"Europeans are endlessly inventive when it comes to radiator design. Why are Americans lagging behind?"

Questions asked in a NYT article illustrated by 2 photographs: an atrocious, "creative" Euro design and a beautiful, classic American radiator.

A nice example of the misguided Europe-does-it-better meme.

And that atrocious Euro-radiators — "life-size animal sculptures... draped... in skins... a red deer, a ram and an arctic fox" — cost $7,700 to $11,600. And we're told they are electric, so it seems to me they correspond to what Americans would call a space heater. (If you're wondering about all that fur, I believe NYT is generally pro-fur, so this article may be an under-the-radar service to its fur advertisers.)

Also available from European designers are...

... dozens of conversation starters, radiators that resemble a forest grove, a paper clip, a garden hose that uncoils and snakes around a room, and even a wall-hung homage to an artistic masterpiece. Hotech, an Italian radiator company, has a collection with names like Chagall and Fabergé. Its David model is a beefy male torso.

Wall-hung. That's wall-hung. Don't let the the snaking hose and the beefy male torso cause you to misread. And we've all seen David naked, so form your own opinion.

Have I started a conversation yet? Well, do you have any "conversation starters" in the interior decoration of your house? What kind of conversations do they start? 

ADDED: There's also a slideshow, here, so you can see what the hose and the torso, etc. look like. I was using my imagination, and I'm sad to report that David has no discernible genitalia.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons wins the Nobel Peace Prize, I say, and Meade says: "That's a slam on Obama."

"Why?" I ask, and he says, "Obama was going to go to war over chemical weapons. They're trying to say: Maybe we shouldn't have given you the Peace Prize." Hmm. I read the NYT article:

Urging the destruction of “an entire category” of unconventional weapons, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded its 2013 Peace Prize on Friday to a relatively modest and little-known United Nations-backed body that has drawn sudden attention with a mission to destroy Syria’s stocks of chemical arms under a deal brokered by Russia and the United States.

"Don't we need to look at their explanation of why they gave the prize." I mean, it could be more of a statement about how bad chemical weapons are — which would align with what Obama's been saying. But it could be about how there are peaceful ways to go about eliminating chemical weapons, which might be phrased in a manner that disapproves of Obama.

But look what we are doing! It's what everybody's been doing for the last 5 years: Making everything about Obama. The sun rises in the morning, and what does it mean for Obama? A bird twitters in a treetop, and what is he saying about Obama?

The chemical attack outside Damascus initially drew an American threat of military reprisal before Moscow and Washington reached a compromise arrangement to seek the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons stocks under international supervision.

Thorbjorn Jagland, the former Norwegian prime minister who is chairman of the panel, said chemical weapons had been used by Hitler’s armies in their campaign of mass extermination and on many other occasions by states and terrorists. He denied that the award to a body based in The Hague represented a Eurocentric shift after last year’s award to the European Union. “It’s global,” he said.

Nothing like denial to point the way to the truth?

What does this year's Peace Prize say about Obama?
	It's a slam.
	It's a mild rebuke.
	It's not about Obama, who can't be the recipient. It's about chemical weapons.
	It's vaguely supportive of Obama, who made chemical weapons his issue this year.
	It's solidly supportive of Obama, calling attention to his prime issue.
pollcode.com free polls

"The European cap-and-trade system has slid into near meaninglessness as Germany bickers on the sidelines."

"Hopes that the election in Lower Saxony might resolve the high-level bickering were misguided. Now Europe's carbon market has hit a new low."

Energy-heavy industries and coal-dependent countries like Poland argue against market intervention in the [European Emissions Trading System (ETS)] while noting that higher carbon prices leads to higher energy costs that result in a burden on businesses while European economies remain weak. The arguments against intervention may be working, as Germany -- which also harbors deep concerns about the burden cap-and-trade could have on industry -- continues to stall, and the ETS remains mostly useless. A failure on backloading would likely drop carbon credits to a level only slightly above penny stocks.

"This should be the final wake-up call," said EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard, according to wire reports. "Something has to be done urgently...."

(Via Instapundit.)