The blogster came to "The Hospice" via a detour, and we will take you along the same route because there is both correlation and causation there. It is not a coincidence either that the route to The Hospice led through the reader comments section of an article in German zeitonline.
You should call it The Yellow Prick Road, said the K-Landnews TheEditor in an unusually soft tone of voice. It's the appropriate thing to do when you talk about people at the end of life.
The original article described how managers get fired in 21st century Germany. The title says Companies treat managers like criminals.
No comment, mumbled TheEditor, as if it* knew where we were headed. The Zeit article is just one of many exposes on the harsh, punishing realities at work in the fourth largest economy of the world. Over the years of living in Germany, the blogster has heard and read that life has become colder, more self centered, often ruthless. Personal descriptions came from members of the rural communities we call home, workers, small employers.
In the media, the big complainers are those who have much more power, and that's what the Zeit article, among others, illustrates.
There, a lawyer specializing in employment law recounts a long list of methods companies use to get rid of undesired managers.
Undesirables get stripped of a team, get banished to a remote corner of the building, lose their company car. If and when they get fired after refusing to take the hint to resign, the laid off managers are given a few minutes in the office to collect personal stuff under the watchful eye of a security guard, and then they are escorted off the premises.
Wait, that's new around here?
It's how companies have done it in the US for a long time.
Nothing to write home about, but then there were the reader comments. They corroborated a shift to more corrosive work environments, and one of them had the link to The Hospice.
The Hospice is the nickname of a small, non-descript office building in the shadows of the bank highrises in Frankfurt, Germany. The Hospice is where almost all of the former CEOs of Deutsche Bank have their offices after retiring or after having been ousted from the bank's top floor.
It is there that people like Rolf Breuer end up after decades of a career which led them to the very top of one of the world's most powerful banks. In other companies, equivalent offices exist, nicknamed with equivalent cruelty or irony, like elephant cemetery, or burial chamber.
Some of the residents of The Hospice decided to talk to the Zeit reporters, most of them beginning the interview with "This talk never happened".
The old men, all are men, tell about the fierce power struggles, about the need to "use truth and lies in a strategic manner", about "the satisfaction to see some else get hammered", about "savvy tactics".
Some openly admit how they would abstain or even vote in favor of a decision despite being fundamentally opposed to a proposed change or measure. They would form ever shifting alliances to get more power, to maintain their status, to shift blame onto someone else.
One put it this way: When the board of Deutsche Bank was making a decision that affected the future of the bank, no board member would think of the bank's future. You would think of your own future, your own power.
The article is one of a handful or so the blogster would recommend reading, both for the deep insights into the workings and trappings of power at the very top of companies and for the quality of the journalistic writing. So, get a German friend to read it for you.
The blogster found it almost incredible to read how these old men go to their tiny, prison cell size offices every morning to face empty schedules and void, but then remembered old dogs and old horses from the years on the farm.
Each and everyone worth many millions of Euros, the old bankers cling to the past. Only rarely does one get out and leave the decades of frenemies behind.
Why don't they go enjoy themselves, sail around the world, do charity work, help the homeless?
Well, that's one reason why you will never be one of them, smiled TheEditor.
* We are gender neutral.
[Update] A couple of small grammar edits. Note: the German term used is Sterbehaus, a place were people go to die. "The hospice" is as close as we could translate.
Saturday, April 16, 2016
Friday, April 15, 2016
Germany: Wise air travel meal choices and stuff not to buy online
From our There is no Mass Surveillance series.
When the blogster asked a nice former civil servant who had worked in the German Bundestag, the federal parliament, if he thought there was mass surveillance in Germany, he didn't blink: "Of course, everybody does it".
Posing the identical question to OMG (Old Mustached German), familiar to regular readers, resulted in the same answer, decorated with a gratuitous swear word for emphasis.
The blogster doesn't want to contradict the experts and decided to call it differently: massive targeted surveillance. Same thing but sounds nicer, don't you agree?
The most interesting data collection efforts by the German authorities are not always the ones you can readily read about in the old and new media.
The fact that the German government just this week decided to make the sale of anonymous SIM cards illegal and require ID when you buy any prepaid card is news, granted.
No matter whether you book a flight online or at a travel agent, your data are going to collected even more extensively than before.
A pet project of "conservatives" for many years, it took the more recent terror attacks in Europe, and the prospect of 500 million Euros a year for running the scheme, to get comprehensive collection of air travel passenger data (PNR) passed. For each passenger, up to 60 data points per flight, will be collected and made available to all EU member states. Even your meal preferences are going to be saved for five years with more relevant personal data.
The blogster recommends to go with the standard chicken or beef meals and to avoid vegetarian. The latter can be interpreted as religious affiliation or as animal rights activism, both of which are deeply suspect to the authorities.
Gluten-free, on the other hand, should be great, too, because it is the clearest food based statement of health consciousness, and thus reduces your chance of being flagged as a potential suicide bomber to naught. Gluten-free shouts out to the world: I want to live. Remember that the 911 highjackers binged on fast food and crap before going boooom?
Legal items you still may not want to buy over the internet in Germany include the following.
Hydrogen peroxide
It is legal but H2O2 gets its own entry because it illustrates the extent of government control over citizens like few other things, with the exception of the broadcasting fee.
The blogster misses this dirt cheap harmless cleaning and washing aid more than any non curse words can describe.
But since higher concentration H2O2 can be used with Acetone to make explosives, the Germans clamped down.
You can still by a liter/quart of low percentage peroxide but for moon prices.
Any other useful chemicals
Chief among them are acids and solvents. Generally being hazardous, limiting sales and trying to make sure buyers know safety and handling restrictions is actually a good idea. Unfortunately, German authorities seem to believe that the simple act of buying them over the internet means you may be up to no good. If you do, for example, work that involves a lot of degreasing, find a brick and mortar shop to buy supplies. They are required to ask the same questions as online shops but showing your face makes you less of a threat. Unless you have a big beard. In that case, find another hobby.
If you are middle aged or older, you appear less of a threat but you have another problem: may chemicals you may know as openly on sale from decades ago have undergone reclassification, which always means becoming subject to more restrictions.
For all the blogster knows, Borax, that cheap powder against irritable bowel syndrome in dogs and other pets, may now be on an index because it is a neutron absorber. The friendly pharmacist might get nervous and think you are trying to build a mini nuclear power plant in your back yard.
Brewing equipment and stills
Home brewing is legal in Germany up to an annual quantity of 200 liters (around 50 gallons). Many DIY stores and gardening centers offer basic equipment, such as glass fermentation and storage jars.
Buying these basics online is probably safe. At least, we have not heard of issues.
Distilling equipment is another matter!
You can freely buy a 0.5 liter (about 2 cups) still, and German customs will generally leave you alone. If you buy a still with a capacity greater than 0.5 liter, you will get a visit by German customs. That's because any German seller of stills above that limit has to provide customs with the buyer's contact details.
According to a German friend, some inveterate home distillers have worked around the system. Organic Chemistry textbooks published in Germany after WWII included a large section on home brewing and home distilling. Recent textbooks no longer have this practical content, but German students continue to be interested in the subject. Most chemistry students know how make their own still, including a separator for methyl alcohol, out of an electric canning pot.
When the blogster asked a nice former civil servant who had worked in the German Bundestag, the federal parliament, if he thought there was mass surveillance in Germany, he didn't blink: "Of course, everybody does it".
Posing the identical question to OMG (Old Mustached German), familiar to regular readers, resulted in the same answer, decorated with a gratuitous swear word for emphasis.
The blogster doesn't want to contradict the experts and decided to call it differently: massive targeted surveillance. Same thing but sounds nicer, don't you agree?
The most interesting data collection efforts by the German authorities are not always the ones you can readily read about in the old and new media.
The fact that the German government just this week decided to make the sale of anonymous SIM cards illegal and require ID when you buy any prepaid card is news, granted.
No matter whether you book a flight online or at a travel agent, your data are going to collected even more extensively than before.
A pet project of "conservatives" for many years, it took the more recent terror attacks in Europe, and the prospect of 500 million Euros a year for running the scheme, to get comprehensive collection of air travel passenger data (PNR) passed. For each passenger, up to 60 data points per flight, will be collected and made available to all EU member states. Even your meal preferences are going to be saved for five years with more relevant personal data.
The blogster recommends to go with the standard chicken or beef meals and to avoid vegetarian. The latter can be interpreted as religious affiliation or as animal rights activism, both of which are deeply suspect to the authorities.
Gluten-free, on the other hand, should be great, too, because it is the clearest food based statement of health consciousness, and thus reduces your chance of being flagged as a potential suicide bomber to naught. Gluten-free shouts out to the world: I want to live. Remember that the 911 highjackers binged on fast food and crap before going boooom?
Legal items you still may not want to buy over the internet in Germany include the following.
Hydrogen peroxide
It is legal but H2O2 gets its own entry because it illustrates the extent of government control over citizens like few other things, with the exception of the broadcasting fee.
The blogster misses this dirt cheap harmless cleaning and washing aid more than any non curse words can describe.
But since higher concentration H2O2 can be used with Acetone to make explosives, the Germans clamped down.
You can still by a liter/quart of low percentage peroxide but for moon prices.
Any other useful chemicals
Chief among them are acids and solvents. Generally being hazardous, limiting sales and trying to make sure buyers know safety and handling restrictions is actually a good idea. Unfortunately, German authorities seem to believe that the simple act of buying them over the internet means you may be up to no good. If you do, for example, work that involves a lot of degreasing, find a brick and mortar shop to buy supplies. They are required to ask the same questions as online shops but showing your face makes you less of a threat. Unless you have a big beard. In that case, find another hobby.
If you are middle aged or older, you appear less of a threat but you have another problem: may chemicals you may know as openly on sale from decades ago have undergone reclassification, which always means becoming subject to more restrictions.
For all the blogster knows, Borax, that cheap powder against irritable bowel syndrome in dogs and other pets, may now be on an index because it is a neutron absorber. The friendly pharmacist might get nervous and think you are trying to build a mini nuclear power plant in your back yard.
Brewing equipment and stills
Home brewing is legal in Germany up to an annual quantity of 200 liters (around 50 gallons). Many DIY stores and gardening centers offer basic equipment, such as glass fermentation and storage jars.
Buying these basics online is probably safe. At least, we have not heard of issues.
Distilling equipment is another matter!
You can freely buy a 0.5 liter (about 2 cups) still, and German customs will generally leave you alone. If you buy a still with a capacity greater than 0.5 liter, you will get a visit by German customs. That's because any German seller of stills above that limit has to provide customs with the buyer's contact details.
According to a German friend, some inveterate home distillers have worked around the system. Organic Chemistry textbooks published in Germany after WWII included a large section on home brewing and home distilling. Recent textbooks no longer have this practical content, but German students continue to be interested in the subject. Most chemistry students know how make their own still, including a separator for methyl alcohol, out of an electric canning pot.
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
The disingenuous German defense of a comedian against Erdogan
The amount of ink and electricity expended by German media on the comedian who allegedly insulted Turkish President Erdogan may be enough to print all of Gaza's newspapers for a year and cover most its power needs.
The K-Landnews calls Mr. B. a comedian, not a satirist. Germany has some satirists, and we cannot find a good reason to classify Mr. B. as such.Mr. B., as we call him for short out of laziness, offers the style and content of what we would have called a court jester in the old days, or as the licensed fool.
In the politically astute world of German public broadcasting, a few late night time slices have been earmarked for comedy/satire, one of which is occupied by Mr. B. on the second nation wide channel ZDF. This is where he broadcast a "denigrating poem" a couple of weeks ago relating to Erdogan.
As described by Der Spiegel, Böhmermann sparked headlines around the world after his satire show "Neo Magazin Royal" broadcast a poem mocking Erdogan in the most below-the-belt manner possible last Thursday. In the poem, aired by Mainz-based public broadcaster ZDF, Erdogan is mocked for being a "professional idiot, cowardly and uptight" and is disparaged as having had sex with animals.
What hardly anybody explained was how the episode came about and how it was set up. The episode followed on the heels of another comedy show by one of the rival ARD broadcasters (extra3), which had included a funny song about Erdogan. That song became very popular on social media and was eventually given Turkish subtitles. It mocked Erdogan without pulling a transgression.
The ZDF Mr. B. show was thus really nothing but sloppy seconds, and - naturally - had to top the fun song. The makers of the ZDF show (B. is the anchor but has writers and support staff) knew the German limits on "free speech" very well, because they prefaced the denigrating poem with a statement that explained, no, denigrating speech is illegal under German law. So, this following kind of speech would be illegal. Then B. proceeded to present the poem.
The broadcast did not make waves before the ZDF leadership pulled the episode from its web site (April 1). Initial public outrage was focused on the action of ZDF and the statement by its chief that the episode "fell short of the broadcaster's quality standards".
Some in the media and a large segment of the public cried censorship.
Which it was. And not for the first time.
ZDF reversed the decision and put the episode back up. **
At this point in time, the lines of discourse in Germany were still very much as expected. Conservatives mostly called the episode childish, and even Chancellor Merkel, reacting to the first wave of Turkish criticism, called it "intentionally hurtful", as reported on April 4.
As Turkey called for prosecution of B. for insulting the president, Germans began a debate about what section of the penal code this might fall under. The obvious choice was section 103, which classifies "insulting a foreign head of state" as a felony punishable by up to several years in prison.
An old journalist then pointed out the history of this section: it had been tailor made to protect the then Shah of Iran. The Shah was not liked by many Germans and by Iranians who had fled his regime in the 1960s and 70s. The German state, however, and most of the conservatives were rather fond of the torturing monarch and added the specific clause to the penal code.
Official Germany went "oops" and changed over to the generic "insult" section 185.
Debate about the comedy episode, fueled by the wobbling of ZDF, Ms. Merkel's reaction and Erdogan filing a complaint with German prosecutors, then shifted to highlight the obvious problems stemming from the handling or mishandling of the refugee crisis, especially the deal of the EU with Turkey to take back refugees for several billion euros in cash.
As the debate raged on, German media took note of the fact that even the most minor criticism of Erdogan gets you a prosecution in Turkey.
Suddenly, even German outlets less than enthusiastic or outright critical of B.'s stunt went into "we cannot be like Turkey" mode. Others pointed out the repeated satires of Ms. Merkel in some more or less harsh Nazi/World War II setting, in uniform etc., for example, by Greek publications during the height of the Greek debt crisis.
And thus, German media from liberal to conservative rallied around the "we are better than Turkey" and "tit for tat".
Satire in Germany has come under successful attack in the recent past, not to mention the latter part of the 20th century. For example, in 2012, when magazine Titanic published a title with then Pope Benedict in a white robe stained by a yellow spot in the area of the private parts addressed by Mr. B., too, German courts declared that cover and the back of the magazine issue to be "damaging to the personality rights" of the Pope.
The K-Landnews has posted on German comedy/satire before and claims that TV series South Park could not have originated in Germany: they would have been sued out of existence at the time.
Smart observers have also asked the crucial question: If Mr. B.'s poem had been directed at a German politician, what would have happened?
Insults of German politicians on Facebook are routinely brought to court under different provisions of the penal code, from insult to hate speech.
Germany's highest court declared only in 2015 that speech insulting police as a group, specifically F*CK Cops on a t-shirt, was legal because it was not directed at a specific, identifiable member of the group.
A journalist in Greece was convicted of insulting Ms. Merkel in 2012 and sentenced to a fine of 25 000 Euros.
After it transpired last night that Mr. B. was put under police protection, any remaining possibility of an indictment for insulting Erdogan has evaporated.
If an "insult" can be a felony in your country, don't complain that the provision is exploited.
In the overall context of the squabble, the relative lack of attention to events in Turkey on the part of most German media outlets strikes the blogster as much more important and damaging.
Proven support of Islamist radicals in Syria and Iraq was hardly mentioned until recently. For a long time, the plight of the Kurdish people was presented mostly as "terrorist" PKK versus the legitimate state for a long time.
[Update 5/18/2016] A superior court in the German city of Hamburg handed down a ban on parts of the "poem", following to a large extent the complaint by Mr. Erdogan. As Die Welt reports, Mr. B. would now be unable to quote some 95% of the "poem". The court stated that Mr. Erdogan had to tolerate even harsh criticism but that abusive slander or degrading statements crossed the line.
This decision is very much in line with "generic" German on German cases.
Mr. B. can appeal the decision.
The final outcome, though, remains uncertain because of the case's political dimension.
[Update] Fixed the usual suspects: typos, grammar.
[Update 4/14/2016] Correction: It is on YouTube, not the ZDF web site. That's still being debated.
Monday, April 11, 2016
Verschenken deutsche Rundfunkanstalten beitragsfinanzierte Sendungen im Ausland?
Der Rundfunkstaatsvertrag und sein Zwilling, der Beitragsstaatsvetrag, gelten nur im Inland.
Sagte ein Intendant, den wir hier nicht zitieren wollen.
Wenn man sich nun im Internet umschaut, findet man früher oder später einige Internetradios, darunter unseren Lieblingssender TuneIn.
Und wenn man dort ins Suchfeld deutsche öffentlich rechtliche Anstaltskürzel eingibt, findet man fast alle!
Die Gretchenfrage: bekommen die deutschen Anstalten dafür Geld, oder geben sie unsere beitragsfinanzierten Sendungen kostenlos an Auslandsfirmen ab, die kommerzielle Dienste anbieten?
Eine Anstalt wurde von uns zu diesem Thema und speziell zu TuneIn befragt. Die Antwort?
Siehe ganz oben.
Auf deutsch: geht Beitragszahler nichts an, weil es im Ausland passiert.
Nun sind diese deutschen Sender auf TuneIn kostenlos, also sollte man den deutschen Anstalten keine Vorwürfe machen, sie bereichern sich ja nicht daran?
Man kann allerdings bei TuneIn folgendes tun: There is a one-time pay version, “TuneIn Radio Pro” (USD $9.99), which allows you to record anything heard through the TuneIn service to play back at any time. Recordings made by TuneIn Radio Pro are stored on the device and cannot be played on other devices.
Deutsch: Für einen einmaligen Preis von UDS $9,99 kann man jede Sendung aufzeichnen und beliebig oft auf einem Gerät wiederholen.
Die Frage: geht bei ÖRR-Sendungen davon etwas an die deutschen Anstalten? Wir wissen es nicht, aber die "Antwort" ganz oben gibt weing Anlass zum Optimismus.
Nun gibt es, wieder als Beispiel TuneIn, auch komplette Premium-Angebote, etwa auch für die Deutsche Bundesliga (zumindest laut Wikipedia).
Wie sieht es mit Nutzungsentgelten aus? Hat die GEMA etwas dazu zu sagen?
Hier das Angebot des WDR Hörfunks vom 11. April 2016
Wetten Sie mit uns: Verschenken die deutsche ÖRR beitragsfinanzierte Sendungen an kommerzielle Anbieter im Ausland?
Fragen Sie doch mal Ihre Anstalt.
[Updated 4/12/2016] Gema-Frage.
Sagte ein Intendant, den wir hier nicht zitieren wollen.
Wenn man sich nun im Internet umschaut, findet man früher oder später einige Internetradios, darunter unseren Lieblingssender TuneIn.
Und wenn man dort ins Suchfeld deutsche öffentlich rechtliche Anstaltskürzel eingibt, findet man fast alle!
Die Gretchenfrage: bekommen die deutschen Anstalten dafür Geld, oder geben sie unsere beitragsfinanzierten Sendungen kostenlos an Auslandsfirmen ab, die kommerzielle Dienste anbieten?
Eine Anstalt wurde von uns zu diesem Thema und speziell zu TuneIn befragt. Die Antwort?
Siehe ganz oben.
Auf deutsch: geht Beitragszahler nichts an, weil es im Ausland passiert.
Nun sind diese deutschen Sender auf TuneIn kostenlos, also sollte man den deutschen Anstalten keine Vorwürfe machen, sie bereichern sich ja nicht daran?
Man kann allerdings bei TuneIn folgendes tun: There is a one-time pay version, “TuneIn Radio Pro” (USD $9.99), which allows you to record anything heard through the TuneIn service to play back at any time. Recordings made by TuneIn Radio Pro are stored on the device and cannot be played on other devices.
Deutsch: Für einen einmaligen Preis von UDS $9,99 kann man jede Sendung aufzeichnen und beliebig oft auf einem Gerät wiederholen.
Die Frage: geht bei ÖRR-Sendungen davon etwas an die deutschen Anstalten? Wir wissen es nicht, aber die "Antwort" ganz oben gibt weing Anlass zum Optimismus.
Nun gibt es, wieder als Beispiel TuneIn, auch komplette Premium-Angebote, etwa auch für die Deutsche Bundesliga (zumindest laut Wikipedia).
Wie sieht es mit Nutzungsentgelten aus? Hat die GEMA etwas dazu zu sagen?
Hier das Angebot des WDR Hörfunks vom 11. April 2016
Wetten Sie mit uns: Verschenken die deutsche ÖRR beitragsfinanzierte Sendungen an kommerzielle Anbieter im Ausland?
Fragen Sie doch mal Ihre Anstalt.
[Updated 4/12/2016] Gema-Frage.
Sunday, April 10, 2016
Overtime - the threat that undermines Germany's NATO commitment
The trigger happy German wanna be warriors who looked at American GIs with envy even though they couldn't recognize a US combat veteran when she stood right in front of them with patches on both upper sleeves are suffering under another threat.
We are not talking about PTSD, a problem the modern German military has experienced when ground troops saw combat, especially in Afghanistan. Yes, young Germans are learning the lesson that every time you kill somebody, a piece of your own soul dies, too.
The current threat is called overtime.
Apparently, the German military runs on a 41 hour workweek and overtime hours are offset by time off as ordered by the respective commander. Germany's ombudsman for the military is unhappy with the new rules and calls for changes, for example, a yearly overtime account, so soldiers can take larger blocks of time off and not be stuck in the middle of nowhere for a few hours of downtime, or extra pay.
In the long tradition of making the greatest possible impression on the public, the gentleman gave an interview to the Sunday tabloid version of BILD Zeitung.
He raises the specter of Germany being unable to fulfill its NATO commitments because of the overtime threat. The BILD article and others in the same vein say that a German unit can only participate in a four week NATO exercise in Norway for 12 days because the troops would otherwise accumulate too many overtime hours. "The NATO partners do not understand that", claims the article.
Well, in the world of the blogster, there is a simple solution to not understanding: explain.
"Ve do four one hours", or something like it will do the trick.
Or is "understand" meant to say "they find this stupid"?
The various incarnations of the bad news for German national security include other statements you can only sell to life long civilians, such as this one. When troops are out on a training area, their workday ends at 16:30. That's the end of the training day - because of a danger of overtime.
The technical term for that, my friends, is called bullshit.
When the training or the mission demands it, even German soldiers will be up and about as long as needed.
As much as it may pain those among you who work in, say, Amazon warehouse or any other job governed by intricate computerized time management, life in the military isn't like that. There's a lot of downtime in many branches and specialties.
But let's not dwell on this aspect. You might feel a lot less secure.
The take home point of the ombudsman's complaint is simple, and you, dear reader, can become an instant credible military spokesperson if you follow this secret guideline.
Describe anything you don't like as a threat to combat readiness and obligations towards our allies.
If you want to explore this as a career, how about some practice? Go stand in front of a mirror and describe how one flat tire threatens to defeat NATO.
One more thing:
If winning the next war depends on you being able to do a few more overtime hours, maybe you misunderstand your job.
We are not talking about PTSD, a problem the modern German military has experienced when ground troops saw combat, especially in Afghanistan. Yes, young Germans are learning the lesson that every time you kill somebody, a piece of your own soul dies, too.
The current threat is called overtime.
Apparently, the German military runs on a 41 hour workweek and overtime hours are offset by time off as ordered by the respective commander. Germany's ombudsman for the military is unhappy with the new rules and calls for changes, for example, a yearly overtime account, so soldiers can take larger blocks of time off and not be stuck in the middle of nowhere for a few hours of downtime, or extra pay.
In the long tradition of making the greatest possible impression on the public, the gentleman gave an interview to the Sunday tabloid version of BILD Zeitung.
He raises the specter of Germany being unable to fulfill its NATO commitments because of the overtime threat. The BILD article and others in the same vein say that a German unit can only participate in a four week NATO exercise in Norway for 12 days because the troops would otherwise accumulate too many overtime hours. "The NATO partners do not understand that", claims the article.
Well, in the world of the blogster, there is a simple solution to not understanding: explain.
"Ve do four one hours", or something like it will do the trick.
Or is "understand" meant to say "they find this stupid"?
The various incarnations of the bad news for German national security include other statements you can only sell to life long civilians, such as this one. When troops are out on a training area, their workday ends at 16:30. That's the end of the training day - because of a danger of overtime.
The technical term for that, my friends, is called bullshit.
When the training or the mission demands it, even German soldiers will be up and about as long as needed.
As much as it may pain those among you who work in, say, Amazon warehouse or any other job governed by intricate computerized time management, life in the military isn't like that. There's a lot of downtime in many branches and specialties.
But let's not dwell on this aspect. You might feel a lot less secure.
The take home point of the ombudsman's complaint is simple, and you, dear reader, can become an instant credible military spokesperson if you follow this secret guideline.
Describe anything you don't like as a threat to combat readiness and obligations towards our allies.
If you want to explore this as a career, how about some practice? Go stand in front of a mirror and describe how one flat tire threatens to defeat NATO.
One more thing:
If winning the next war depends on you being able to do a few more overtime hours, maybe you misunderstand your job.
Investors Gone Wild - German annual shareholder meetings
We call shareholders investors instead of using more loaded or outright negative words, such as gambler. We talk of sharehholder value when dividends are increased and wages kept flat. And every now and then, a news story makes the rounds telling us how a fortune's worth of old shares in a famous company discovered in the attic of a grandfather or a hermit lift surprised heirs out of poverty.
Every year, those stock holders who are direct owners of shares congregate in places small and large and are made to feel that they have a say in the direction of companies, in the election of board members.
Scheming and backstabbing among company leaders often come to a head in the run up to the annual meeting, but the public very rarely gets the kind of insight delivered by an article in "middle of the road conservative" German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ).
It began with an argument between two shareholders at this year's Daimler annual meeting in Berlin. Daimler is one of Germany's most prestigious companies, maker of Mercedes Benz cars, buses and trucks, owner of the iconic US brand Freightliner, and more.
Police were called to the event of about 5500 shareholders after one proud Daimler stockholder repeatedly took to the buffet and packed hot dogs to take home with him. Another shareholder, obviously well aware that the hot dogs also came out of her part ownership in Daimler, confronted the man, who proceeded to insult the lady, leading to the call to police.
This incident must have prompted the editors of well behaved FAZ to list a few other food related incidents at shareholder meetings.
According to the article, Deutsche Bank had to order more food because they ran out by 11 AM, despite of what they and other planners had considered a generous amount of refreshments.
A retailer used the meet up to kill two birds with one stone: they pulled lots of unsold Easter merchandise from their warehouse and have it away to shareholders, warehouses free for new stock and shareholders happy.
To the blogster, these and other stories of investors being childish and greedy pose a question. Does this display of ignorance and self centered behavior influence how a company's leaders see their world, how they conduct business?
Or is the majority of top executives in large publicly traded companies a generically self centered lot anyway? Much seems to indicate the latter, for example, the latest news that the executives of automaker VW, including disgraced ex Chief Winterkorn, insist on getting their bonus payments despite the fallout from the emissions scandal?
Every year, those stock holders who are direct owners of shares congregate in places small and large and are made to feel that they have a say in the direction of companies, in the election of board members.
Scheming and backstabbing among company leaders often come to a head in the run up to the annual meeting, but the public very rarely gets the kind of insight delivered by an article in "middle of the road conservative" German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ).
It began with an argument between two shareholders at this year's Daimler annual meeting in Berlin. Daimler is one of Germany's most prestigious companies, maker of Mercedes Benz cars, buses and trucks, owner of the iconic US brand Freightliner, and more.
Police were called to the event of about 5500 shareholders after one proud Daimler stockholder repeatedly took to the buffet and packed hot dogs to take home with him. Another shareholder, obviously well aware that the hot dogs also came out of her part ownership in Daimler, confronted the man, who proceeded to insult the lady, leading to the call to police.
This incident must have prompted the editors of well behaved FAZ to list a few other food related incidents at shareholder meetings.
According to the article, Deutsche Bank had to order more food because they ran out by 11 AM, despite of what they and other planners had considered a generous amount of refreshments.
A retailer used the meet up to kill two birds with one stone: they pulled lots of unsold Easter merchandise from their warehouse and have it away to shareholders, warehouses free for new stock and shareholders happy.
To the blogster, these and other stories of investors being childish and greedy pose a question. Does this display of ignorance and self centered behavior influence how a company's leaders see their world, how they conduct business?
Or is the majority of top executives in large publicly traded companies a generically self centered lot anyway? Much seems to indicate the latter, for example, the latest news that the executives of automaker VW, including disgraced ex Chief Winterkorn, insist on getting their bonus payments despite the fallout from the emissions scandal?
Friday, April 8, 2016
German courts overturned almost 50% of sanctions against basic benefits recipients
Germany's infamous "assist and assert" bureaucracy has done it again.
Last year, German courts overturned just under 50% of sanctions (benefit cuts) levied against residents who receive bare bones basic means tested HARTZ IV benefits.
Out of 51 000 administrative appeals, more than one third - almost 19 000 - were fully or partially reversed by the jobcenter administration.
The simple fact that courts not known for leniency invalidate government decisions in half of all cases brought before them should give any competent lawyers in the jobcenter bureaucracy pause.
But it doesn't.
The same is true for administrative appeals. If over a third are untenable, something is wrong.
Again, it doesn't seem to matter. These figures do not even include all those instances in which the system works and still leaves people go hungry for between a day and a week because of slow initial claims processing or slow updating.
Neither does the number of appeals filed reflect the actual number of wrong decisions correctly. The blogster has knows some benefits recipients and found people tend to be reluctant to appeal even obvious mistakes out of fear of future retaliation. Almost everybody seems to know someone who complained and later had to wait just a little longer for the processing of a follow-up claim.
The latest sanctions statistics we found cover the first six months of 2015, according to this article, they totaled just over 1 million. The fairly constant rate of sanctions is around 3% per year.
Three quarters of benefit cuts were due to recipients not complying with appointments, ten percent were justified with recipients not fully complying with their "integration agreement", which is a "contract" that lists measures designed to help claimants "integrate" into the regular workforce and includes such nasties as having to accept a 1 Euro/hour job, or attending yet another resume writing class.
Benefits cuts start at 10%, then ratchet up to 30%, and - in rare cases - benefits can be withdrawn altogether (just over 7 000 in the period reported in the 2015 article).
Young people under 25 are the hardest hit. For this group, the very first violation triggers a cut, period. Although everybody, including employer organizations, acknowledges that harsh sanctions can lead to homelessness, bad eating habits/malnutrition and mental health problems, representatives of the employers still defended "constructive pressure" on the long term unemployed.
For those readers who buy into the "German benefits are generous and cushy" argument routinely touted by self styled conservatives, this short article in Der Spiegel reports that HARTZ IV recipients in 2016 receive effectively lower benefits than when the system was first introduced in 2005. Between 2005 and 2015, benefits rose by 15.7% while food prices rose by 24.4%.
Mistreatment of claimants is not limited to those who are demonstrably poor - the standard for HARTZ IV. Even people who paid into unemployment insurance for years have to be braced for serious abuse, as we detailed in this earlier post Arrogant and Lazy.
Last year, German courts overturned just under 50% of sanctions (benefit cuts) levied against residents who receive bare bones basic means tested HARTZ IV benefits.
Out of 51 000 administrative appeals, more than one third - almost 19 000 - were fully or partially reversed by the jobcenter administration.
The simple fact that courts not known for leniency invalidate government decisions in half of all cases brought before them should give any competent lawyers in the jobcenter bureaucracy pause.
But it doesn't.
The same is true for administrative appeals. If over a third are untenable, something is wrong.
Again, it doesn't seem to matter. These figures do not even include all those instances in which the system works and still leaves people go hungry for between a day and a week because of slow initial claims processing or slow updating.
Neither does the number of appeals filed reflect the actual number of wrong decisions correctly. The blogster has knows some benefits recipients and found people tend to be reluctant to appeal even obvious mistakes out of fear of future retaliation. Almost everybody seems to know someone who complained and later had to wait just a little longer for the processing of a follow-up claim.
The latest sanctions statistics we found cover the first six months of 2015, according to this article, they totaled just over 1 million. The fairly constant rate of sanctions is around 3% per year.
Three quarters of benefit cuts were due to recipients not complying with appointments, ten percent were justified with recipients not fully complying with their "integration agreement", which is a "contract" that lists measures designed to help claimants "integrate" into the regular workforce and includes such nasties as having to accept a 1 Euro/hour job, or attending yet another resume writing class.
Benefits cuts start at 10%, then ratchet up to 30%, and - in rare cases - benefits can be withdrawn altogether (just over 7 000 in the period reported in the 2015 article).
Young people under 25 are the hardest hit. For this group, the very first violation triggers a cut, period. Although everybody, including employer organizations, acknowledges that harsh sanctions can lead to homelessness, bad eating habits/malnutrition and mental health problems, representatives of the employers still defended "constructive pressure" on the long term unemployed.
For those readers who buy into the "German benefits are generous and cushy" argument routinely touted by self styled conservatives, this short article in Der Spiegel reports that HARTZ IV recipients in 2016 receive effectively lower benefits than when the system was first introduced in 2005. Between 2005 and 2015, benefits rose by 15.7% while food prices rose by 24.4%.
Mistreatment of claimants is not limited to those who are demonstrably poor - the standard for HARTZ IV. Even people who paid into unemployment insurance for years have to be braced for serious abuse, as we detailed in this earlier post Arrogant and Lazy.
Monday, April 4, 2016
The money shot - Panama Papers: a bragging Sueddeutsche & a bit too much Putin
It took only half a day until the K-Landnews TheEditor, lounging on the basement sofa next to the imaginary lava lamp, wearing a pair of thrift store used 1 Euro jeans and mismatching socks, could claim victory: It 'll blow over soon. TheEditor pointed to a short interview in Frankfurter Allgemeine with the chief of the German tax professionals union.
Panama has been known as a tax haven, a place where you can establish shell companies to hide money.
True, the leak known as Panama Papers is yuge, with millions of emails and tons of other data totaling some 2.6 terra bytes, according to Sueddeutsche Zeitung, also known as the lucky bastards contacted by a whistleblower and now scrambling to fix their overloaded web site.
When the story broke big time yesterday, we could still bring up their Panama Papers site and were struck by the lengthy praise of themselves and their partners in investigation. The folks who did the site design are obvious fans of Citizen Four, the Snowden documentary. The chat scrolling text is so Citizen Four, but classier, not bare bones green letters on a black terminal screen.
Listing the names of their German public broadcasting partners, their Austrian ones, showing how big the data trove was compared to other leakers, doing a 400 journalists over one year blurb looked, well, like bragging.
All the credits at the beginning of a movie. Most of the international partner sites did not feel the need to bore readers to death with an exhaustive list of contributing agencies and companies. You know, like, newspapers. Fusion did a lovely intro.
So, how did the reporting go?
The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists has a neat web site with a player, and they really want your email to keep you up to date. Not nice.
Right now, NPR news is leading with Putin's inner circle, and this turns out to be the focus of most Western European papers. Those who do more nuanced reporting are far and few between. French Le Monde didn't run a Putin photo, which is cool, and neither did RT.COM, but that was expected.
German Der Spiegel and the British Telegraph were much more mainline, both featuring Putin photos despite the disclaimer that Putin's name was not found. Die Welt goes with the cello player who manages Putin's money. Given that there have been many detailed reports about shady finances of people close to Putin, the focus on the man would appear to be either unthinking or very focused. For serious Russia watchers, corruption since the fall of the Soviet Union has been an unending source of work.
Tabloid The Sun goes with a picture of Assad and Putin. German tabloid BILD reporters are all over Putin, too.
Many of the others in the rogues' gallery of shell company holders are the corrupt leaders we pretty much expect to see.
Did German papers, starting with Sueddeutsche, report on any shell companies set up by Germans?
So far, no. The next several days will show what they have or don't have.
Contrast this reporting with the near absence of traction the HuffPost/TheAge report on bribes in the oil industry got in the German media.
Despite the odd reporting, the unknown whistleblower deserves a big thank you for reminding us how much slush money is out there. Big data is not easy to handle, so, yes, thanks to the journalists for their effort.
The union chief mentioned above estimates that Germany loses about 50 billion Euros each year due to tax evasion. For comparison, this is about twice the amount Germany spends on basic means tested HARTZ IV to keep over four million citizens alive.
If you want to hide money, US shell companies are a much better deal - but only as long as you don't upset the status quo.
[Update 4/5/2016] Sueddeutsche Zeitung mentions that "a whistleblower" sold data of Mossack Fonseca to German authorities and says that several German banks, among government/state banks were fined as a result. It also says: The journalists compiled lists of important politicians, international criminals, and well-known professional athletes, among others. The digital processing made it possible to then search the leak for the names on these lists.
The public has not seen the lists. There was further processing, such as linking people for whom no hit was found, like Putin, with others (friends of his). This process is open to abuse, and readers are not informed of avenues that yielded negative results. For example, did one or more of "Putin's friends" have strong connections to oligarchs?
The number of Russians mentioned in the press so far is surprisingly small given that sanctions are in place against the country and given the generally widespread corruption.
Craig Murray also points out that, once again, all shell companies mentioned in a BBC documentary on the leak fall under British jurisdiction in the British Virgin Islands.
All in all, the biggest leak of all times looks more like a dumpster fire, catching predominantly known sleeze bags. Where is "the smart money"?
Panama has been known as a tax haven, a place where you can establish shell companies to hide money.
True, the leak known as Panama Papers is yuge, with millions of emails and tons of other data totaling some 2.6 terra bytes, according to Sueddeutsche Zeitung, also known as the lucky bastards contacted by a whistleblower and now scrambling to fix their overloaded web site.
When the story broke big time yesterday, we could still bring up their Panama Papers site and were struck by the lengthy praise of themselves and their partners in investigation. The folks who did the site design are obvious fans of Citizen Four, the Snowden documentary. The chat scrolling text is so Citizen Four, but classier, not bare bones green letters on a black terminal screen.
Listing the names of their German public broadcasting partners, their Austrian ones, showing how big the data trove was compared to other leakers, doing a 400 journalists over one year blurb looked, well, like bragging.
All the credits at the beginning of a movie. Most of the international partner sites did not feel the need to bore readers to death with an exhaustive list of contributing agencies and companies. You know, like, newspapers. Fusion did a lovely intro.
So, how did the reporting go?
The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists has a neat web site with a player, and they really want your email to keep you up to date. Not nice.
Right now, NPR news is leading with Putin's inner circle, and this turns out to be the focus of most Western European papers. Those who do more nuanced reporting are far and few between. French Le Monde didn't run a Putin photo, which is cool, and neither did RT.COM, but that was expected.
German Der Spiegel and the British Telegraph were much more mainline, both featuring Putin photos despite the disclaimer that Putin's name was not found. Die Welt goes with the cello player who manages Putin's money. Given that there have been many detailed reports about shady finances of people close to Putin, the focus on the man would appear to be either unthinking or very focused. For serious Russia watchers, corruption since the fall of the Soviet Union has been an unending source of work.
Tabloid The Sun goes with a picture of Assad and Putin. German tabloid BILD reporters are all over Putin, too.
Many of the others in the rogues' gallery of shell company holders are the corrupt leaders we pretty much expect to see.
Did German papers, starting with Sueddeutsche, report on any shell companies set up by Germans?
So far, no. The next several days will show what they have or don't have.
Contrast this reporting with the near absence of traction the HuffPost/TheAge report on bribes in the oil industry got in the German media.
Despite the odd reporting, the unknown whistleblower deserves a big thank you for reminding us how much slush money is out there. Big data is not easy to handle, so, yes, thanks to the journalists for their effort.
The union chief mentioned above estimates that Germany loses about 50 billion Euros each year due to tax evasion. For comparison, this is about twice the amount Germany spends on basic means tested HARTZ IV to keep over four million citizens alive.
If you want to hide money, US shell companies are a much better deal - but only as long as you don't upset the status quo.
[Update 4/5/2016] Sueddeutsche Zeitung mentions that "a whistleblower" sold data of Mossack Fonseca to German authorities and says that several German banks, among government/state banks were fined as a result. It also says: The journalists compiled lists of important politicians, international criminals, and well-known professional athletes, among others. The digital processing made it possible to then search the leak for the names on these lists.
The public has not seen the lists. There was further processing, such as linking people for whom no hit was found, like Putin, with others (friends of his). This process is open to abuse, and readers are not informed of avenues that yielded negative results. For example, did one or more of "Putin's friends" have strong connections to oligarchs?
The number of Russians mentioned in the press so far is surprisingly small given that sanctions are in place against the country and given the generally widespread corruption.
Craig Murray also points out that, once again, all shell companies mentioned in a BBC documentary on the leak fall under British jurisdiction in the British Virgin Islands.
All in all, the biggest leak of all times looks more like a dumpster fire, catching predominantly known sleeze bags. Where is "the smart money"?
Sunday, April 3, 2016
Making immigrants pledge to uphold European values makes no sense
We wrote about a 2015 plan by German conservatives to make immigrants take a pledge of allegiance to German values. As reported on 1 April by TheGuardian and others, Belgium want to make immigrants pledge to uphold European values.
For suggested German values, see the earlier post. Belgium opting for European values makes perfect sense to a cynic: there don't seem to be Belgian values, or they are doing some extra PR for Brussels as the capital of Europe.
One prominent aspect of all the value clamoring is that immigrants won't discriminate against homosexuals.
The blogster picked this aspect because it demonstrates two things:
1) Natives can still discriminate
After all, churches in most European countries still don't recognize them as full human beings, and most states don't give them the same rights as hetero couples.
2) Gays/lesbians are being exploited
It is certainly progress that gays and lesbians went from being natural born felons less than a generation ago to a better status. But being paraded as a European value by the very societies that threw you into prison a few decades ago and did not pardon those convicted of the felony of being gay/lesbian, isn't that a bit bigot?
So, what are European values? Should we focus on the "values we want so see" or - if they diverge from daily life - on the reality of everyday Europe?
Luckily for us, there is a European Values (EV) Study website. Which brings us to European Value #1: data may be free but you have to register, state a purpose and jump through hoops anyway.
The fundamental question is what countries does Europe include? The EV went from "core Western Europe" in 1981 to include Turkey and Russia to the Ural mountains in later versions.
This kicks a few "European values" to the curb, doesn't it? If we simply follow the main study areas of the EV, we get cool and disturbing results in some areas.
Take the area Life, subcategory Happiness: People in Turkey are happier than Germans, at least according to this chart.
So, if Germans make Turkish immigrants sign on to German values, does it mean the Turkish newcomers sign away some happiness with life?
Under Society, there is an Intolerance chart with attitudes to neighbors, which show that the four most despised groups of neighbors in the North, West, and South countries are drug users, drinkers, criminals, and gypsies. Gypsies are not among the top four despised groups in the East, Former Soviet Union, and Turkey categories.
Should xenophobes be happy then that European values are fine with discriminating against gypsies?
What do we make of the demanded support for democracy, where Turkey (the standard boogeyman country for many) has more citizens who believe "democracy is good" than many Eastern European countries?
Work hard is another good European value anybody should pledge to, right? Only, which version of work ethics, the Turkish (highest work ethos) or the German (lower) or the UK/Nordics (lowest)?
Belgians and Turks agree on this one, too: Parents should do their best for their children, even at the expense of their own well-being. Germans as a whole are less inclined to subscribe to this, but "conservatives" love it.
We could go on and on, but won't. The point is that there are some serious issues, a pledge to uphold European values is useless and creates yet another "us versus them" fault line.
For suggested German values, see the earlier post. Belgium opting for European values makes perfect sense to a cynic: there don't seem to be Belgian values, or they are doing some extra PR for Brussels as the capital of Europe.
One prominent aspect of all the value clamoring is that immigrants won't discriminate against homosexuals.
The blogster picked this aspect because it demonstrates two things:
1) Natives can still discriminate
After all, churches in most European countries still don't recognize them as full human beings, and most states don't give them the same rights as hetero couples.
2) Gays/lesbians are being exploited
It is certainly progress that gays and lesbians went from being natural born felons less than a generation ago to a better status. But being paraded as a European value by the very societies that threw you into prison a few decades ago and did not pardon those convicted of the felony of being gay/lesbian, isn't that a bit bigot?
So, what are European values? Should we focus on the "values we want so see" or - if they diverge from daily life - on the reality of everyday Europe?
Luckily for us, there is a European Values (EV) Study website. Which brings us to European Value #1: data may be free but you have to register, state a purpose and jump through hoops anyway.
The fundamental question is what countries does Europe include? The EV went from "core Western Europe" in 1981 to include Turkey and Russia to the Ural mountains in later versions.
This kicks a few "European values" to the curb, doesn't it? If we simply follow the main study areas of the EV, we get cool and disturbing results in some areas.
Take the area Life, subcategory Happiness: People in Turkey are happier than Germans, at least according to this chart.
So, if Germans make Turkish immigrants sign on to German values, does it mean the Turkish newcomers sign away some happiness with life?
Under Society, there is an Intolerance chart with attitudes to neighbors, which show that the four most despised groups of neighbors in the North, West, and South countries are drug users, drinkers, criminals, and gypsies. Gypsies are not among the top four despised groups in the East, Former Soviet Union, and Turkey categories.
Should xenophobes be happy then that European values are fine with discriminating against gypsies?
What do we make of the demanded support for democracy, where Turkey (the standard boogeyman country for many) has more citizens who believe "democracy is good" than many Eastern European countries?
Work hard is another good European value anybody should pledge to, right? Only, which version of work ethics, the Turkish (highest work ethos) or the German (lower) or the UK/Nordics (lowest)?
Belgians and Turks agree on this one, too: Parents should do their best for their children, even at the expense of their own well-being. Germans as a whole are less inclined to subscribe to this, but "conservatives" love it.
We could go on and on, but won't. The point is that there are some serious issues, a pledge to uphold European values is useless and creates yet another "us versus them" fault line.
Friday, April 1, 2016
Thank God for Catholic hate preachers
And thank the Lord for making it so that atheists are more likely to be psychopaths. Oh, and for making believers less clever.
In the blogster's opinion, only a psychopath would set up the world in this manner. But more on that later, let's talk Catholic hate preachers first.
The honorable Bishop of Fulda, Germany, gave an Easter speech in which he claimed that people without Christian faith are a great security risk to the world around them. German atheists, hiding under the banner of humanism, took offense, only quoting the actual speech after voicing "sharp criticism" of it.
The Bishop's speech says "people without Easter live under this brutal maxim: Whatever you have not achieved before you die is lost forever; whatever you have chased but not reached by the hour of your demise will remain forever out of reach".
The German Humanist Society (the atheists) calls this hate speech towards atheists and ignores the inclusionary effect of "people without Easter".
Are atheists the only people without Easter? Of course not, but what about non-Christians who might be "with Easter". Where might one find such people? The blogster performed a field experiment and visited bars over the Easter weekend, minus Good Friday, because many bars don't bother to open since it is illegal to play music on that day, and few people will show up at a place that does not drown out the most intimate and the most inane conversations with loud music.
The experiment was inconclusive. The blogster did not hear a single whispered "he is with Easter, you know" or a thigh slapping roaring "ha, she's with Easter".
External signs, such as Easter egg decorations on people's front door, need to be met with distrust, too. Just as many friends of the blogster adhere to other faiths and, at the same time, "are with Christmas", you can never be sure what the decoration says about the decorators faith.
But a security risk, that's risible. The security risk supposedly posed by those "without Easter" pales in comparison to the Christian Easter tradition: aren't almost all hand grenades shaped like Easter eggs?
The only way the blogster managed to wrap its* tiny atheist mind around the Bishop's speech was by accepting the study mentioned at the beginning.
Believers are not that bright, Bishop or no bishop. It is good to have Catholic hate preachers around to keep atheists on their toes.
The blogster feels sad that it had to make such an awful statement.
Don't credit the blogster with empathy or any moral feelings over this, it is merely one of those callous, calculated things us anti-social security threats will say while we are busy chasing something that will remain forever out of reach when we die.
[Update 4/8/2016] German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière, a descendant of refugees, added another bit to the Christian discussion when he said: A firmly anchored Christian, for example, will be less afraid of "too many foreigners", Muslim migrants, than someone who hat no firm ethical footing.
[Our translation of Ein fest verankerter Christ beispielsweise werde weniger Angst vor "Überfremdung" durch Muslime haben, "als jemand der keine ethische Verankerung hat".]
We couldn't ask the minister, but he can not have meant non-Christians and/or atheists. Surely, no experienced politician and public servant would cast aside the German value of tolerance of other world views.
[Update 4/10/2016] So, German Zeit Online runs a Sunday article originally published in Christ & Welt (Christ and the World) on the honorable Bishop's Easter speech. On the Zeit main page (aka index page), the article is presented "Bishop Algermissen - A Catholic Hate Preacher", once you click the link, though, it becomes more as you would expect from the name of the original publication. As a "he said, she said" piece, the article is largely forgettable, except for two parts. The first one of these clarifies that the spoken word as delivered to the congregation was even harsher than the draft, with a nice reference to the Brussels terror attacks.
The second one reminds us that even many Catholics don't really believe in the resurrection. God will eventually decide.
Should the bishop apologize to the non-Christians? The blogster thinks "better not, although he could go to confession right afterwards". So, maybe a quote from a Snap Judgement podcast out of Oakland, California, by Zahra of #goodmuslimsbadmuslims captures the dilemma best: "Religion is like a fart - it smells slightly different to everybody".
* Gender neutral!
In the blogster's opinion, only a psychopath would set up the world in this manner. But more on that later, let's talk Catholic hate preachers first.
The honorable Bishop of Fulda, Germany, gave an Easter speech in which he claimed that people without Christian faith are a great security risk to the world around them. German atheists, hiding under the banner of humanism, took offense, only quoting the actual speech after voicing "sharp criticism" of it.
The Bishop's speech says "people without Easter live under this brutal maxim: Whatever you have not achieved before you die is lost forever; whatever you have chased but not reached by the hour of your demise will remain forever out of reach".
The German Humanist Society (the atheists) calls this hate speech towards atheists and ignores the inclusionary effect of "people without Easter".
Are atheists the only people without Easter? Of course not, but what about non-Christians who might be "with Easter". Where might one find such people? The blogster performed a field experiment and visited bars over the Easter weekend, minus Good Friday, because many bars don't bother to open since it is illegal to play music on that day, and few people will show up at a place that does not drown out the most intimate and the most inane conversations with loud music.
The experiment was inconclusive. The blogster did not hear a single whispered "he is with Easter, you know" or a thigh slapping roaring "ha, she's with Easter".
External signs, such as Easter egg decorations on people's front door, need to be met with distrust, too. Just as many friends of the blogster adhere to other faiths and, at the same time, "are with Christmas", you can never be sure what the decoration says about the decorators faith.
But a security risk, that's risible. The security risk supposedly posed by those "without Easter" pales in comparison to the Christian Easter tradition: aren't almost all hand grenades shaped like Easter eggs?
The only way the blogster managed to wrap its* tiny atheist mind around the Bishop's speech was by accepting the study mentioned at the beginning.
Believers are not that bright, Bishop or no bishop. It is good to have Catholic hate preachers around to keep atheists on their toes.
The blogster feels sad that it had to make such an awful statement.
Don't credit the blogster with empathy or any moral feelings over this, it is merely one of those callous, calculated things us anti-social security threats will say while we are busy chasing something that will remain forever out of reach when we die.
[Update 4/8/2016] German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière, a descendant of refugees, added another bit to the Christian discussion when he said: A firmly anchored Christian, for example, will be less afraid of "too many foreigners", Muslim migrants, than someone who hat no firm ethical footing.
[Our translation of Ein fest verankerter Christ beispielsweise werde weniger Angst vor "Überfremdung" durch Muslime haben, "als jemand der keine ethische Verankerung hat".]
We couldn't ask the minister, but he can not have meant non-Christians and/or atheists. Surely, no experienced politician and public servant would cast aside the German value of tolerance of other world views.
[Update 4/10/2016] So, German Zeit Online runs a Sunday article originally published in Christ & Welt (Christ and the World) on the honorable Bishop's Easter speech. On the Zeit main page (aka index page), the article is presented "Bishop Algermissen - A Catholic Hate Preacher", once you click the link, though, it becomes more as you would expect from the name of the original publication. As a "he said, she said" piece, the article is largely forgettable, except for two parts. The first one of these clarifies that the spoken word as delivered to the congregation was even harsher than the draft, with a nice reference to the Brussels terror attacks.
The second one reminds us that even many Catholics don't really believe in the resurrection. God will eventually decide.
Should the bishop apologize to the non-Christians? The blogster thinks "better not, although he could go to confession right afterwards". So, maybe a quote from a Snap Judgement podcast out of Oakland, California, by Zahra of #goodmuslimsbadmuslims captures the dilemma best: "Religion is like a fart - it smells slightly different to everybody".
* Gender neutral!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)