Sunday, July 5, 2015

One good thing about a possible "oxi"

My dear friend Tobi posted a rant today on the Greek crisis, replete with charges of “the facts… getting completely distorted by politicians, demagogy, journalists & propaganda often viewed ideologically.”

He recommends that we watch a 40-minute video to get the real story. The link takes you to a speech given by Junker. I kid you not – to get the “real story,” we are to listen to a single person deeply involved. The next time your children get into a fight, be sure to send one of them into the next room. I’m sure the other has the whole story.

Let’s be clear about this – we are talking about people acting like children. There is blame to go around, and those who speak German can start with Harald Schumann’s video.

Tobi writes that “18 democratically elected heads of state have been negotiating for five months with the Greek government.” Actually, negotiations and been going on for years, and they are held mainly with people from the troika: the European Commission, the ECB and the IMF. The latter two are not democratically elected to office, while Commission officials are appointed by elected representatives.

The fuller story starts before Greece enters the euro zone. In the 90s, Germany wanted a currency union with Benelux and France, but France wanted Spain and Italy as well, and Italy wanted Greece. Because the Greeks did not fulfill the requirements for the euro zone, they worked with Goldman Sachs to cook the books.

The troika, especially the Europeans, justifiably resent this fraud. Less justifiably, they now aim to “teach the Greeks a lesson” for this previous cheating, as US finance expert Tim Geithner once stated. The Greek public is learning the lesson, not the Greek politicians of yore.

Maybe Goldman Sachs should chip in to rescue Greece.

Not even experts know what will happen if the Greeks vote yes or no today. Both outcomes are unclear. The Greeks cannot legally leave the euro zone, nor can they begin printing their own second currency. Likewise, the EU cannot kick Greece out of the euro zone; they can simply stop providing it with money, at which point the Greeks would have no choice but to print their own, which they cannot legally do. I therefore do not know what to hope for from the referendum today.

But the real story is that debt held by private creditors has been shifted into governmental budgets. The troika is not bailing out the Greeks; it is bailing out big banks, especially French and German ones. Bloomberg summed up the picture nicely a few weeks ago.

Yes, the Greeks need to start collecting taxes properly, especially on the rich. Towards that end, European tax havens need to hand over Greek millionaire and billionaire tax invaders. Varoufakis claims that 80 billion euros is in Swiss banks alone. (Greek debt is around 330 bn.) There’s a lot of culpability to go around.

In the end, there is no clear decision for the Greeks to make today in the referendum, and the problems are not being dealt with anyway. The Greek public is suffering inordinately; big banks are practically completely off the hook. Yet, when a lender signs a loan with a borrower, there are two parties involved. The lender specializes in loans and should not be let off the hook. Greece was a bad borrower the whole time and should not have been given this money. Private banks should have to cover defaults without passing on these losses to taxpayers. We should not bail out banks. Indeed, there has never been a time in history when borrowers were forced to pay when they could not, as we know from books like Debt: the first 5000 years and documentaries like this one. Throughout history, debt was simply canceled when it got out of hand, as it certainly is now in Greece. After World War II, German debt was reduced by around 50 percent.

These private banks are big boys and knew what they were doing when they lent money to Greece. They should have taken a haircut – but now, taxpayers will take it. The signal to banks is: be as risky as you want, losses will be socialized.

The referendum in Greece today will not solve that problem, which is the real one. A “no” vote would merely tell the world that the Greeks have had enough. The other consequences might make this option undesirable, but it is hard to know what the consequences would be. And though it is easy for me to say from Germany, 2,000 kilometers from Greece, I wouldn’t mind the Greek public saying, “Enough!”

Sunday, June 1, 2014

German "oder" = "and"

Last year, I wrote about how the Germans (mis?)use their word for "or" to mean "and." Not everyone was convinced; see the comments below these articles.

Today, I present clear evidence – a sentence from German television (the nightly news, in fact) that must've been rehearsed, had definitely been edited, was probably read off a prompter, and drew no German's attention:

"Wenn Sie oder ich das Handy der Kanzlerin abhören, dann begehen wir gemeinsam eine Straftat." (If you or I spy on the Chancellor's cell phone, we commit a crime together.)

This sentence makes no sense with the word "or"; it only works with "and." I rest my case.

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Because I'm unhappy

Recently, political website pointed out that Pharrell Williams' "Because I'm happy" has become an extremely popular, but unlikely protest song worldwide. Last month, I also saw him on German television explaining that the idea for the song came to him when he realized how he didn't like songs that tell people they have to be happy. You know, like "Don't worry, be happy":

Your landlord says the rent is late
He may have to litigate
But don't worry, be happy

I have personally always detested that message (anybody who tells me to chill when I'm about to get kicked out of my apartment had better be able to run fast). That's really what makes Williams' message so inviting – it's not bossy. He simply asks you to "come along if you feel like that's what you want to do."

In addition to some of the "protest" versions you can view under the link above, there is the 24-hour version, a Star Wars version, and a slew of non-protest localized versions – including one from Freiburg, which made me very unhappy because we were planning to do our own.

Saturday, April 20, 2013

Willfully ignorant about race

Over at the Atlantic, Ta-Nehisi Coates recently wrote about how Americans are not in a position to speak about race because we simply do not know our own history: Americans, he wrote, "do not know, not because they are ignorant, stupid, or immoral, they do not know because they are part of country that has decided that 'not knowing' is in its interest. There's no room for any sort of serious conversation when the basic facts of history are not accessible."

A recent episode of the Daily Show is a good example. Guest Denise Kiernan has written a book about how Oak Ridge TN, a town created in the mid-1940s for the creation of material for the first atomic bomb, led to a lot of jobs for women, but remained racially segregated. Kiernan says: "after all, this was the South in 1942," to which Jon responds, "even in a manufacturing town in an integrated army." (See around minute 20.)

So here's the deal: the South was segregated like a plantation. Blacks and whites lived together but drank from different water fountains and went to different schools. We took the same buses but sat in different parts – and the whites were the ones who decided where. We did not have segregated cities. The North did

And the Army was not by any means integrated during World War II. President Truman desegregated the military forces in 1948. Elderly Germans remember being "liberated by a segregated US army" in 1945.

Americans need to accept the depth and extent of racism in its past. The North often makes itself out to be freedom fighters who opposed slavery. We have yet to come to terms with the pro-slavery demonstrations in the North, the existence of Black Codes outside the South at the beginning of the 19th century, the building codes and housing practices that effectively segregated northern cities, etc.

As Coates puts it, we are willfully ignorant.

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

YouTube in Blurmany

Sometimes, it is hard to overlook how exceptional Germany is, even in negative instances. A few years ago, when Google began rolling out its Street View for more locations in Germany, there was unusual resistance among the general public, with quite a number of people participating in a campaign to have their own homes blurred – leading to the new word "Blurmany."

The most ludicrous thing about the campaign was that Deutsche Telekom already offered a similar Street View service that no one had objected to – mainly because almost no one knew existed. The result was blurred images on Google and perfectly normal pictures for the competition.

Recently, there was news confirming what everyone in Germany already knows: popular videos in Germany are generally blocked on YouTube because GEMA,, which collects copyright fees, cannot reach an agreement with YouTube on how much should be paid per video view. Similar agreements have been reached around the world, so Germans are now experts at tunneling into YouTube from servers abroad by means of browser plug-ins. We then get to watch, for instance, advertising in Dutch before we see our video of Gangnam Style, which was blocked the first time I tried to view it.

The study found that 61.5 percent of the 1,000 most popular videos worldwide cannot be viewed legally in Germany on YouTube. Germany comes in second worldwide in the list of blocked videos on YouTube behind the newly founded South Sudan, but ahead of Vatican City, Myanmar, Palestine, Kyrgyzstan, and Afghanistan, for instance.

Perhaps Blurmany and the YouTube dispute are not related. A small number of people objected to Google Street View in Germany, and the dispute about YouTube videos is not at all between the general public and Google. Nonetheless, Germany seems to be having trouble with the Internet on different levels.

Sunday, March 17, 2013

Life after Google Reader

The announcement that Google is shutting down its RSS Reader came as a shock to me this week, though apparently insiders saw this coming a few years ago. Rather than mope about what a lot of other people are saying – Google is evil – I am trying to take the situation as an opportunity.

In 2008, a colleague recommended that I switch to Gmail, which I had already had for a few years but was not using. I explained all the reasons why I didn't think it was an option for me, and she pointed out all the ways in which Gmail was not a simple online e-mail account like Yahoo. After two days of test driving, I switched completely and have not looked back.

Could the same thing be happening now with RSS? Is there something better in the works?

I use Google Reader all the time. It is my morning newspaper, and it is an indispensable tool for me as a journalist to keep track of what is being said. It has also become a place for me to simply drop feeds to websites I don't want to forget.

Over the years, I have never really trimmed down my Reader, and in switching to Feedly (which is apparently the best alternative currently) I realize how much junk has piled up over the years – but also how important Reader is for the 10 or 20 feeds I rely on.

In switching over and reorganizing my feeds, I found that a number of them were dead, and I felt that I was no longer reading a whole slew of others. But the trimmed down selection on Feedly does not make me happy. Maybe I will find a way to organize my feeds so that I think I can see what I'm looking for, but I am not blown away yet.

The bigger question is whether there is a future for RSS at all. Is this just the first nail in the coffin? Is everything going to switch to apps, with each subscription being its own app? That would, of course, solve the financial issue that is dogging journalism today – and indeed, it seems that Google is ditching its Reader not because it is unpopular, but because the firm cannot see any way to make money from it.

One thing's for certain – getting feeds from social media is not an option. As someone who has to produce material for social media (as a journalist), I need to be able to aggregate information, so I need the overview – not the end product. And while Google Currents looks a lot sleeker, I don't need sleek – and the app does not run on my Windows desktop.

After a brief test drive, I do not think that I am going to be much happier with whatever new set up I create, as I was with the switch to Gmail. It seems that the loss of Google Reader is just that: a loss.

Thursday, March 7, 2013

US Nazi researchers "better at PR"

You may have read that a group of US historians found that far more Nazi concentration camps, labor camps, and ghettos existed than was previously known – some 40,000, in fact.

Over at Die Zeit, a German historian has reacted to the publication with charges of plagiarism. German historian Wolfgang Benz says he was surprised to hear the US historian claim that German researchers were not given the funding to look into the matter. He reiterates that his research group published a nine-volume (!) work called "Der Ort des Terrors." And he says the Americans copied out of it.

Benz seems to be quite upset, for he calls the American authors "frech, überheblich und größenwahnsinnig" (insulting, arrogant, and megalomaniac) for calling their publication an encyclopedia; he claims it is "full of gaps." He calls his group's nine volumes "a summary or documentation of what we know today."

Mainly, he says the Americans are better at PR.

What bothers him the most (and I can understand it) is the general assumption in the US that the Germans are not doing enough to work through their history. Benz says that no other nation spends so much time and money researching the Holocaust, anti-Semitism, and national Socialism as Germany does.

I can confirm that television and the media in general are full of documentaries about these 12 years of German history; my American-German kids are already sick of me trying to get them to watch the next one.

And I agree that Americans generally think that Germans somehow refuse to deal with these 12 years of their history enough, as I wrote 10 years ago. I have even had Americans ask me why Freiburgers (I live in Freiburg) don't know about the concentration camp that existed here. I tell them it's because there was none (they may be thinking of this). But there are "stumbling stones" all over town where Jews deported to concentration camps used to live, and there is a sign on the Old Synagogue Square pointing to Gurs, the concentration camp in southern France where a lot of Freiburg Jews were eventually sent.

Are there such monuments in New York City showing where slaves were traded? Yes, it's the UN's. Look at the history of the old burial ground for slaves in New York City. Is this the way Americans want Germans to deal with their history?

One reason why Americans probably think the Germans refused to deal with their own past is because we Americans refuse to deal with our past. How else to explain the possibility of such recent publications as "Slavery by another name" (which discusses how Whites continued to oppress blacks in the South for a century after the Civil War) or "Sundown towns" (which discusses how whites outside the South oppressed blacks from the beginning of the 19th century all the way up to the 1980s)?

Ever heard the song "Strange fruit"? It begins, "Southern trees bear a strange fruit." The composer wrote this after seeing a photo of a lynching in Indiana – Indiana!

American TV is not full of reports about sundown towns, pro-slavery riots in Ohio, black codes in the antebellum North, etc. Maybe it should be.