being strangely clueless in his reading of political situations and dynamics. He is bad at negotiating—in fact doesn't know how. His confidence is consistently greater than his acumen, his arrogance greater than his grasp.
He misread his Republican opponents from day one. If he had been large-spirited and conciliatory he would have effectively undercut them, and kept them from uniting. (If he'd been large-spirited with Mr. Romney, he would have undercut him, too.) Instead he was toughly partisan, he shut them out, and positions hardened. In time Republicans came to think he doesn't really listen, doesn't really hear. So did some Democrats. Business leaders and mighty CEOs felt patronized: After inviting them to meet with him, the president read from a teleprompter and included the press. They felt like "window dressing." One spoke of Obama's surface polish and essential remoteness. In negotiation he did not cajole, seduce, muscle or win sympathy. He instructed. He claimed deep understanding of his adversaries and their motives but was often incorrect. He told staffers that John Boehner, one of 11 children of a small-town bar owner, was a "country club Republican." He was often patronizing, which in the old and accomplished is irritating but in the young and inexperienced is infuriating. "Boehner said he hated going down to the White House to listen to what amounted to presidential lectures," Mr. Woodward writes.
Mr. Obama's was a White House that had—and showed—no respect for Republicans trying to negotiate with Republicans. Through it all he was confident—"Eric, don't call my bluff"—because he believed, as did his staff, that his talents would save the day.
They saved nothing. Washington became immobilized.
Mr. Woodward's portrait of the president is not precisely new—it has been drawn in other ways in other accounts, and has been a staple of D.C. gossip for three years now—but it is vivid and believable. And there's probably a direct line between that portrait and the Obama seen in the first debate. Maybe that's what made it so indelible, and such an arc-changer.
People saw for the first time an Obama they may have heard about on radio or in a newspaper but had never seen.
They didn't see some odd version of the president. They saw the president
Naturalist - and warmist - David Attenborough is desperately hoping for a "disaster" to happen in "the most powerful nation in the world, North America" in order to wake up the climate heretics:
One of the world's leading naturalists has accused US politicians of ducking the issue of climate change because of the economic cost of tackling it and warned that it would take a terrible example of extreme weather to wake people up to the dangers of global warming.
Speaking just days after the subject of climate change failed to get a mention in the US presidential debates for the first time in 24 years, Sir David Attenborough told the Guardian: "[It] does worry me that most powerful nation in the world, North America, denies what the rest of us can see very clearly [on climate change]. I don't know what you do about that. It's easier to deny."
Asked what was needed to wake people up, the veteran broadcaster famous for series such as Life and Planet Earth said: "Disaster. It's a terrible thing to say, isn't it? Even disaster doesn't do it. There have been disasters in North America, with hurricanes and floods, yet still people deny and say 'oh, it has nothing to do with climate change.' It visibly has got [something] to do with climate change."
It is very sad indeed that Attenborough (and so many other enviro-fundamentalists agree with him) is openly expressing a wish for something terrible to happen to people. Attenborough even admits that "it's a terrible thing to say". But why does he say it? Although Attenborough lately has recognised the possibility that God could exist, a Christian would not hope for something bad to happen to fellow human beings anywhere.
The European Council meeting in Brussels in March 2011
Always when European heads of state and government have their - mostly useless - "summits", we the citizens are invited to watch the nowadays compulsory "family photos". The choreography is always the same: The great leaders casually - always joking and smiling, no matter how serious their business is supposed to be - make their way to the stand, where protocol officers have carefully marked a standing place for each one, according to a complicated formula, which must be meticulously adhered to in order to avoid serious diplomatic complications.
I have often wondered what the purpose of these photographic gatherings is, other than providing job opportunities for a great number of photographers and camera crews. One reason may be that the participants themselves are fond of being photographed together with the rest of the great leaders. (Some of the veteran participants must already be in possession of several large photo albums, full of exciting "family photos". Something to show their grandchildren - "look, grandpa is in all these pictures!")
Maybe somebody in the future will do a scientific study of the political group photo culture. Already a quick look at of just two group photos, the one above and the one below from last week's "summit", offers a chance to make some interesting observations.
Family photo, Brussels 18.10. 2012
On the photo from last year's summit you can see Baroness Ashton - the highest paid female politician in Europe - on the extreme right. At last week's summit photo opportunity the Baroness surprisingly has moved to the extreme left.
What does this sudden change of sides mean? Has the Baroness, who is a Labour peer, perhaps insisted that she does not want to be seen among the people on the extreme right?
At 0:14 in the video, it appears that Jyrki Katainen, prime minister of Finland, is telling a colleague about how big a fish he caught during his summer holiday?
The video also shows the two top EU bureaucrats - Van Rompuy and Barroso - walking away alone after the photo opportunity. Maybe it means that they don't have real friends among the heads of state and government?
Is Barroso here making inquiries about how to find a cheap Greek cleaning lady, who could help him with ironing the trousers?
The summit photo gatherings need not be as boring as they are now.
Here is a suggestion for the Commission:
Why not invite Mr. Choir himself, Gareth Malone come and teach the heads of state and government sing the Anthem of Europe, which then would be performed at every "summit" photo opportunity? The EU leaders would make a truly interesting mixed choir. Maybe it could even be the beginning of a whole new television reality show?
Stubb: "a treaty change would probably be derailed by referenda"
Alexander Stubb, Finland's Minister for European Affairs, is known as a firm believer in a federal European state. He is also a typical representative of an EU elite scared to death by democratic participation of the citizens in decision making. Stubb's speech on Tuesday at the Berlin Foreign Policy Forum is an another example of the thinking of the Brussels bureaucrats and their political allies in the member countries: The major tool for institutional development is changing the treaties. So the question arises – do we need treaty change to makes things work, to improve the Union, make EMU stronger.
I have no problems with treaty change as such – but we should be careful. Treaty change has shown to be an unpredictable and time-consuming process. I belong to the persuasion ‘never-say-never’, but the case for treaty change would need to be absolutely compelling for the risk being worth taking. The safest and most practical way ahead is to work with the treaties we have.
And let’s be practical – a treaty change would probably be derailed by referenda. And let me add another dimension – would it not tempt our British friends to question their involvement with Europe – a move that would be a tragedy for both the United Kingdom and Europe. With a half-British family I feel entitled to speaking boldly on the subject.
In festive speeches Stubb and the other "federalists" like to talk about democracy and the value of a functioning civil society. But if somebody proposes that an important issue should be decided by a popular vote - a referendum - these federalists always find a number of reasons why the citizens should be excluded. That is how "democracy" works in the European Union. And that is also why people in most EU countries are fed up with Brussels and the EUSSR!
PS
It is also difficult to understand why Stubb should be particularly "entitled to speak boldly" on British involvement with Europe, just because his wife apparently belongs to an almost extinct breed - British federalists.
Colorado, the previously proud home of the "new energy economy", is fast becoming a showpiece for a failed renewable energy policy:
The combined layoffs, plant closure and mothballed projects in Colorado represent the loss of more than 1,000 existing and projected jobs, plus millions of dollars of tax revenue and spinoff economic activity.
"It's not just Colorado," said William Yeatman, an energy analyst with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based free-market think tank.
"Renewable-energy manufacturing is taking a beating across the country, primarily due to the fact that federal subsidies have run their course," he said. "The 2009 stimulus has been spent, and the wind production-tax credit is set to expire in December. Without taxpayer handouts, these green industries simply cannot compete." Read the entire article here
Of course the wind and solar energy barons claim that tax credits and loan guarantees are necessary for their industries to survive until they are able to compete with other power sources. But that is of course pure green nonsense. In the foreseeable future wind and solar power will not be competitive sources of energy. Besides, there is no need for them, as there is more than enough of clean shale gas (and oil) for at least one hundred years in the U.S. - and in other parts of the world.
Germany has over 140 billion worth of these, most of them stored in New York, London and Paris
Activity in Germany's manufacturing and service sectors declined for the sixth straight month in October. The economic slowdown in Germany was also confirmed by the Ifo Business Climate Index, which in October also deteriorated for the sixth consecutive month. "The clouds on the German economic sky are darkening", says Hans-Werner Sinn, who heads the Munich-based Ifo Institute for Economic Research. The problems in Germany, the powerhouse of the euro zone, are not good news for the crisis-ridden euro zone, which is drifting towards a deepening recession. Economic activity in the euro zone has hit its lowest levels since June 2009, according to the October Purchasing Managers' Index for the 17-nation zone. No wonder that more and more German politicians and economists are beginning to question the wisdom of the continuing bail-outs and ECB boss Mario Draghi's plan for unlimited purchases of government bonds to stem the debt crisis. Draghi, who is today to appear before a joint session of three committees of the German Bundestag, will most certainly be heavily criticized by a number of parliamentarians. Another sign of the growing economic unease in Germany are the growing demands that country's gold reserves - the second largest in the world, worth up to 142 billion euros - should be returned to Germany from New York, London and Paris, where they have been stored for a long time. What does all this mean for Germany and the euro zone? The short answer: Continued instability. (image by wikipedia)
.jpg)
