Thread on German and American Culture (4) / Diskussionsverlauf zur deutsch-amerikanischen Kultur (4)

Since this "FASCINATING DISCUSSION THREAD on German and American culture" (Instapundit) as well as this thread and this thread have been transferred to "Read-Only" status I suggest you use this posting for additional comments.

Da dieser "FASZINIERENDE DISKUSSIONSVERLAUF zur deutsch-amerikanischen Kultur" (Instapundit) und dieser sowie dieser Diskussionsverlauf in einen "Nur zum Lesen"-Status übergeführt wurden, empfehle ich, diesen Beitrag hier für weitere Kommentare zu verwenden.

Comments

[Gabi]

This is my answer to Klaus but I could not post there. I think David closed it. So I go on here.

Klaus:
Fighting aginst terorism is in our all interests. That is true. But what when only the USA and some other countries realize this threat and all the others like Germany think there is NO threat? Is there time to wait until Germany will understand? Does Germany need an own 9/11 to understand terrorism? What when Germany is just too afraid to fight against it? We had no debate in Germany about the real threat. Many Germans have the opinion the real threat are the USA and Israel. How will you work together with such a country? How will you convince them? The UN is not that neutral organization with a higher morality as many Germans think. When you complain about the USA that they acted alone, I cannot follow you. I am deeply releaved that there is a strong USA in this world which gets up against terror NOW before it is too late. The world cannot wait longer. Germany is full of lazy and simple people who have no idea of history and politics. The media are the new kings of the world and the king of the kings is the UN. That is ridiculous. It will take years to change Germany again in the right direction. The mob is too strong here and in Europe. The US has to lead the world NOW. And when the people in the USA do not realize their responsibility for the free and democratic world and will vote for a new president who will stop this fight, that will be dangerous for the US and for the democratic world. Bush is not responsible for the great hatred against him and his adminstration. Bush is not the smartest speaker but to hate a person for every step and word he does and speaks that is poor. And I hope the USA acts alone again because there is no time to wait for the wake up in Germany. We need a better media with background information about the world. If you have no information about terror, then it is normal to think there is no danger. That should be the first step.

[Adrian]

Klaus:

"My thesis is: The Red-greens are fighting not just for their own political survival, but for the survival of a whole political ideology with a long history here: the ideology of collective thinking, of the funny idea that we - the people - are the state whom to give this enormous influence resulting in the bureaucracy, regulations etc.). "

I would love to belive this, but I see a slightly different picture. The "Old Left" electorate is well and alive, Schröder's low approval had to do with him being perceived as TOO MUCH of a free-marekteer already... In the worst case, this will help the left-wing of the CDU in(and after) the elections of 2006...

[Karl B.]

I'm glad Germans like Klaus, Gabi, Jens & Adrian et al. are posting here. I wish I had the time and patience to post in German as they do in English. It is interesting to read their thoughts on the political situation in Germany.

I saw a poll a couple of years ago to the effect that 70% of the Germans supported major involvement of the state in the economy. I may be misquoting the exact question, but the impact was clear: the belief in the state as the source of the common good is alive and well here on both sides of the political spectrum. Klaus' last post on Thread 3 was right on point. Given the poll numbers, hardly anyone in the political class has the courage to stand up and explain to German voters that there needs to be less government. I'm not one of those ideologues who dislikes any sort of government role in my daily life, but substantial cuts will be needed.

Unfortunately, Germany waited far too long to begin implementing reforms. The SPD blocked reforms for years when Kohl was in power, and we know that the CDU also has a strong statist left-wing that is also adverse to many reforms. Now we are at the beginning of an inevitable process of globalization that is going to put America, Germany and the rest of the developed world to the test. It is going to be a time of great upheaval. It is not driven by America; we are driven by it. I don't want to sound pessimistic here; there are millions of people in India and China who are enjoying better lives because of this process. But we just don't have the Polster (cushion) that we once had to respond. The time for smart action is overdue. I still think Germany can make the grade. A lot has been done this past year and in prior years to become more competitive. The tax system, aside from the high marginal rates, is pretty good.

My motto for Germany: Verschwendung ist nicht solidarisch. (Waste is not a sign of solidarity.) There are so many areas where the state plays a questionable or blatantly unnecessary role in our daily lives in Germany that there certainly is room for further cutbacks. I'm afraid, however, that the resistance to further reforms is quite strong. Germany is at the crossroads of a historic choice. If it pulls back now, I don't see how it is going to be able to cope with the future.

The ability to reform will be the single biggest longterm factor influencing relations with the United States. A sick Germany will never be able to enjoy good relations with an America that is determined to stay healthy.

[Jens Schmidt]

Hi again
the more I hear from you the more I like you. Shuold have come here earlier.

>Germany is full of lazy and simple people who have no idea of history and politics.

So is every other country I've lived in so far

>The media are the new kings of the world and the king of the kings is the UN. That is ridiculous.

too f******* right

>And when the people in the USA do not realize their responsibility for the free and democratic world and will vote for a new president who will stop this fight...

You really think Kerry (or whoever will be his opponent) would do that. Hey whoever will be the next president of the US there's one thing you can trust: he won't stop the fight for a free democratic world. Even Mr. zero-chance Nader wouldn't do THAT.

>Bush is not responsible for the great hatred against him and his adminstration.

Partly he is. But you're right if you blame a lot on the media who only pick the bad and never mention the good (if I did that here then because I assume you to know the good)

>Bush is not the smartest speaker but to hate a person for every step and word he does and speaks that is poor.

It's the tiny details that make the picture. and: MAN, HE IS THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD so my expectations should be allowed to be rather high.

> We need a better media with background information about the world

After me complaining so much about details in speeches of the president of the US (and I do not "hate" him as you put it) you can safely assume me to really hate the German media. I mean many of them get payed by the public (ok, I don't pay my TV licence but many do) and do such a terrible job. Sometimes it's not easy to decide if they just screw it up or do it on intention. Yesterday only one station (sat1) mentioned that just 5% of the security fence in Israel are a wall. The other ones left the undereducated viewer with the impression Israel is building a 700km long 9 m high wall. This is not just ainaccurate. It's a pattern. Leaving out vital information in order to give a wrong impression. Am I supposed to to see a mistake in that or intention? Think about it and then you will see why I complain so much about Mr. Bush. I'm just not sure if he's just not a good speaker, or if he's playing the same game like the German media.

[Adrian]

Good point about the wall, Jens. I noticed it, too: 97% of the thing is just a fence with a patrol dirt road in front of it, except for the inner-city portions along a highway inside Jerusalem where a wall has been out up to protect the highway against snipers. For the entire last week, German TV (ALL channels I watched, didnt see that Sat1 report) showed pictures of the wall portion of the security fence. Some magazine (was it Der SPIEGEL?) ran a story about a poor little Palestinian shopkeeper who had less customers because the wall had turned the road where his shop was located into a dead-end street...

And dont get me started about how Bush is being presented here. Just read a headline of an older Spiegel article that read "Bush makes it easier to pollute the environment" (does he relax regulation ti help business? does he check whether certein pieces of regulation are really necessary? no, he sets out to help his big business buddies to destroy Mother Earth, probabaly with a big evil grin on his lips...)

Which brings us back to Bush's rhetoric: It is not half as bad as German media people make it sound in translation. And it most certainly is less confrontational and more eloquent than the "Bush-is-Hitler" rheteric that kept coming from our own administration!

[Jens Schmidt]

on economical reforms:
I don't think the EU and the US are so much different when it comes to this. Look at protectionism for instance. I mean it's of course a basic instinct to protect what you have, first your children, then yourself, your wife, your town, state, country... (OK, you may have a different order)
But hey, what is all that talk about human rights about when we exclude 3/4 of the world from a chance to compete with us in the economy, even deny them to just make their living?

One other thing. What is going on in the mind of people who only want to work 35 hours a week? If they hate their jobs so much, why do they show up at all? The money? Hang on, in Germany you can get money without working, Millions are forced to do so and many of them would love to work 10 hours a day (if they were not constantly told the opposite). I think all economical reforms don't get to the point. What we need is a cultural reform. We've got to tell again and again and again that working is not just exploitation, but can be very satisfying. People get told too often that working was only invented in order to make some capitalists rich (even if that WAS true, that was almost 200 years ago and the world has changed a lot). If I look at my working career I worked for some "capitalists" and made good money and they lost a lot.
Working is a cool thing to do and if people wouldn't get told the opposite too often they could feel it. I like my job. I mean my salary is going down for months now (cause my contract is in US$) but the job does not get less satisfying to me. Before economical reforms can be a success we've got to give back to the people the feeling of joy of labour. Not the pressure to work, the freedom to work.

Sorry, I got a bit carried away.
Enough (even more than that) from me.

[Jens Schmidt]

Oops,
invasion! Germans seem to be taking over the American blog. I promise to write less.

[klaus]

Jens,

Oops, invasion! Germans seem to be taking over the American blog. I promise to write less.

I suppose I was here before you - I just paused for a few weeks . And, hey!, writers here like Pamela or N. Claric can make their point very well (also Karl B. of course, but for some funny instinct I regard him as German, not American, anyhow).

PLEASE write more (and not less) !

Best wishes from Germany
klaus

[klaus]

Hi Gabi,

But what when only the USA and some other countries realize this threat and all the others like Germany think there is NO threat?

Let's look at the cold, hard facts: in Germany a civilian airplane could be shot down by a military jet, if hijacked. Just a few minutes ago I listened to a radio report about the safety of nuclear power plants against terrorist attacks by an airplane and what to do (creating a big cloud of mist / fog for example to make navigation more difficult or simply to switch off the older ones). Ministers Schily and Ashcroft have met to strengthen cooperation against terrorism - it is well known here that Muslims in Germany are supporting the "resistance" (TERROR) of groups in Iraq against GI's and civilian institutions.

The fact that we don't like this idea of having alert code this and that shouldn't give you the impression that there is nothing done. We are just choosing another way. A little story: in a city nearby of my point there is a big train station. Once I asked why it is not safeguarded - nearly no safeguards seen. Answer: wrong. It IS safeguarded. The person even showed me the time schedule of the safeguards working there. Question: why do they wear civilian clothes and not uniforms to give people a better feeling of safety? Answer: this is exactly what they do NOT want. They do NOT want to make you feel safe. Why? 1. They want the people to look around. To watch (and report). Would you do that if you feel safe? Surely not. 2. And, of course, also terrorists don't know whether the guys beside them are armed safeguards or just civilians. Also, this code-issue could cause indifference /unconcern after a certain time being confronted with a lot of alerts.

Camouflaged terrorist action needs camouflaged response. It's as simple as that.

Germany is full of lazy and simple people who have no idea of history and politics

Hmh - after what I have written about our politicians and the media it is hard to object here ;-) My only point would be: please don't generalize. There ARE people who know - they just don't have a voice. (Besides: nice to learn that all Americans are little Jeffersons and Lincolns ;-)

Well, please remember that one main goal / aim of politicians in power here is to try to
1. define what issues are discussed and what not and this
2. by trying to define who may take part in the debate and who not. (they use the semi-state funded "öffentlich-rechtliche" TV-stations for that.)

The US has to lead the world NOW.

Fine with me. But please also think that this needs to be based on a kind of moral legitimacy to convince people.

Bush is not

Please, please don't turn this thread into an Anti/pro-Bush issue. My remark was just one paragraph. And it was directed to him, because he is in power. I could have written the same addressed to the Democrats, because in my view there is no agenda here either.

And I hope the USA acts alone again because there is no time to wait for the wake up in Germany.

As seen above the wakeup has happened long since. It is just a different way and - yes! - ref. to foreign policy it is not always aedequate.

When you complain about the USA that they acted alone, I cannot follow you.

I didn't complain that - you obviously have got me wrong. I had been saying that certain assumptions and certain agendas also need the understanding of certain consequences and prepositions. Which is a different matter. Besides, from what I know from Weekly Standard etc. the GOP is debating this issue herself - a bit late perhaps, but not too late.

How will you convince them?

By presenting facts, facts and more facts. Well, having said this there is also another problem here: the light in which you see these facts. How to judge them. How to make priorities. How to interprete them. I suppose this is the REAL problem (besides of the fact that facts here are not given or even falsificated). Bashing is okay with me, but please don't bash the wrong ones by generalizing.

Besides, I suppose it was private owned "Kabel 1", the TV-station, who made a good beginning:

first a report about the daily life of Joe Sixpack in California. Sunny weather. Relaxing frog-jumping-competition. Towns with no roads, but airstrips instead for the small Pipers, etc. (airstrips used also by cars). Talks about the wishes of people in the forties to separate Northern California in a state on its own.

Directly after: a report about the life of German Joe Sixpack. Unemployment, controlling bureaucrats, little homes, a grey world.

Superb! More of it, please!

Best wishes from Germany
Klaus

[klaus]

Hi Adrian,

I would love to belive this, but I see a slightly different picture. The "Old Left" electorate is well and alive, Schröder's low approval had to do with him being perceived as TOO MUCH of a free-marekteer already

Good point. I see this picture, too, but in my view there is no contradiction. It simply shows how far left the left is (in my view partly beyond the border towards marxism /communism).

But there is also another point: the "left" of left SPD always protest when it comes to reduce state funded issues in favour of the poor. This is where they get their moral and political legitimacy from.

And indeed, if you look at things like "Praxisgebuehr" they made a point. This, because the whole political class doesn't get it that they have to begin to reduce the power and the money for the state itself . Instead, they are reducing its offers and grants and subsidises to the people. Example: it is common known that the "kassenärztliche Vereinigung" (ooh, don't know an english translation... - a surgeon's organization organising the payment of surgeons with monopole status ) makes the system far more costly than it normally would be. Why not simply kick her off and let surgeons and the insurances let do this job alone?

If you interprete the facts this way you will see that there is no contradiction.

Now, having said this, we should be aware that there is a tendency to change admin- and state-mistakes into market mistakes and lull people in with that. Obviously a new propaganda tool of the leftist red greens here.

Best wishes from Germany
klaus

[klaus]

Hi Karl,

Verschwendung ist nicht solidarisch. (Waste is not a sign of solidarity.)

Yup! Bash the left with a left approach! Typical: this is exactly NOT the way it is discussed (but should be discussed). Well, you know, of course.

When they discuss "waste" then only how people are wasting - for example social grants (taking them without having the legal right to do so). But NEVER the waste of the state.

This wrong picture has to be corrected quickly. I think the people know it in the meanwhile. The political class, too, but doesn't want any change here. Like you I think we have began far too late to discuss these things. Globalization puts a kind of competition pressure onto the societies and countries. Instead of re-acting pragmatically, the political left makes an ideology out of it by demonizing (phrase?) it and complain and protest against globalization itself. Just look at funny organizations like "Attac", whose unwillingness to articulate alternatives can already be seen in the name - "attack" (the system) is the only thing they have in their agenda. And IF there is an alternative (it rarely happens) you can bet that it is based on (higher or new) tax and not less, but more bureaucrazy. ... (hmh, although a typo, last word looks nice)

>A sick Germany will never be able to enjoy good relations with an America that is determined to stay healthy.<

Bringing together these two aspects... - yes, it very well could be valid. Thanks for this remark, up to now I didn't see it in this light. :-)

Best wishes from Germany
klaus

[Adrian]

An important aspect, indeed.

"Anti-Americanism" here is largely a peculiar kind of envy: We, Germany, have the economy figured out. Everybody is supposed to envy us for the social market economy and the welfare state, while America is simply not as advanced as that yet. But actualy facts dont fit the picture: Unemployment there is lower, they had budget surpluses for years, life in American TV shows (which make up most of prime time programming here in Germany) is bright and shiny, Germans who visit America often end up emigrating there a few years later. So whats wrong?

This causes anger and confusion. Basically our public debate on economic issues, the social safety net and the roles of marketplace and state in the economy is still at the stage where it was in the 1970s in other countries.

[Jens Schmidt]

nice conspiracy theory, but not quite complete
If you take a closer look at many regulations (which the private sector claims to be fighting so hard) you will discover that they are only invented for protectionism and for strengthing the position of the already powerfull sections of the private market
Who benefits from European regulations about tractor seats? Who benefits from new pension schemes? Who benefits from a new Eropean law that gives banks the first access to the many of companies when they go bankrupt?
The whole social system (as it was mentioned above) is a complex structure of mutual deals to be paid by future generations and now guess who is going to receive the money to be paid by the future generations (including interest)? Don't tell me it's the idiots from attac or the civil servants. The private sector, at least the banking sector, knows very well whom to feed to keep this system going, but the one that takes their 30 Silberlinge to sell them the future of his own children and grand-children is not the one who who works most eager to fight changes to this system.

[Adrian]

Korporatismus...

Employer associations and labor unions devise Flächentarifverträge (binding collective bargaining deals for several states and entire industries... The churches are Anstalten des öffentlichen Rechts ("public" enterprises, something between state-owned and private - a peculiar German legal concept that also applies to the "state" TV stations and is quite different from the BBC charter, for instance) and can levy a tax on their members that is collected by the government... The professional associations like the Ärztekammer, or the Industrie-und Handelskammer require compulsory membership (in the former case, for medical dosctors; in the latter case, for entrepreneurs) and do lobby work for the members as well as exert control over them for the government (and you have to pay their fees!)...

Yes, that jungle of mutual dependencies and strange privileges is definetaly and open invitation to pork-barrel politics, nepotism, elitism and shady deals. And instead of fostering "social peace", it obstructs any change in the system. And that's not evening mentioning the troublesome extent of power vested in certain interest groups: Just try messing with one of those organisations...

[Karl B.]

also Karl B. of course, but for some funny instinct I regard him as German, not American ...

Ouch! You don't know how often Germans treat me as some sort of hybrid that is not truly an American. I assure you I am an Ami, born and bred. I have Americans in my family who go back to the first part of the 19th century; I'm the sixth generation in that line. (I confess, they all came from German-speaking areas.)

I sometimes wonder if Germans don't make an exception for me because otherwise they would be forced to revise their pre-conceived notions about Americans (no insult intended). Rest assured, we cover the entire gamut.

[Adrian]

Actually Hayek et al. did a nice job showming that the corruption (in the oldest sense of the word; not just bribary, but rather moral corruption / decay) of businessmen and other elites is always the result when a country implements third-wayish democratic socialism.

[Jens Schmidt]

Karl B,
may be it's because you share your first name with Germans like Karl der Grosse, Karl Liebknecht, Karl Marx...

[Peter]

@Adrian: Yes, Hayek was right. This is proven day by day. But who in Germany knows Hayek? He is laughed at on the universities and it is a shame that the complete "austrian school of economics" had its heyday in US-Universities.

[Jens Schmidt]

one last for today

not German/American this, but as someone mentioned Milosevic:

http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm

Takes some time to get through and most of it is boring, but I figure that's not the only reason for poor media coverage. Not claiming Slobo the butcher from Belgrade is innocent, but prosecution sometimes seems to be quite weak and witnesses range from persons of honour over a sort of useless rumor tellers all the way down to criminals. Don't have my selection of good examples at hand, but if someone's interested I can provide a list of most illustrating days for all categories.

If it had not been such a tragedy it could only be called a "Schmierenkomödie".

[tictoc]

Speaking of vested interests, corruption and the public sector...

I heard a radio interview the other day, with an FDP member of the Bundestag from Heidelberg.

The topic was mostly the vast and inefficient bureaucracy that is the Bundesanstalt (whoops, newly rechristened as a snappy "Bundesagentur" -- sorry!) für Arbeit, Germany's state-run Labor and Employment Office.

Those of the readers of Davids Medienkritik who have not been hiding underneath a rock know that Florian Gerster, the head of the BA, was fired a few weeks ago, allegedly for improprieties in contracts parceled out to consulting firms.

What is less well known is the story behind the firing. Did you know that the BA has 90,000 employees and that only 13,000 of them actually work to find employment for jobseekers? On average, every one of these Vermittler (i.e., "go-betweens" or case-workers) has 800 people to place in jobs, of whom only a tiny minority are ever placed. What the remaining 77,000 people working in the BA do is a question that nobody really seems to know how to answer.

Did you know that the annual budget of the BA, financed by contributions from employers and employees, is 54 billion euros? (This is totally separate from Germany's federal budget.)

Did you know that out of this, some 24 billion euros annually are paid by the BA to a myriad of "training" and "continuing education" schemes, many of which are directly linked to the behemoth that is the Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund (DGB, Germany's counterpart to the AFL-CIO), with others linked to powerful interests represented by the federation of employers?

Mr. Gerster had been charged with wading into this morass and cleaning out the Augean stables. His mistake was to take his brief seriously. He was in fact beginning to make inroads, and the "vocational training" leeches suckling at the public teat were beginning to feel withdrawal pains.

The BA's board of governors, dominated in equal measures by union bigwigs and representatives from the employer federations, did not take long to smack down the pesky fly No sooner had they changed the bylaws to make possible his premature dismissal that they called in Mr. Gerster for an urgent meeting, dressed him down for his impertinence, and gave him his walking papers.

Germany's commerce minister Wolfgang Clement signed the dismissal with nary a squeak.

And that is why the situation in Germany is so ... hopeless? Well perhaps not entirely hopeless, but the cartel of entrenched interests, and the policy of "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" is so well fortified, to the detriment of Germany's four million (officially) unemployed and the general economy, that things are guaranteed to become much worse before they get better (if ever).

Germany's metalworkers union and the federation of employers just signed another collective bargaining agreement that leaves in place most of the inflated perks, featherbedding and inflexible regulations carried over from Germany's halcyon days. Angela Merkel, the head of the opposition CDU party, denounced the employers for caving before the threat of a strike (to be sure, not to be trifled with in today's "just-in-time" economy) and pointed out that employers are always crying out for help from politicians but seem unable to find some backbone.

She has a point. Yes, the latest Tarifvertrag or collective bargaining agreement is bad indeed for Germans... but not necessarily for Germany's large corporations, who have long since become multinational, exploiting wage differentials all over the world.

And so it goes. Sic transit miraculum germanicus rerum negotiae.

[Adrian]

@tictoc
Nice post, so true

@Peter
Well, I for one know Hayek. In fact, I'm re-reading the Road to Serfdom right now. Later this year, the Mont Pelerin Society has a regional meeting in Hamburg. Hayek is much-debated in liberal (in the European sense of the word) circles all over Germany.
I agree that Austrian economics are NOT the the majority opinion among decision makers here, but neither were they in the Anglosphere before the 1980s. More and more I come to believe that the time here is ripe for a major cultural and social shift with considerable political ramifications. We may soon reach the point were peiople are willing to let their leaders try just about anything, thinking that at least the policies cant be much worse than what has already been tried.

In other words: Bald IST der Zug gegen die Wand gefahren (soon the train WILL have been crashed into the wall). And that's a good thing - at least bettern than continuing stagnation.

[Tom Penn]

This thread has been very insightful. Thanks to David for hosting this party. I am very glad to see more Germans adding to the dialogue. I’m afraid I’m about to go rambling here with some partially developed ideas, but please bear with me and help me flesh them out.

I often hear complaints that Americans are stupid and simple. I don't know where the "stupid" comes from, perhaps too much Jerry Springer? But, I think there is some truth to the "simple" part. And, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. Americans do like to facilitate actual accomplishment by cutting through the mumbo-jumbo and getting down to the "doing" of a thing that needs to be done. Whereas, our friends in Canada, France, Germany, Belgium, and perhaps Luxembourg, seem to believe that talk and diplomacy can be an end, in and of itself, instead of as a means to addressing a problem. I'll site as examples, the interminable "negotiations" within the UN and then between the UN and Hussein, and also all the talk about non-proliferation that actually seemed designed to facilitate proliferation. [as an off-topic aside, i am very pissed about the fact that European governments let European firms proliferate WMD technology to states that could likely fall into the hands of Islamic Fundamentalist freaks. that was damned unfriendly in my eyes. European moral relativism will get us all killed, and they don't seem to even care.]

Now back to our regularly scheduled program. Simple Americans, interminable diplomacy, yada yada. This ties in, I think, with the complaints about Bush being a cowboy, too simple, straightforward, and undiplomatic. On the other hand, Americans like cowboys for those very same traits, and the fact that they are generally good guys. In discussions on Canadian forums, I have taken to calling this language of Rumsfeld, Bush, and Americans, "American English". I see clear honest communication as a good thing to facilitate common understanding, and build a basis for moving the dialogue forward. Our friends don't seem to ever want dialogue to move forward, and get extremely upset when dialogue appears to be leading toward an actual decision. Makes me wonder how they ever actually DO anything. I would appreciate the perspective of our new German friends on these thoughts, in American English to accommodate my innate simplicity if possible. I really want to understand the German animosity toward Americans, but frankly, I just don't get it.

[Adrian]

Tom,

I concur 100% -- but don't try explaining that to Germans who have never been to America or are familiar with American culture and thought for some other reason.

Most people here dont see Bush's demeanor straightforward - they think it's arrogant.

Honesty? People here think he lied on just about everything - the "stolen" election, the WMD, his military record.

Now "straightforward honesty" is quite different from "arrogant lies", isnt it?

Neither do they accept that endless diplomatic talks are ineffectual. Just like the Soviet successes of Socialism were always "sabotaged" by the capitalists and imperialists, the diplomatic process in Iraq was sabotaged by Bush's militarism. Saddam WAS "just about to" cooperate - he even said so!

See the difference in perception?

Just from hearing both stories, you cant tell which one is true. However, for the last 50 years, Europe has basically been shielded from the consequences of its own actions by American military might... America actually learned by trial-and-error not to trust third world dictators with funny hats... For many Europeans, this world is governed by international law under the United Nations. They dont see the factual anarchy out there. The US, who recognizes this anarchy, is perceived as trying to BRING ABOUT such a law of the jungle in international affairs.

Bob Kagan argued along these lines in Of Paradise and Power, when he tried to explain *why* Europeans and Americans live on different planets. For decades, Europe has indeed l,ived in a lawful world - while and because America dealt with the bad guys.

[stan]

Re: Adrian
It not so much that Europeans were sheilded as it is that they are no longer sheilded. Current events are making that impossible to ignore. The warm fuzzy feeling that we all got from wrapping ourselves in the UN, NATO, and sundry free trade agreements have turned out to be a bit threadbear now that the weather has turned cold. Vested interests would rather accuse bush and company of stealing the covers than admitt that it realy is cold out there.

Remember don't kill the messenger.

[OdyssuesInRTP]

I have always found it interesting how Europeans view Americans as naive. I have been told this on many occasions throughout Europe. I think that perception relates to our simplistic view of the world, which I would actually refer to as practical.

I think their belief that we are naive comes partly from how we spend our money when we are over there. They barter far more than we do and I don't think they can really accept that we are actually generous as a people.

I think since we have more money we tend not to hold onto it the same way they might or even view it in the same light.

I find that my money makes up for the language barrier and I use that to my advantage. This seems like a more simple approach to me than muddling through in different languages.

Also, many Europeans like to compare their country to ours and that just doesn't hold up. Even comparing the U.S. to Europe isn't really comparing apples to apples.

I've often heard the logic that since Americans don't speak multiple languages we don't understand the world in the same way they do. Maybe, but we understand it enough to be the major player.

I've heard Germans muddle through French, French muddle through Spanish and British act like they could muddle through it all.

In the U.S. most Americans can muddle through Spanish just about as well as the Europeans. (Except the Spanish ; ) The difference is that in the U.S. there is no compelling need to learn any other language than English and Spanish.

Americans do have a practical approach to the world. It is a breath of fresh air.

[Gabi and N. Hale]

I am German and my husband is American. We have lived together in Germany for almost three years. I NEVER saw or felt any difference between him and any German except for the language. I think Americans are more courageous. My husband gave up his life in America. Would a German would give up a well paid job to start a new business in Germany? I also think Americans are much more polite. It sounds so simple but that is the way I feel. Gabi

During the last three years, I have found little difference between life in the US and life in Germany. People want to live in peace and in prosperity. But this perception is found only on personal level. On a political level, the German people speak incessantly about the politics of the world. There is a tendency to discuss a subject to death, and then start up again on the very same topic in order to kill it again. Just when you think it has been settled, they start all over again. It does make me wonder how Germany has survived throughout the centuries. Meanwhile back at the ranch, Tonto... I can say this, I have found deeper friendships here than I had in the US, despite the discussions. N. Hale

[Jens Schmidt]

One of the problems is that many Germans are educated to deal with the past or history in a ,I think, wrong way and I'm not sure if only we are responsible for that.
Instead of learning from history WHAT was done wrong (and not doing it wrong again and again) we tend to look at WHO has done wrong (which is of course SOOOOOOOOOOO VERY HELPFUL). This is partly because that's the way our fellow world mates tend to deal with us. (I know that's a completely different issue and cannot be compared, but this influences many peoples view at history in general)
That's no excuse for our failure in present times but an explanation.
It's the "find the guilty view".
Many times I heard things like "yeah, but it was those Americans who trained and financed Osama, while he was still fighting the Russians in Afghanistan" (very helpful for a solution this view, isn't it?) This view of course:
- fails to recognise our role in dealing with terror in past and present times. Look at that terrible support for "political wings" of terror gangs like Arafats Fatah and some persons in Chechnya, but my favourite case (if it wasn't so terrible it was laughable): Hamas was only last year declared a terrorist group by the EU, up to that point their "political wing" received EU money, imagine that!
- fails to recognise that the Americans seem to really have learned their lesson (as opposed to the Europeans, see above)
- it does not lead to a solution to get out of the mess (most important point to me)
- gives people the wonderful feeling that someone else is an evil person and they are good (hey, be honest everyone likes that feeling at least a bit)

But there's another question you could here over here, which is worth being asked:
"Hey they supported every stinking dictator in the whole world, when it seemed to serve their interests, and now they really dare to tell us one of their reasons for going to war is to remove a dictator?" And that's where the distrust starts and has a base that cannot be completely denied. And honestly for me it's very hard to belive a word from Mr. Bush when he's talking about how terrible that dictator was and THAT was an important reason for him to remove Saddam. Now see it's not easy for us to trust the US it's easier to just point at them and calling them the bad guys. It makes us feel good and doesn't solve anything. But to get out of that situation it would be helpful if both sides moved. The American politicians could spare a few of their cocodile tears about how terrible dictators are (not many of their audience outside the US are gonna believe they care a shit), and tell us their real reasons and WE should be more practical and say: hey, if they need a little show for the average American (whom I assume to be as stupid and easy to manipulate as myself), let them do their show and support them anyway, because what they're going to do has to be done. But again, for that we have to trust their reasons and now comes that European starting it over and over again thing, just after being 1mm (or 0.39 inches) before a possible solution. Good I was educated about that here, I was really tempted to do it for real.

[Gabi]

Jens:
I don't agree to your statement. It shows me that you did not understand why Saddam Hussein had to leave. Today a distator without moral could get the idea to work together with terrorists. When this ever happens... then the whole world is threatened. Then there will be no safe place, not even for Germans. Dictators have no moral, terrorists have no moral. And Saddam Hussein shared his hatred towards the USA with the terrorists. We could not wait until these both evils work together. This was the danger and is still a danger because there are more dictators. But the USA and Israel are the most hated countries. Americans and Israeli and of course Jews just get killed because of their believe and their nationality. I think we cannot really understand this threat. The hatred towards the USA is great. So the threat to the USA is the greatest in this world. What do Germans know about that? How do we care for this problem? Do we really understand what it means when terrorists want to kill every Jews and American whereever they find them? Saddam was not only a bad guy. Don't make him more cute than he was. He was a threat to the peace of the world because.... You can read it on this weblog. I won't repeat it again. Bush stopped one of the greatest danger in this world. I agreed to it totally and was amazed that the USA started to change their foreign politics. They fight back now. Soldiers die for our peace in this world. THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT REASON to me. I really don't understand why you don't understand this. Sorry, if I sound strict.

I wish Germany would support Israel in fighting against terror. We cannot stop this terror as long as many countries support it like Germany does. We ignore the suicide bombers. If we would ALL condenm them, we could stop them.

[Karl B.]

The Germans are on a roll here.

Jens, good points. I found your distinction between WHAT was done wrong and WHO did wrong quite enlightening. I noticed when I came over here that making a mistake in the workplace was not something that happened. If, contrary to the general rule, a mistake was made, more energy was spent banging people over the head than in figuring out how to move forward. Folks often were incapable of admitting that they had made a mistake (happens Stateside, too). Given that generally one cannot be terminated here without a good reason, I can sort of understand how making a mistake might put one in a panic mode. Amis don't have secure jobs to start with and generally know they're not going to be fired for some silly reason unless the boss is looking for a reason anyway. If that is the case, no level of accuracy will save them. But the general obsession with screw-ups is quite interesting here, in and out of the workplace. I think Americans find a screw-up once in a while endearing, especially if someone otherwise has the reputation of being a control-freak, Type A, Prussian (I'm talking about myself).

Moving on, if you look closely enough, you'll see that the American government is constantly re-assessing its screw-ups in Iraq and making adjustments. We tend to refer our screw-ups to specialists or consultants who then make reports that are anaylzed, discussed, and implemented. Doesn't always work, but it does seem logical.

I know what you mean about some of the talk coming from Washington. You need to keep in mind that a lot of classical foreign policy analysis goes into these kinds of decisions. The way it is marketed to the public often has little to do with why it was undertaken. In Iraq, the oil makes the place highly strategic. That means that other factors, such as the presence of a dictator, are going to trigger action at a lower threshhold than elsewhere, say in Subsaharan Africa. This may not be fair or moral but it is consistent with traditional foreign policy analysis. The Americans have always been pretty open about admitting that oil plays a role in their actions in Iraq. Unfortunately, Europe tends to conclude that oil is the ONLY reason we're there.

I hope Bush was serious about his admission that we've often in the past gotten into bed with dictators for short-term goals and that maybe in the future we ought to think twice about it. Rest assured though, if a big baddie comes along, we'll get in bed with whomever it takes to put him in his place. C'est la vie ...

Which reminds me of an old French joke: "Le Quai D'Orsay l'a démenti, donc c'est vrai." [The foreigh office denied it; therefore, it is true.]

[Gabi]

China: Sicherheitsmängel waren bekannt
Alle 37 Kumpel bei Minenunglück erstickt - Direktor droht Todesstrafe

So lautet heute ein Artikel in der Welt. Todesstrafe - kein Aufschrei in unseren Medien. Keine Friedensbewegung weit und breit zu sehen. Es geht ja auch nicht um einen amerikanischen Mörder. Das regt mich an Deutschland auf: Heuchelei oder was immer dahintersteckt, keine Ahnung. Ich versteh es nicht.

[Jens Schmidt]

Yes, and if there's one of those sex criminals like Marc Dutroix, if he had done that in Germany I guess you'd find Millions perhaps even a majority supporting capital punishment. The only reason why I'd oppose it, is that I imagine he will get more appropriate treatment from the other prison inmates.
It's the same when they talk about torture. If it wasn't a cruel act to the children, I'd like to kidnap the Kindergarten of the Bundestag, go straight to the police and tell them: "Hey, I know where they are and I'm not going to tell you, by the way, they have no food." just to teach them not to complain that Israel "tortures" terrorists to get information from them or America locks up suspected enemies on an island in the sun. And now comes the best, when they release persons cause they are not guilty one would expect that at least someone says, hey they really investigate and try to be fair. But no way. On the other hand, it's the USs own fault. If they don't care about their reputation why should I?

[Karl B.]

... und es geht gleich wieder los.

Check out:

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD66704

Iranian Government Daily: "The U.S. & 'Zionists' have Bribed the IAEA to Fabricate Lies About Iran's Nuclear Progress"

"Pressured by U.S. officials and supported by the Zionists, some officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its official website have started fabricating lies about the Iranian nuclear program, and even allowing some secret news about the Iranian nuclear program to leak to Western media. Such moves show the Iranian officials should have considered suspending cooperation with the IAEA rather than suspending enriching uranium."

Let's see if the USA and Europe can pull together this time to put the pants on the theocrats.

Ich bin gespannt.

[Jens Schmidt]

I'll by the worlds whole stock of "peace" flags and get rich. Time to sell them is coming soon. Glad you told me in time.

Hell, that was too fast. They still have their old ones from Iraq. Fuck the Mullahs, cant they wait till the old flags are worn out?

[Jens Schmidt]

one last for today

my favourite news from yesterday (sorry, it's all German)

get your sex life funded by the public:
http://www.svz.de/newsmv/lr/swh/24.02.04/klub/klub.html

hell, we need a kitchen-knife police:
http://www.svz.de/newsmv/lr/bue/24.02.04/neues/neues.html

(hope the links haven't expired)

[Stan]

Concerning perceptions across the Atlantic
Innocents Abroad posts about euro views on Kerry. Personally I think they are setting themselves up again.

[ts]

A few comments about some things said a while ago. Apologies if I'm moving things back. I believe Gabi wondered about what would happen if Germany suffered a major terror attack. My wife and I also wonder about this, in part because her father lives in one of the most likely target areas (his apartment is perhaps 200-300 meters from the Brandenburger Tor and the Reichstag). We always come to the same conclusion. There is little Germany could do and would do in response. Even if the German public and government had the will to respond (which is debatable), it's not clear what Germany could do, given the state of the Bundeswehr. All that would happen is that the dead would be buried and the rubble cleaned up, the Germans would talk endlessly (see Gabi's comment on this) and the US would take action *as long as* the US perceives the attack as a threat to the US (any help or money from Germany cheerfully accepted).

Germany as a sovereign nation is dissolving into a multinational alphabet soup (e.g.EU, UN, WCC etc.). She has given up her currency (the DM was a legitimate source of national pride and a true benefit to Germany. The Euro is neither.) and she has all but lost the ability to defend herself. If she yields her ability to enforce the law within her borders (and I think that is happening), then she will have ceased to be an independent country and will be completely dependent on entities for her well-being with which she will have limited influence. In "A Streetcar Named Desire", Blanche Dubois stated she had always depended on the kindness of strangers and she ultimately paid dearly for that. It appears many of you in Germany are worried about Germany going down Blanche's path.

This dissolution is being fueled in part, I believe, by the only thing I find disagreeable whenever my wife and I go back to Berlin, which is the pervasive cynicism about everything. I believe that's the basis more than anything else for German anti-Americanism. Americans are not cynics; Germans have become so. Cynicism is a refuge for the weak. Every cynic always has a deep dislike or worse for the non-cynic, because the non-cynic, simply by not being cynical, points out to the cynic his weakness.

Please let me make one more completely different observation. In regard to the media, regardless of country, pay close attention to what is *not* said or shown. I believe Jens Schmidt described reports about life in California with airplane runways in front of homes and so on. Everything he said is true, but that's the way only a handful of people here live. What they did not show you about the way most of us live is far less interesting. This is not normally malicious bias. My favorite example occurred in 1989, when the San Francisco Bay area was rocked by the Loma Prieta earthquake. I was living in Oakland at the time and was not inconvenienced in the least nor was a single person I knew. Yet all that was shown for days on TV news throughout the US was one neighborhood in San Francisco that had bad fires due to broken gas pipes and a freeway in Oakland that had collapsed, killing about 70 people. Every friend and relative back East called and they were shocked when I said everything was fine. They kept describing the pictures on TV and telling me that the whole place had to be devastated. I finally had to ask if they would watch the news if the news showed mostly pictures of mile after mile of neighborhoods where nothing had happened. What we usually get from the media is the interesting exception, not the normal state of affairs. That's what sells.

[Karl B.]

Ditto on the press. It is a valuable institution but as flawed as the ones it covers. The coverage in Iraq was so bad that I resorted to blogs for additional views. Of course blogs have their limitations. The echo chamber effect (hear your own opinions) should not be underestmated, and one really does not know who is behind a given blog (accountability). But by reading several blogs, it helps fill in the gaps. I'm really enjoying Zeyad Healing Iraq and his reports from Basra. Why can't the majors find someone who can fit in down there but still help us see what's going on with a Western eye?

Subject news coverage to commercial pressure to pull in viewers and all you get is the picture of the collapsed bridge or the burning building. Put your trust in state news and sooner or later you're going to realize that they are feeding you a slanted world view. The only solution is to get your news and views from a wide variety of sources, including ones that present radically different views from your own ... time to check out Al Jazeera for some of their "objective and balanced global news coverage and analysis".

[Karl B.]

TS, don't underestimate the effectiveness of the German special forces (KSK9?). Reports are that they were active in both Kosovo and Afghanistan and that they handled themselves well. The war on terror is not going to require huge invasions all the time. And all the soldiers in the world will not be able to stop a determined suicide bomber.

That said, Germany keeps talking about improving its military and then keeps making deeper cuts. That, my friends, does not pass the red face test. In all their nostalgia for the Clinton years, Europeans forget that there was substantial friction between the US and Europe back then over defense spending levels. I can distinctly recall Defense Secretary Cohen's frustration at the Europeans. Don't assume that these kinds of problems will go away if Bush is not re-elected.

for the ones concerned (and sorry, German speaking) here's a nice example how to use the challenges of the new century to produce another important piece of food for the hungry German Reisswölfe (document-shredders) in the secret service:

http://www.bnd.de/download/qm_bnd.pdf

don't expect to find the word "enemies" in it, I always thought that was what German secret service BND was supposed to deal with, but no, BND is there to deal with "customers". Well, at least that word disappeared after that masterpiece went through the discussions inside BND, so I figure the workers were not as obsessed with the "customer" idea as the writer of the document. Still I'm left puzzled with the question who's actually supposed to deal with our enemies while BND are busy to please their customers.

Also interesting that they are actually planning to reduce number of staff to deal with the new threats, promising approach this.

[Karl B.]

Check out today's Die Zeit. A double whammy by Joe Joffe and Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff. Joffe is his usual eloquent self on the topic of anti-semitism in Europe and K-B on German-US relations. The final sentence of the latter article:

"Ob Bush oder Kerry, Berlin braucht trotzdem eine neue Amerika-Politik." [Whether Bush or Kerry, Germany needs a new policy towards America.] Amen brother Tom!

Once again Die Zeit rises to the level of world class.

[klaus]

N. Claric,

"So, here's the big picture (and yet another conspiracy theory): Attac and similar groups (Greenpeace, to name another influential one) are NOT a bunch of hobbyists, but highly structured and mobilized movements who directly or indirectly through their siblings and affiliates receive lots of money and funding from the public sector ....The public sector simply CANNOT be their enemy because its the hand that feeds them."

Yes, and unfortunately it is even worse: the feeding works both ways. The Public Sector feeds them and is also feeded by them. An example: the petrol-tax called "Oeko-tax" was generated in the name of environmental protection, but is mainly used for the very normal, plain budget. This means: Attac & Co. deliver the excuses for more and new tax, which fill the pockets of the public sector and the same public sector rewards this creative engagement with legislative influence given to them, which again is resulting in privileges and grants to these organizations.

It is a nearly perfect system on the cost of the whole rest of the republic.

Nearly, because they are vulnerable at one point: this system works exactly as long as people buy the lie of "Allgemeinwohl" (public interest) as the served excuse and don't realize that these activities are actually based on "Eigenwohl" (self-interest). To keep this picture up we are permanently told that WE are the state, and media are influenced by their buddies to work this way.

And well, these organizations can take also a hostile approach in case the state regulates and limits not enough in their view (!)

At this point, one should be aware of the history of the peaceniks and ecologists: it all began at 1968, when they had a hostile approach to the country and wanted to overtake it by their "march through the institutions" (their main slogan at those times - i.e. not open revolt, but slowly, steadily "conquering" of the public sector and dominating the political debate by infiltrating - it was quite frankly and public discussed at those times). And when they discovered and had to realize that their communistic / marxistic ideas failed and were completely devalued by the terror of Red Army Fraction, they began to concentrate on two political issues, where they thought they could be politically successful: peace and nature. Logically, from 1980 on two movements were found - we saw two big demonstrations against NATO-decisions (birth of peace movement) and at the same time the founding of the Greens (birth of ecology-movement).

The younger ones and also foreigners are not always aware of this common root and origin of these two movements, which, at those times - the 80ties - were called "Oekopaxe" (Oeko = German for Eco = Ecologists and pax = latin for peace - the word means that both movements belong together, since they even have partly the same people working in both - with the same left agenda: Trittin for example was a member of the communistic "Kommunistischer Bund" (KB) during his time in Goettingen. Fischer and his buddy Cohn-Bendit (now member of European "parliament" ) were so-called "Spontis" (doing things spontaneous - like throwing stones at policemen).

Now these fellows are in power (the goal / aim of their "march") and try to realize their agenda. That is the whole story.

And I feel sad for the kids and younger ones, who honestly believe in the motives and have no clue how their fidelity and honesty is abused by the founding members, who know the real reason: milking the system.

And they ARE creative:

After the fall of the wall in 1989 there was no reason anymore for a "peace"-movement. What did they do to stay alive? They were trying to find new excuses for their existence: the Gulf war with Bush sen. But Mr. Bush sen. didn't fit to the wished "enemy"-picture: he massively had supported German unification and he was diplomatically smart. No or only little support by the people for the "pacifists". They tried it again at Kosovo - and didn't suceed in either, because the political climate was different thanks to the Kohl-government. And Clinton didn't fit also to the "enemy-picture". The peace-movement was actually down, completely down.

Until Mr. Bush jun came into power. Very quick they saw that his direct approach and his focussing only to Americans in his speeches (and not thinking of echoes outside) made him a good enemy. Being a Republican and rich was the ideal "enemy-picture" of the left here. So they systematically demonized (phrase?) him (let him look like a demon and this began long before Iraq). Result see today.

Similar the ecologists: first, they tried it with the trees (romantic Germans and forest, you know): dying, polluted, etc. But after a time, when also the most dumb car driver got it that the trees beside his daily driven freeway were the same he passed 10 years ago and when he heard by elders that air pollution was much worse in the 50ties than in the 80ties, they had to create another excuse - and invented the "climate catastrophe". From one day to the other no word about trees anymore, but the climate getting hotter and hotter with rising sea levels. Doesn't sound very logical, but dramatical. And when you tell them: "So what? In my native area there are old wineyards, which were used until the 18th century, then the climate became too cold for wine-business, so perhaps we are simply going back to normal terms" - they wouldn't listen or felt disturbed. Or they respond flexible: when more and more people didn't buy the story because of some cold summers in sequence, they suddenly told you: "Oh, no contradiction - it may happen that areas become COLDER - new scientific research results, you know?"

Oh well, the nuclear power plants were at the very beginning also on their agenda. The SPD, in the 60ties and 70ties a big supporter of nuclear power, began to forget the word "Fortschritt" (progress). That was the reward of these opportunists. And the price for electricity goes up and up and up since a few years to the non-benefit of the poor, who are told that the new election campaign of SPD has the keyword "justice".....

We are stuck in some few big propaganda lies. Problem: still too many truly believe this garbage.

To fix the problem: at first, we others need a public voice. And we're back at the media (isn't this an elegant turn at the end? ;-)

Best wishes from Germany
Klaus

[klaus]

Karl,

"Ouch! You don't know how often Germans treat me as some sort of hybrid that is not truly an American. I assure you I am an Ami, born and bred."

You really want to take away my good solid prejudice? ;-))))

No, dear Karl, it still works as follows (with humerous smile): the Americans are the generous, naive and jolly people who live their lifes as one big story of trial and error - we Germans on the other side THINK before we act (perfectly symbolized by genius Schroeder, Fischer & Co., as everybody can easily see). This feeling is SOOO cosy.... ;-)))

Well, now the serious answer, but this also has really something to do with prejudice or better: lack of experience - the Americans I know (be it "live" or in Cyber Forums) have ALL a direct approach. Very direct.

A person who debates in a more "playful" way of "we should not forget this.., we should think about that... here is another source which might be of interest... is - well, I'd better say: was - in my view more bound to a "German" mentality.

And last but not least, the name "Karl" is German to me, "Carl" would be english. We have both versions, but that also "Karl" exists in the anglosaxon world - and not only "Carl" - is honestly and seriously new to me.

Anyhow: thanks a lot for your explanation. :-)

Best wishes from Germany
Klaus

[Jens Schmidt]

Klaus,
a lot of what you've written about those persons who currently run the propagande in Germany I totally agree with, but there is a part in your writing that's simply not funded very well. I guess your disappointment with the regime makes you fail to realise that they are not always wrong. There assesment of certain situations was right, only their consequences were ridiculous.

Here comes the examples:
>Similar the ecologists: first, they tried it with the trees (romantic Germans and forest, you know): dying, polluted, etc. But after a time, when also the most dumb car driver got it that the trees beside his daily driven freeway were the same he passed 10 years ago

I'm afraid you haven't been to some areas of Germany in the 70s. Particularly the Ruhrgebiet, some of the mountain areas and the Southern parts of East-Germany. Air pollution and dying trees were a fact and not just propaganda. That this fact was abused for propaganda shouldn't lead you to deny it. Denying facts makes the position of the thinking people vulnerable and that's one of the things that made the Green party and their propaganda machine so successful. People actually saw the results of what the Green party preached and in the beginning they were the only ones to talk about that, so the public followed them, not seeing that their "solutions" to the problem were useless (to say the least). Well, if the other side thinks denying the whole problem is more helpful they shouldn't complain that the Greens got away with their dangerous policies.

>they had to create another excuse - and invented the "climate catastrophe".

Well, same story again. Just imagine they might be right. I'm living in Switzerland at the moment and the glacier actually DO shrink. There may be different reasons for that, but warming doesn't sound too illogial to me.

>From one day to the other no word about trees anymore

Well, there you are right, but I guess you must agree, they always praised themselfs for how successful their policy was to reduce air pollution and safe the forrests. OK, they failed to mention the effects of their policy were something else, namely devastating political culture, scaring foreign investors and destroying jobs and that it was actually not the Green party that reduced air pollution, but hell, one can't expect them to care for the truth.

>but the climate getting hotter and hotter with rising sea levels. Doesn't sound very logical, but dramatical.

Sounds very logical and even IS correct. just like this:

"Oh, no contradiction - it may happen that areas become COLDER - new scientific research results, you know?"

[tictoc]

I wonder if Karl B. is related to Karl M.?

[Jens Schmidt]

Karl Moik?

[Jens Schmidt]

All I meant to say was, we need a realistic approach, plain denial of facts by the conservatives made the Green strong and I've got the impression some never learn.

[Karl B.]

I've already officially denied any relation to Karl Marx on another thread. Full disclosure: Karl B. is a nom de keyboard.

As for my hafing a Cherman mentality, vell, yes, zat may be ze case. Venn you been here as long as I haf, it starts to come naturally.

[klaus]

Jens,

"Here comes the examples:
>Similar the ecologists: first, they tried it with the trees (romantic Germans and forest, you know): dying, polluted, etc. But after a time, when also the most dumb car driver got it that the trees beside his daily driven freeway were the same he passed 10 years ago <

I'm afraid you haven't been to some areas of Germany in the 70s. Particularly the Ruhrgebiet, some of the mountain areas and the Southern parts of East-Germany. Air pollution and dying trees were a fact and not just propaganda. That this fact was abused for propaganda shouldn't lead you to deny it."

That is a misunderstanding. I should have explained better (sorry) - well, I try it now: I didn't want to deny the fact. There WAS pollution (and there IS pollution, besides).

But it depends on in which light you see it, how you interprete what (here is the misunderstanding probably based):

In the fifties, people in the Ruhrgebiet would have told you that they had not been able to dry their laundery outside, when the wind was blowing the false direction. The laundry became literally brown-black because of the air pollution caused by the coal power plants. This was already much better in the 70ties and more better in the beginning of the 80ties, where the Greens "discovered" that there was "heavy" pollution.

So my point is: they didn't "discover" it when it was needed, but when the situation ALREADY HAD IMPROVED.

Now, also I know that this is not valid to Eastern Europe, where they had their rotten industries. On the flipside, also the Greens didn't tell about the situation there.

And ref. the trees at the freeway: this example refers to my own experience. Same trees still there, which should have been "dead" long since, if the Greens were right with their propaganda.

"Well, same story again. Just imagine they might be right. I'm living in Switzerland at the moment and the glacier actually DO shrink. There may be different reasons for that, but warming doesn't sound too illogial to me."

Of course, there are climate changes! This is what I was writing (or trying to). Climate changes are nothing unusual! On the flipside: do you know reports showing that the shrinking glaciers suddenly enable you to see old houses and even little villages of former times? What does this tell us?

The point is: what is the REASON for climate changes? HERE begins the manipulation and the brainwash, when the Greens tell us that this is all menmade and take this view as an excuse for more limitations and more regulations. I wasn't telling you fairytales, when I mentioned that in my native area there are old wineyards (hill-terraces formed like), which are not used for 200 years now. This is (also) a fact.

Very obvious is this: climate changes happened all the time, happen now and will happen in future. While it is in general a good thing to avoid pollution, it is an obvious brainwash to sell us the story that WE and pollution are responsible for climate changes.

">but the climate getting hotter and hotter with rising sea levels. Doesn't sound very logical, but dramatical.<

Sounds very logical and even IS correct. just like this:"

No. All serious scientists will tell you that their measurements and their research are based on correlation, but not on causality. The causality (WE are responsible for this) they are not able to prove up to now despite all the propaganda-efforts of the ecologist-movement. But this proof would be necessary. On the flipside I could name you a buddy living in Ireland (he is native Irish), who could show you photos and maps showing that 100 years ago there was land where there is sea today. In other words: that the sea takes away land is also a very natural matter and not a new phenomen at all.

There were two books at those times (70-80ties), which mainly influenced the people:
- Dennis Meadows: The limits of growth (Die Grenzen des Wachstums) vom the "Club of Rome"
- Global 2000, Report to the President

Let's have a look there:

Global 2000 for example gives you a map showing that Southern California, Southern New Mexico, nearly Mexico completely, South-East Australia, including famous Barossa and Eden valleys, the complete Spanish East coast and whole South Africa will soon be DESERTS. As the book title says these are predicitions for the year 2000, which is now three years ago. And what about the deserts?

And the Club of Rome sells us the story that there would be enough natural gas ressources for 38 years. Given the time of publishing it would mean that gas resources end up in 15 years. And petroleum ressources (the oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, you know) would be finished in some NOW - 10 years.

This is all hopelessly outdated, but the ecologists' policy of today still refers to this. And, yes!, in the Global Report 2000 you also find remarks about the climate changes being POSSIBLY originated in pollution, which has POSSIBLY bad results ref. to climate changes. The ecologists of today simply removed the "possibly" and that's it.

It is still one big brainwash.

Well, I hope this clarifies it a bit. ;-)

Best wishes from Germany
klaus

[Tom Penn]

Regarding the discussion on global warming, it's very true that our planet has been warming since the ice age. The problem is Political "Science". Scientists are supposed to be about finding factual, provable truths, but too often today scientists skew their work (or others skew it for them) to support a political agenda. But, why does disagreement within the scientific community fuel such hate for some of those with an opposing view, but not others? Very little venom is reserved for the other parties that declined to sign up for Kyoto, the new global welfare program.

Kyoto is a key issue that Europeans use to prove that the US does not "listen" to our allies, and that the US is "unilateral". No calls to respect US "sovereignty" or efforts to understand our decision. Just outrage. The real irony here is that these same "friends" are almost fanatical about respecting the "sovereign" rights of failed, brutal, totalitarian states to own WMD (a proven environmental and security danger) and repress and kill their people. How are Americans supposed to reconcile these positions from our "allies"?

[Jens Schmidt]

So I apologise, I really got you wrong. But when you read your first statement you might agree that to the pre-occupied reader (and you can always expect a bit of pre-occupation) it could sound like one more of those people who deny problems instead of solving.

>Kyoto is a key issue that Europeans use to prove that the US does not "listen" to our allies, and that the US is "unilateral".

Here we are at the media side again the 1000000....th time and I fully agree. The US don't take part in a stupid system where there is a "Market" for "licences" for pollution, that is now already showing that its fucked up (as everyone who thought about it expected) and the media puts it like the are gonna destroy the world. Now we are good at complaining about this and we a right in doing so, but hey, that won't change a thing. Any idea what to do? I almost gave up on this.