What's currently going on in the Arabic world is very promising - and exactly what George W. Bush has hoped for so much after the US attacked Iraq. Freedom is contagious. With one democratic country others will change as well. Widely known, this hasn't worked out. When has war brought peace and freedom the last time? World War II?
Now it were the Tunisian people ousting their autocratic president Ben Ali. Only few days later the people in Egypt start to demonstrate against their government - and so do the Yemenites.
Nothing says even one of the countries will end up as democracy. The riots might be quelled, other non-democratic forces might take over like fundamentalist Muslims or the military or the one autocrat might just be replaced by another. So far it's only a promise.
In some points freedom is like a virus: It can not live without a host. It's contagious and spreads from one host to the next. If the Jasmine Revolution does not succeed this time it might happen the next time at a different place. But by now it's already much more successful than any attempt to construct a democracy in Iraq and with far less casualties.
Showing posts with label Society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Society. Show all posts
28 January, 2011
14 November, 2010
Bürokratenrepublik Deutschland
"Arbeit muss sich wieder lohnen!" Hartz IV dürfe nicht dazu führen, dass es sich Arbeitslose im deutschen Sozialsystem bequem machen. Außenminister Westerwelle meinte im Sozialstaat gar spätrömische Dekadenz erkennen zu können. Nun erachte ich einen FDP-Politiker kaum als Kenner der sozialpolitischen Realität. Wie schwierig und absurd sich diese gestalten kann, wusste die Süddeutsche Zeitung letzten Montag zu berichten (Ausgabe vom 8. November 2010, Seite 3, "Das Versprechen", Autor Detlef Esslinger, nicht online verfügbar).
Geschildert wird der Fall der alleinerziehenden Mutter Judith Schröder aus Dessau, die sich mit damals 30 Jahren dazu entschlossen hatte eine zweite Ausbildung als Pharmazeutisch-Technische Angestellte anzufangen, weil sie in ihrem ersten Ausbildungsberuf Kosmetikerin keine Arbeit fand und Gelegenheitjobs alles andere als ein erfülltes Leben ermöglichten. Mit der Ausbildung fiel sie aus der Zuständigkeit der Agentur für Arbeit und wurde an das Bafög-Amt verwiesen. Allerdings gibt es Bafög nur bis zu einem Alter von 28 Jahren. Zurück bei der Arge Wittenberg muss sie erfahren, dass sie trotzdem kein Hartz IV erhält:
Dem Grunde nach hätte sie die Ausbildung hinschmeißen und es sich nun unter der Wohlfühldecke Hartz IV bequem machen können - oder auf Kosten der Arge nach Erfurt ziehen und die gleiche Ausbildung als Umschulung machen können. Denn das hätte die Arge bezahlt, nicht aber die Ausbildung in Dessau. Frau Schröder hat sich dagegen entschieden als Alleinerziehende weg von der Familie zu ziehen und wird die Ausbildung in Dessau beenden. Sie lebt jetzt vom Hartz IV-Anspruch ihrer Tochter, einem Ausbildungsförderungskredit und Unterstützung durch ihre Schwester.
Diesen bürokratischen Irrsinn kann man als Wasser auf die Mühlen der Hartz IV-Kritiker wie Guido Westerwelle auffassen. Oder als ein Beispiel dafür, dass Hartz IV vielleicht doch nicht so angenehm ist, wie es einem Anfang des Jahres angesichts der Diskussionen erscheinen musste. Oder einfach nur als das was es eben ist, bürokratischer Irrsinn.
Bekannt geworden ist der Fall übrigens nur, weil Frau Schröder Anfang September auf einer Veranstaltung mit Sigmar Gabriel, dem Vorsitzenden der SPD, sprechen konnte und dieser versprach sich darum zu kümmern. Nur dass Frau Schröder nichts von Herrn Gabriel oder der SPD mehr gehört hat. Dies aber nur am Rande.
Eines ist auf jeden Fall klar. Eine Diskussion darüber, ob die Hartz IV-Sätze zu hoch oder zu niedrig sind, bringt uns und die Hartz IV-Empfänger nicht weiter. Stattdessen sollten wir uns fragen, warum die Förderung z.B. nicht aus einer Hand (und Kasse) geschieht. Zu unterstellen, dass Hartz IV-Empfänger nicht arbeiten wollen, ist Polemik. Sicher gibt es viele, die sich aufgegeben haben. Und einige, die in der Tat nicht arbeiten wollen und sich im Sozialstaat "eingerichtet" haben. Daran geht aber ein reiches Land wie Deutschland nicht zu Grunde. All denjenigen, die etwas an ihrer Situation ändern wollen, sei es aus Eigeninitiative oder mit Unterstützung, sollten nicht auch noch bürokratische Hürden in den Weg gestellt werden.
Geschildert wird der Fall der alleinerziehenden Mutter Judith Schröder aus Dessau, die sich mit damals 30 Jahren dazu entschlossen hatte eine zweite Ausbildung als Pharmazeutisch-Technische Angestellte anzufangen, weil sie in ihrem ersten Ausbildungsberuf Kosmetikerin keine Arbeit fand und Gelegenheitjobs alles andere als ein erfülltes Leben ermöglichten. Mit der Ausbildung fiel sie aus der Zuständigkeit der Agentur für Arbeit und wurde an das Bafög-Amt verwiesen. Allerdings gibt es Bafög nur bis zu einem Alter von 28 Jahren. Zurück bei der Arge Wittenberg muss sie erfahren, dass sie trotzdem kein Hartz IV erhält:
Auch wenn Bafög abgelehnt worden ist, haben Sie keinen Anspruch auf Leistungen zur Sicherung des Lebensunterhalts, weil Sie im Rahmen des Bafög dem Grunde nach förderfähig sind.
Dem Grunde nach hätte sie die Ausbildung hinschmeißen und es sich nun unter der Wohlfühldecke Hartz IV bequem machen können - oder auf Kosten der Arge nach Erfurt ziehen und die gleiche Ausbildung als Umschulung machen können. Denn das hätte die Arge bezahlt, nicht aber die Ausbildung in Dessau. Frau Schröder hat sich dagegen entschieden als Alleinerziehende weg von der Familie zu ziehen und wird die Ausbildung in Dessau beenden. Sie lebt jetzt vom Hartz IV-Anspruch ihrer Tochter, einem Ausbildungsförderungskredit und Unterstützung durch ihre Schwester.
Diesen bürokratischen Irrsinn kann man als Wasser auf die Mühlen der Hartz IV-Kritiker wie Guido Westerwelle auffassen. Oder als ein Beispiel dafür, dass Hartz IV vielleicht doch nicht so angenehm ist, wie es einem Anfang des Jahres angesichts der Diskussionen erscheinen musste. Oder einfach nur als das was es eben ist, bürokratischer Irrsinn.
Bekannt geworden ist der Fall übrigens nur, weil Frau Schröder Anfang September auf einer Veranstaltung mit Sigmar Gabriel, dem Vorsitzenden der SPD, sprechen konnte und dieser versprach sich darum zu kümmern. Nur dass Frau Schröder nichts von Herrn Gabriel oder der SPD mehr gehört hat. Dies aber nur am Rande.
Eines ist auf jeden Fall klar. Eine Diskussion darüber, ob die Hartz IV-Sätze zu hoch oder zu niedrig sind, bringt uns und die Hartz IV-Empfänger nicht weiter. Stattdessen sollten wir uns fragen, warum die Förderung z.B. nicht aus einer Hand (und Kasse) geschieht. Zu unterstellen, dass Hartz IV-Empfänger nicht arbeiten wollen, ist Polemik. Sicher gibt es viele, die sich aufgegeben haben. Und einige, die in der Tat nicht arbeiten wollen und sich im Sozialstaat "eingerichtet" haben. Daran geht aber ein reiches Land wie Deutschland nicht zu Grunde. All denjenigen, die etwas an ihrer Situation ändern wollen, sei es aus Eigeninitiative oder mit Unterstützung, sollten nicht auch noch bürokratische Hürden in den Weg gestellt werden.
14 February, 2010
Deutschland. Ein Wintermärchen.
100 Tage Schonfrist werden üblicherweise einer neuen Regierung zur Eingewöhnung und Einarbeitung gewährt. Von der aktuellen Schwarz-Gelben Regierung hieß es allerdings bereits im Vorfeld, dass die soziale Kälte Einzug halten wird in Deutschland. Dabei wurde die SPD gerade wegen des vermeintlichen Verrats an der Stammwählerschaft - Stichwort Hartz IV - aus der Regierung gewählt.
Doch wie sieht es nun aus nach 100 Tagen Schwarz-Gelb? Deutschland steckt fest in seinem Wintermärchen. Es ist der wohl strengste Winter seit 30 Jahren. Dabei verteilt die Regierung Geschenke, dass einem warm ums Herz werden müsste. Während es letztes Jahr noch die Autofahrer waren, sind nun die Familien dran: 20 Euro mehr Kindergeld im Rahmen des Wachstumsbeschleunigungsgesetzes. Gut, den Hartz-IV-Empfängern wird dieses Geld an anderer Stelle wieder abgezogen. Aber dafür bekommen die Besserverdiener über den Kinderfreibetrag dann ein wenig mehr. Die Folgen werden dabei ähnlich drastisch sein wie die der Abwrackprämie: Da den Kommunen aufgrund der Wirtschaftskrise sowieso schon die Einnahmen aus der Gewerbesteuer fehlen, werden aufgrund dieser zusätzlichen Einnahmeausfälle und Ausgaben etliche kulturelle Einrichtungen die Preise erhöhen oder gleich ganz schließen müssen. Natürlich gibt es auch viele hausgemachte Probleme der Kommunen, doch dieses Gesetz verschärft die Probleme vollkommen unnötig - und die Folgen werden alle Bürger tragen.
Der zweite vieldiskutierte Punkt des Gesetzes ist die Mehrwertsteuerreduzierung für Übernachtungen. Wurde dies zuvor schon als unsinnig erachtet, so begannen die Diskussionen erst richtig, als bekannt wurde, dass CSU und FDP Millionenspenden der Hoteliers kassierten. Man darf es sich nicht so einfach machen und behaupten, die Politik wäre käuflich. Aber gerade die kleinen Parteien müssen den Begehren ihrer Wählergruppen entgegenkommen (kostenpflichtig), um in einer Koalition erkennbar zu bleiben. Dabei hätten nicht erst die Spenden für einen Aufschrei sorgen sollen, sondern schon allein die Tatsache, dass sich die CDU und insbesondere Angela Merkel von ihren kleinen Koalitionspartnern treiben lassen - Führungsschwäche nennt man das. Ganz zu schweigen davon, dass die FDP all ihre finanzpolitische Vernunft eines ausgeglichenen Staatshaushalts und einer Vereinfachung des Steuerrechts über Bord wirft und stattdessen weitere Ausnahmeregelungen und höhere Staatsschulden für die Bedienung ihrer Klientel in Kauf nimmt.
Und sonst? Nichts Genaues weiß man nicht - jedenfalls nicht vor der Landtagswahl in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Statt eine klare Linie vorzugeben, darf der Umweltminister Röttgen aus Wahlkampfgründen sogar den geplanten Ausstieg aus dem Atomausstieg wieder in Frage stellen. Ansonsten muss man aber davon ausgehen, dass auch andere Lobbygruppen noch von der Schwarz-Gelben Regierung berücksichtigt werden, seien es Vermieter, Apotheker, die privaten Krankenkassen oder die Pharmaindustrie. Schließlich muss sich Leistung wieder lohnen!
Wer die ganzen Geschenke bezahlen soll, wird also noch nicht bekanntgegeben. Guido Westerwelle hat aber am Beispiel einer Kellnerin mit zwei Kindern schon einmal einen ersten Vorgeschmack gegeben:
Sehr schön! Endlich werden die dekadenten Eliten zur Rechenschaft gezogen! Die Banker müssen ihre Millionenboni zurückzahlen und die Steuerflüchtlinge dürfen ihr Geld gleich auf den Marktplätzen der Republik verteilen - am besten direkt an die Kellnerin. Doch weit gefehlt! Statt auf die da oben zu schimpfen, soll die Kellnerin nach unten treten. Welche Dekadenz ausgerechnet bei Hartz-IV-Empfängern vorherrschen soll, weiß auch nur Westerwelle allein. Stattdessen stellt sich doch die Frage, was man Hartz-IV-Empfängern außer Geld und Würde noch nehmen soll.
Hartz IV war ein notwendiges Gesetz, wenn auch schlecht und teilweise verfassungswidrig umgesetzt. Nur hat dieses und andere Gesetze eben auch zu einem Ausbau des Niedriglohnsektors geführt. Aus der finanziellen Annäherung zwischen Arbeitnehmern und Sozialleistungsempfängern zu schließen, dass man den Zugang zu Sozialleistungen noch stärker einschränken müsse, ist vermessen - oder ein Kotau vor der Wirtschaft. Wie wäre es stattdessen mit der Einschränkung von Lohndumping? Mit der Auslagerung von Arbeitnehmern an Zeitarbeitsfirmen werden weder Arbeitsplätze noch die internationale Konkurrenzfähigkeit gesichert, sondern nur die Kaufkraft der Arbeitnehmer reduziert oder sogar die Sozialkassen belastet.
Ja, Leistung muss sich wieder lohnen! Wer arbeiten geht, sollte nur in Ausnahmefällen auf Hartz IV angewiesen sein müssen. Schon deswegen muss der gesetzliche Mindestlöhne eingeführt werden. Fast alle europäischen Staaten leisten sich diesen "Luxus".
Den Empfängern von Sozialleistungen ist nicht mit Generalverurteilung und Stigmatisierung geholfen. Die meisten haben sich ihre Situation nicht ausgesucht und würden diese auch gern wieder ändern. Zwar wird es immer auch Negativbeispiele geben, doch diese kann sich ein wohlhabendes Land wie Deutschland leisten. Mit geistiger Brandstiftung erzeugt man jedenfalls kein wärmendes Feuer.
Doch wie sieht es nun aus nach 100 Tagen Schwarz-Gelb? Deutschland steckt fest in seinem Wintermärchen. Es ist der wohl strengste Winter seit 30 Jahren. Dabei verteilt die Regierung Geschenke, dass einem warm ums Herz werden müsste. Während es letztes Jahr noch die Autofahrer waren, sind nun die Familien dran: 20 Euro mehr Kindergeld im Rahmen des Wachstumsbeschleunigungsgesetzes. Gut, den Hartz-IV-Empfängern wird dieses Geld an anderer Stelle wieder abgezogen. Aber dafür bekommen die Besserverdiener über den Kinderfreibetrag dann ein wenig mehr. Die Folgen werden dabei ähnlich drastisch sein wie die der Abwrackprämie: Da den Kommunen aufgrund der Wirtschaftskrise sowieso schon die Einnahmen aus der Gewerbesteuer fehlen, werden aufgrund dieser zusätzlichen Einnahmeausfälle und Ausgaben etliche kulturelle Einrichtungen die Preise erhöhen oder gleich ganz schließen müssen. Natürlich gibt es auch viele hausgemachte Probleme der Kommunen, doch dieses Gesetz verschärft die Probleme vollkommen unnötig - und die Folgen werden alle Bürger tragen.
Der zweite vieldiskutierte Punkt des Gesetzes ist die Mehrwertsteuerreduzierung für Übernachtungen. Wurde dies zuvor schon als unsinnig erachtet, so begannen die Diskussionen erst richtig, als bekannt wurde, dass CSU und FDP Millionenspenden der Hoteliers kassierten. Man darf es sich nicht so einfach machen und behaupten, die Politik wäre käuflich. Aber gerade die kleinen Parteien müssen den Begehren ihrer Wählergruppen entgegenkommen (kostenpflichtig), um in einer Koalition erkennbar zu bleiben. Dabei hätten nicht erst die Spenden für einen Aufschrei sorgen sollen, sondern schon allein die Tatsache, dass sich die CDU und insbesondere Angela Merkel von ihren kleinen Koalitionspartnern treiben lassen - Führungsschwäche nennt man das. Ganz zu schweigen davon, dass die FDP all ihre finanzpolitische Vernunft eines ausgeglichenen Staatshaushalts und einer Vereinfachung des Steuerrechts über Bord wirft und stattdessen weitere Ausnahmeregelungen und höhere Staatsschulden für die Bedienung ihrer Klientel in Kauf nimmt.
Und sonst? Nichts Genaues weiß man nicht - jedenfalls nicht vor der Landtagswahl in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Statt eine klare Linie vorzugeben, darf der Umweltminister Röttgen aus Wahlkampfgründen sogar den geplanten Ausstieg aus dem Atomausstieg wieder in Frage stellen. Ansonsten muss man aber davon ausgehen, dass auch andere Lobbygruppen noch von der Schwarz-Gelben Regierung berücksichtigt werden, seien es Vermieter, Apotheker, die privaten Krankenkassen oder die Pharmaindustrie. Schließlich muss sich Leistung wieder lohnen!
Wer die ganzen Geschenke bezahlen soll, wird also noch nicht bekanntgegeben. Guido Westerwelle hat aber am Beispiel einer Kellnerin mit zwei Kindern schon einmal einen ersten Vorgeschmack gegeben:
Diese Leichtfertigkeit im Umgang mit dem Leistungsgedanken besorgt mich zutiefst. Die Missachtung der Mitte hat System, und sie ist brandgefährlich. Wer dem Volk anstrengungslosen Wohlstand verspricht, lädt zu spätrömischer Dekadenz ein.
Sehr schön! Endlich werden die dekadenten Eliten zur Rechenschaft gezogen! Die Banker müssen ihre Millionenboni zurückzahlen und die Steuerflüchtlinge dürfen ihr Geld gleich auf den Marktplätzen der Republik verteilen - am besten direkt an die Kellnerin. Doch weit gefehlt! Statt auf die da oben zu schimpfen, soll die Kellnerin nach unten treten. Welche Dekadenz ausgerechnet bei Hartz-IV-Empfängern vorherrschen soll, weiß auch nur Westerwelle allein. Stattdessen stellt sich doch die Frage, was man Hartz-IV-Empfängern außer Geld und Würde noch nehmen soll.
Hartz IV war ein notwendiges Gesetz, wenn auch schlecht und teilweise verfassungswidrig umgesetzt. Nur hat dieses und andere Gesetze eben auch zu einem Ausbau des Niedriglohnsektors geführt. Aus der finanziellen Annäherung zwischen Arbeitnehmern und Sozialleistungsempfängern zu schließen, dass man den Zugang zu Sozialleistungen noch stärker einschränken müsse, ist vermessen - oder ein Kotau vor der Wirtschaft. Wie wäre es stattdessen mit der Einschränkung von Lohndumping? Mit der Auslagerung von Arbeitnehmern an Zeitarbeitsfirmen werden weder Arbeitsplätze noch die internationale Konkurrenzfähigkeit gesichert, sondern nur die Kaufkraft der Arbeitnehmer reduziert oder sogar die Sozialkassen belastet.
Ja, Leistung muss sich wieder lohnen! Wer arbeiten geht, sollte nur in Ausnahmefällen auf Hartz IV angewiesen sein müssen. Schon deswegen muss der gesetzliche Mindestlöhne eingeführt werden. Fast alle europäischen Staaten leisten sich diesen "Luxus".
Den Empfängern von Sozialleistungen ist nicht mit Generalverurteilung und Stigmatisierung geholfen. Die meisten haben sich ihre Situation nicht ausgesucht und würden diese auch gern wieder ändern. Zwar wird es immer auch Negativbeispiele geben, doch diese kann sich ein wohlhabendes Land wie Deutschland leisten. Mit geistiger Brandstiftung erzeugt man jedenfalls kein wärmendes Feuer.
11 October, 2009
Ursachensuche
Die Wahlen sind vorbei. Das Ergebnis ist noch schlimmer als befürchtet - und als die letzten Umfragen vorhergesagt haben. Bei 26% wurde die SPD in Umfragen kurz vor der Wahl gesehen. Optimisten hatten sogar gehofft, dass die SPD ihr schlechtestes Ergebnis seit Kriegsende (1953: 28,8%) noch vermeiden könnte. Nichts war es. Ganze 23% standen am Ende zu Buche.
Woran lag es nun? Die Welt erlebt gerade die schwerste Wirtschaftskrise seit der Großen Depression. Davor gab es über mehrere Jahre einen weltweiten Aufschwung. Und jeder wollte einen möglichst großen Anteil vom Kuchen abhaben. Deregulierung war angesagt, Rekordboni wurden gezahlt. Die einzige Bevölkerungsgruppe, die davon überdurchschnittlich profitiert hat, sind die reichsten 10%. Deren Anteil am Gesamtvermögen betrug 2007 61,1% nach 57,9% im Jahr 2002. Alle anderen Bevölkerungsgruppen haben in diesen 5 Jahren anteilig Vermögen verloren oder maximal ihren Anteil gehalten (DIW Wochenbericht 4/2009, S. 6).
Die Auswirkungen der Krise sind gravierend. Die unmittelbare Folge sind massive Staatsdefizite durch die Rettungspakete, hohe Arbeitslosenzahlen konnten zunächst durch die Kurzarbeitregelungen vermieden werden, bescheren dem Staatshaushalt aber weitere Milliardenausfälle. Nun werden Steuersenkungen versprochen, von denen wiederum die Besserverdienenden überproportional profitieren. Und angesichts von Rekorddefiziten geht dies auch nur bei Rückbau des Sozialstaates - auf Kosten der Geringverdiener. Und doch sorgen die Deutschen für ein Rekordergebnis der Wirtschaftsliberalen bei den Wahlen. Absurd?
Ein Rückblick: 1998, nach 16 Jahren Helmut Kohl und Schwarz-Gelb, von denen vor allem die letzte Legislaturperiode treffend mit Reformstau zusammengefasst werden kann, kam es endlich zum Wechsel der Regierung hin zu Rot-Grün. Neben den wirtschaftspolitischen Reformen gab es auch sozialpolitische Reformen, deren Nachwirkungen nun für die SPD noch viel gravierender sind. Die Reizwörter sind Agenda 2010 und Hartz IV; von Verrat an der eigenen Wählerschaft ist die Rede. Und natürlich muss man es nicht unbedingt als Auszeichnung ansehen, wenn eine Partei, die "sozial" im Namen hat, vom liberalsten Wirtschaftsmagazin The Economist gelobt wird. Fakt ist aber, dass Deutschland unter Gerhard Schröder vom Sorgenkind wieder zum Musterschüler Europas wurde.
Härten und Ungerechtigkeiten lassen sich zahlreiche finden und über Korrekturen sollte sicher nachgedacht werden. Das Hauptproblem der SPD sind aber nicht die Gesetze selbst, sondern dass es versäumt wurde, diese und deren Notwendigkeit den Leuten zu erklären - und das über die ganzen Jahre. Die Basta-Attitüde von Gerhard Schröder war auch alles andere als hilfreich.
Mit dem Deutschlandplan hat die SPD den großen Befreiungsschlag versucht - und ist mangels eigener Hartnäckigkeit grandios gescheitert. Nach ersten abfälligen Kommentaren aus den anderen politischen Lagern gab es viel Zustimmung. Um es auf den Punkt zu bringen: Die SPD war die einzige Partei mit einer Vision für ein zukunftsfähiges Deutschland! Und doch verschwand der Plan viel zu schnell in der Schublade und hat am Ende faktisch keine Rolle mehr im Wahlkampf gespielt. Ist man an der eigenen Courage gescheitert? Waren die Parallelitäten zu groß zur Agenda 2010?
Die FDP sollte sich nicht allzu viel auf ihr Ergebnis einbilden. Diese Wahl war keine Wahl liberaler Politik, sondern in erster Linie eine Abwahl der großen Koalition, wie auch das Rekordergebnis der Linken zeigt. Und doch stellt die SPD einen Sonderfall dar; man verliert nicht einmal so eben ein Drittel seiner Wähler. Aber nicht wegen schlechter Politik, sondern wegen schlechter Kommunikation und unklarer Strategie ist die SPD gescheitert. Eigentlich kann es nur als positiv angesehen werden, dass die SPD jetzt nicht an der Regierung beteiligt ist. Eine weitere große Koalition hätte ihr angesichts der sich abzeichnenden Probleme im Staatshaushalt vermutlich vollends das Genick gebrochen. Die FDP wird auf den Boden der Tatsachen zurückgeholt werden, weil versprochene Wohltaten nicht finanzierbar sind. Und für 2013 hoffe ich auf eine neue SPD-geführte Regierung.
Woran lag es nun? Die Welt erlebt gerade die schwerste Wirtschaftskrise seit der Großen Depression. Davor gab es über mehrere Jahre einen weltweiten Aufschwung. Und jeder wollte einen möglichst großen Anteil vom Kuchen abhaben. Deregulierung war angesagt, Rekordboni wurden gezahlt. Die einzige Bevölkerungsgruppe, die davon überdurchschnittlich profitiert hat, sind die reichsten 10%. Deren Anteil am Gesamtvermögen betrug 2007 61,1% nach 57,9% im Jahr 2002. Alle anderen Bevölkerungsgruppen haben in diesen 5 Jahren anteilig Vermögen verloren oder maximal ihren Anteil gehalten (DIW Wochenbericht 4/2009, S. 6).
Die Auswirkungen der Krise sind gravierend. Die unmittelbare Folge sind massive Staatsdefizite durch die Rettungspakete, hohe Arbeitslosenzahlen konnten zunächst durch die Kurzarbeitregelungen vermieden werden, bescheren dem Staatshaushalt aber weitere Milliardenausfälle. Nun werden Steuersenkungen versprochen, von denen wiederum die Besserverdienenden überproportional profitieren. Und angesichts von Rekorddefiziten geht dies auch nur bei Rückbau des Sozialstaates - auf Kosten der Geringverdiener. Und doch sorgen die Deutschen für ein Rekordergebnis der Wirtschaftsliberalen bei den Wahlen. Absurd?
Ein Rückblick: 1998, nach 16 Jahren Helmut Kohl und Schwarz-Gelb, von denen vor allem die letzte Legislaturperiode treffend mit Reformstau zusammengefasst werden kann, kam es endlich zum Wechsel der Regierung hin zu Rot-Grün. Neben den wirtschaftspolitischen Reformen gab es auch sozialpolitische Reformen, deren Nachwirkungen nun für die SPD noch viel gravierender sind. Die Reizwörter sind Agenda 2010 und Hartz IV; von Verrat an der eigenen Wählerschaft ist die Rede. Und natürlich muss man es nicht unbedingt als Auszeichnung ansehen, wenn eine Partei, die "sozial" im Namen hat, vom liberalsten Wirtschaftsmagazin The Economist gelobt wird. Fakt ist aber, dass Deutschland unter Gerhard Schröder vom Sorgenkind wieder zum Musterschüler Europas wurde.
Härten und Ungerechtigkeiten lassen sich zahlreiche finden und über Korrekturen sollte sicher nachgedacht werden. Das Hauptproblem der SPD sind aber nicht die Gesetze selbst, sondern dass es versäumt wurde, diese und deren Notwendigkeit den Leuten zu erklären - und das über die ganzen Jahre. Die Basta-Attitüde von Gerhard Schröder war auch alles andere als hilfreich.
Mit dem Deutschlandplan hat die SPD den großen Befreiungsschlag versucht - und ist mangels eigener Hartnäckigkeit grandios gescheitert. Nach ersten abfälligen Kommentaren aus den anderen politischen Lagern gab es viel Zustimmung. Um es auf den Punkt zu bringen: Die SPD war die einzige Partei mit einer Vision für ein zukunftsfähiges Deutschland! Und doch verschwand der Plan viel zu schnell in der Schublade und hat am Ende faktisch keine Rolle mehr im Wahlkampf gespielt. Ist man an der eigenen Courage gescheitert? Waren die Parallelitäten zu groß zur Agenda 2010?
Die FDP sollte sich nicht allzu viel auf ihr Ergebnis einbilden. Diese Wahl war keine Wahl liberaler Politik, sondern in erster Linie eine Abwahl der großen Koalition, wie auch das Rekordergebnis der Linken zeigt. Und doch stellt die SPD einen Sonderfall dar; man verliert nicht einmal so eben ein Drittel seiner Wähler. Aber nicht wegen schlechter Politik, sondern wegen schlechter Kommunikation und unklarer Strategie ist die SPD gescheitert. Eigentlich kann es nur als positiv angesehen werden, dass die SPD jetzt nicht an der Regierung beteiligt ist. Eine weitere große Koalition hätte ihr angesichts der sich abzeichnenden Probleme im Staatshaushalt vermutlich vollends das Genick gebrochen. Die FDP wird auf den Boden der Tatsachen zurückgeholt werden, weil versprochene Wohltaten nicht finanzierbar sind. Und für 2013 hoffe ich auf eine neue SPD-geführte Regierung.
23 August, 2009
Lame Duck Season
It's only one year ago. George W. Bush draw his last breaths politically. And the US had one of their most interesting election campaigns. Not because it was likely Barack Obama being elected the first black president, but because he wanted to fix the US:
Now, Obama is struggling with fulfilling many of his election promises, in particular the health care reform. US media, even as serious as CNN, are reporting on the most ridiculous topics to discredit him or his plans.
But even this is more interesting than what's going on in Germany only one month away from Germany's most important election. It feels like they want to bring forward the lame duck season before election since we don't have one after it.
The conservative Christian Democratic Union refuses to debate. Their slogan is a meaningless:
Or - with a plunging neckline:
Two programmatic issues called attention within the last half a year: The ridiculous election promise of tax cuts if there is some leeway. Germany has a record deficit this year due to the economic crisis and the aftermath will last for another few years. And the fight against the internet and its users.
The second major party, the Social Democratic Party has a credibility problem since they have been part of the government for the last 11 years. They are now supposed to be an alternative? They have been at all-time poll lows in the last months. The current crisis has been summarized with "privatizing profits and socializing costs". What could have been easier for a left-leaning party to base an aggressive election campaign on it? But there is hardly any attack.
Lately there was some ray of hope. So far the SPD stuck to their old mantra of "saving jobs" as seen again with Opel and Karstadt. Typically a pure waste of money since it's not possible to work against the market. But few weeks ago - what a surprise! - the SPD published its Plan for Germany. Creating 4 million jobs in future economic sectors like medical services and green technologies. That was something to discuss about at least. Maybe even reasonable when giving up trying to save old industries. But where is the debate on the plan? Instead media focused on a stolen car of a minister.
Don't we really deserve a better? Don't we have a bunch problems currently that politicians should have visions how to solve them? What will a possible TV debate between the two candidates Angela Merkel and Frank-Walter Steinmeier be like? A sleeping pill? With the lamest election campaign ever I can also foresee the voter turnout: It's going to be the lowest in history. And with the law for blocking internet addresses both parties have gambled away their credits of trust from the next generation.
Disclaimer: I consider myself left-leaning, though supporting the ideas of free market within boundaries, i.e. regulations. At the moment it is really hard to see any reason for voting except for the civic duty. Yes, I will vote nevertheless. But I'm frustrated with the dullness of our politicians and what's NOT going on at the moment.
That is our purpose here today. That is why I'm in this race. Not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation. I want to win that next battle — for justice and opportunity. I want to win that next battle — for better schools, and better jobs, and better health care for all. I want us to take up the unfinished business of perfecting our union, and building a better America.
Now, Obama is struggling with fulfilling many of his election promises, in particular the health care reform. US media, even as serious as CNN, are reporting on the most ridiculous topics to discredit him or his plans.
But even this is more interesting than what's going on in Germany only one month away from Germany's most important election. It feels like they want to bring forward the lame duck season before election since we don't have one after it.
The conservative Christian Democratic Union refuses to debate. Their slogan is a meaningless:
We have the strength. Together for our country.
Or - with a plunging neckline:
We have more to offer.
Two programmatic issues called attention within the last half a year: The ridiculous election promise of tax cuts if there is some leeway. Germany has a record deficit this year due to the economic crisis and the aftermath will last for another few years. And the fight against the internet and its users.
The second major party, the Social Democratic Party has a credibility problem since they have been part of the government for the last 11 years. They are now supposed to be an alternative? They have been at all-time poll lows in the last months. The current crisis has been summarized with "privatizing profits and socializing costs". What could have been easier for a left-leaning party to base an aggressive election campaign on it? But there is hardly any attack.
Lately there was some ray of hope. So far the SPD stuck to their old mantra of "saving jobs" as seen again with Opel and Karstadt. Typically a pure waste of money since it's not possible to work against the market. But few weeks ago - what a surprise! - the SPD published its Plan for Germany. Creating 4 million jobs in future economic sectors like medical services and green technologies. That was something to discuss about at least. Maybe even reasonable when giving up trying to save old industries. But where is the debate on the plan? Instead media focused on a stolen car of a minister.
Don't we really deserve a better? Don't we have a bunch problems currently that politicians should have visions how to solve them? What will a possible TV debate between the two candidates Angela Merkel and Frank-Walter Steinmeier be like? A sleeping pill? With the lamest election campaign ever I can also foresee the voter turnout: It's going to be the lowest in history. And with the law for blocking internet addresses both parties have gambled away their credits of trust from the next generation.
Disclaimer: I consider myself left-leaning, though supporting the ideas of free market within boundaries, i.e. regulations. At the moment it is really hard to see any reason for voting except for the civic duty. Yes, I will vote nevertheless. But I'm frustrated with the dullness of our politicians and what's NOT going on at the moment.
24 May, 2009
The Unhealthy Market
Germany does not only have the world's oldest universal health care system, from an exterior view it apparently is even one of the best. Observing the discussions here you can get the impression though the German health care system is on the brink of ruin with patient care imperiled, doctors facing insolvency and sky-rocketing costs. I guess it depends on who you listen to, not to say who is lobbying.
One thing is for sure: The German health care system has a lot of inefficiencies. There are for example still 200 statutory insurances (dropped from 1200 in 1991; article in German) all having to offer the same services. The premium is paid as percentage of gross pay. Until last year there was at least competition in price, the range was from 12 to 16 %, half paid by employer, half by employee. In 2009 this competition has been eliminated and all insurances have the premium rate of 15.5 % (temporarily reduced to 14.9 % with the stimulus package). When any competition is eliminated why having 200 insurances, all with their administrative expenses?
Another example - the actual topic of this post - are the regulations for pharmacies. A pharmacy must be owned by a pharmacist (with the respective university degree) and he or she can only own up to 4 pharmacies. The European Court of Justice had to decide whether these regulations are compliant with European laws, in particular if the freedom of establishment is restricted disproportionally.
The court states the German regulation constitutes a restriction (paragraph 24) and justifies it as follows (paragraphs 28, 34):
I agree that retail of drugs needs special education but why does the pharmacist have to own the pharmacy? Paragraphs 37 and 39:
This means a pharmacist owning the pharmacy is more ethically responsible than an employed pharmacist and his/her manager? Besides being questionable the assessment would justify similar regulations for any profession with responsibility for other people's life. Wouldn't the same apply to doctors employed in hospitals?
And don't forget the pharmacist can own up to 4 pharmacies. Obviously he or she can't be in all branches at the same time but needs employed pharmacists to operate the other branches. With the pharmacist being responsible for the branches' operation (paragraph 49):
The same can easily be achieved with less extensive restrictions. It should be easy to revoke an operating license for all branches from a company if there were a reason just as it is done now with the pharmacist.
This is topped by another justification for the regulation (paragraph 33):
Pharmacy chains would have stronger buying power and could so negotiate lower prices with the pharmaceutical industry. According to an article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung (German; article itself is not available online, but appeared in the issue 115/2009, May 20, page 21) the prices fell significantly in countries like Norway after opening the drug markets.
The reasoning of the court is pretty lame. The arguments might have been provided by pharmacists associations. Many countries have deregulated pharmaceutical markets - and I haven't heard of any indication of jeopardized patient care. In contrary, the monopolistic market rather avoids competition in quality (German) according to experts in health care. The pharmacists have to be congratulated for their good lobbying work. Of course they have no interest in competition. The pharmaceutical industry has no interest in stronger negotiators. The politicians have no interest to approach such a sensitive topic, especially before this year's election. They rather repeat the pharmacists' arguments (German). At the end it's the people who have to bear the high costs of public health care.
By the way, most of the people involved in the discussions are not affected by the costs for public health care. What I consider one of the worst provisions in the German health care system is that people with a high income (lower limit is € 48,600 in 2009) can choose a private insurance rather than the statutory insurance - with the obvious effect of lower income people having to bear the burden of public health care. So while Germany might have one of the best health care systems there is definitely lots of room for improvement.
One thing is for sure: The German health care system has a lot of inefficiencies. There are for example still 200 statutory insurances (dropped from 1200 in 1991; article in German) all having to offer the same services. The premium is paid as percentage of gross pay. Until last year there was at least competition in price, the range was from 12 to 16 %, half paid by employer, half by employee. In 2009 this competition has been eliminated and all insurances have the premium rate of 15.5 % (temporarily reduced to 14.9 % with the stimulus package). When any competition is eliminated why having 200 insurances, all with their administrative expenses?
Another example - the actual topic of this post - are the regulations for pharmacies. A pharmacy must be owned by a pharmacist (with the respective university degree) and he or she can only own up to 4 pharmacies. The European Court of Justice had to decide whether these regulations are compliant with European laws, in particular if the freedom of establishment is restricted disproportionally.
The court states the German regulation constitutes a restriction (paragraph 24) and justifies it as follows (paragraphs 28, 34):
Restrictions on those freedoms of movement may be justified by the objective of ensuring that the provision of medicinal products to the public is reliable and of good quality. [..]
The Member States [of the EU] may restrict the retail sale of medicinal products, in principle, to pharmacists alone, because of the safeguards which pharmacists must provide and the information which they must be in a position to furnish to consumers.
I agree that retail of drugs needs special education but why does the pharmacist have to own the pharmacy? Paragraphs 37 and 39:
It is undeniable that an operator having the status of pharmacist pursues [..] the objective of making a profit. However, as a pharmacist by profession, he is presumed to operate the pharmacy not with a purely economic objective, but also from a professional viewpoint. His private interest connected with the making of a profit is thus tempered by his training, by his professional experience and by the responsibility which he owes, given that any breach of the rules of law or professional conduct undermines not only the value of his investment but also his own professional existence. [..]
The operation of a pharmacy by a non-pharmacist may represent a risk to public health, in particular to the reliability and quality of the supply of medicinal products at retail level, because the pursuit of profit in the course of such operation does not involve [such] moderating factors.
This means a pharmacist owning the pharmacy is more ethically responsible than an employed pharmacist and his/her manager? Besides being questionable the assessment would justify similar regulations for any profession with responsibility for other people's life. Wouldn't the same apply to doctors employed in hospitals?
And don't forget the pharmacist can own up to 4 pharmacies. Obviously he or she can't be in all branches at the same time but needs employed pharmacists to operate the other branches. With the pharmacist being responsible for the branches' operation (paragraph 49):
Those branches are thus also presumed to be operated from a professional viewpoint, the private interest connected with the making of a profit being tempered to the same extent as in the case of the operation of pharmacies which are not branches.
The same can easily be achieved with less extensive restrictions. It should be easy to revoke an operating license for all branches from a company if there were a reason just as it is done now with the pharmacist.
This is topped by another justification for the regulation (paragraph 33):
Overconsumption or incorrect use of medicinal products leads, moreover, to a waste of financial resources which is all the more damaging because the pharmaceutical sector generates considerable costs and must satisfy increasing needs, while the financial resources which may be made available for healthcare are not unlimited, whatever the mode of funding applied. There is a direct link between those financial resources and the profits of businesses operating in the pharmaceutical sector because in most Member States [of the EU] the prescription of medicinal products is borne financially by the health insurance bodies concerned.
Pharmacy chains would have stronger buying power and could so negotiate lower prices with the pharmaceutical industry. According to an article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung (German; article itself is not available online, but appeared in the issue 115/2009, May 20, page 21) the prices fell significantly in countries like Norway after opening the drug markets.
The reasoning of the court is pretty lame. The arguments might have been provided by pharmacists associations. Many countries have deregulated pharmaceutical markets - and I haven't heard of any indication of jeopardized patient care. In contrary, the monopolistic market rather avoids competition in quality (German) according to experts in health care. The pharmacists have to be congratulated for their good lobbying work. Of course they have no interest in competition. The pharmaceutical industry has no interest in stronger negotiators. The politicians have no interest to approach such a sensitive topic, especially before this year's election. They rather repeat the pharmacists' arguments (German). At the end it's the people who have to bear the high costs of public health care.
By the way, most of the people involved in the discussions are not affected by the costs for public health care. What I consider one of the worst provisions in the German health care system is that people with a high income (lower limit is € 48,600 in 2009) can choose a private insurance rather than the statutory insurance - with the obvious effect of lower income people having to bear the burden of public health care. So while Germany might have one of the best health care systems there is definitely lots of room for improvement.
22 March, 2009
The Incomprehensible
One of my first thoughts on the latest school killing in Germany was slightly cynical: How long will it take that "Killerspiele" (First person shooters are condemned sweepingly (German) as "killer games" in Germany.) are indicated - once again - as a reason for the killing? It took only one day.
Hardly anybody will actually say these games are a reason but simply the fact that only one day after the shooting the police discloses (German) they found Counter-Strike on the killer's computer and the repeated claim for bans of those games reveal the reasoning. Why is that?
Putting the numbers in context: In the U.S. in 2005 it had 16,692 homicides, 11,346 by guns. That means statistically 46 people were murdered every day, 31 by guns. The deadliest school shooting (Virginia Tech massacre) took the life of 33 people. And how many people die in "family tragedies" (German euphemism (German) for homicides within the family, usually with suicide of the perpetrator) every year as just recently (both German)?
But nothing causes as much sensation - and claim for actions - as the school killings. Is it the sheer number of victims? I think it is rather the impossibility to comprehend the incomprehensible, the idea of somebody causing as much damage as possible before committing suicide, the question how nobody could have noticed the gunman's psychological strain. A murder with robbery happens out of greed, a family killing out of jealousy or despair, they are "explainable" - a school killing, in both its extent and randomization of victims, can not be explained with a single reason though, if at all.
But then why do people look for simple solutions? Is it the only thing to hold on to? Some examples:
One of the saddest proposals is the one for swipe cards, metal detectors and security guards (see the quote from Die Welt) at schools. This will turn schools into prisons:
All the proposals have some things in common: The effectiveness is at least questionable. Germany has already one of the tightest weapons law in Europe if not the world. Similar the regulations on video games or films. And then there is always the black market to get either video games or weapons and ammunition.
And second all the proposals only address symptoms, not the causes. No video game (World Of Bullshit, German) has ever caused a school shooting. The membership in rifle clubs might actually provide acceptance though I would argue if anybody needs to learn how to shoot except for security services as police or military.
But what about the perpetrator, not Tim K. in particular but in general. What about personal responsibility of people associated with such killers? What about parents allowing their children to play the games (or not knowing it)? In analogy to the proposals above why does nobody think about testing parents whether they qualify for raising children? What about teachers, classmates, coaches, friends? What about the selective German school system? Will psychological counselors help to find precarious "candidates"?
These questions shall illustrate the complexity of the problem where easy solutions just don't work - and question the mentioned proposals even stronger. The bottom line is: We are living in a free society. There is and will never be 100 percent security. As hard as it might be to accept, especially because of their senselessness: School shootings are rare. Giving up freedoms for questionable means can't be the solution. Neither can just going on - but that's exactly what simple solutions tend to. It's in everybody's responsibility to take care. Sounds naive? Maybe it is but the government simply can't help and is not supposed to help. If society does not change on its own accord we just have to live - with the incomprehensible.
Hardly anybody will actually say these games are a reason but simply the fact that only one day after the shooting the police discloses (German) they found Counter-Strike on the killer's computer and the repeated claim for bans of those games reveal the reasoning. Why is that?
Putting the numbers in context: In the U.S. in 2005 it had 16,692 homicides, 11,346 by guns. That means statistically 46 people were murdered every day, 31 by guns. The deadliest school shooting (Virginia Tech massacre) took the life of 33 people. And how many people die in "family tragedies" (German euphemism (German) for homicides within the family, usually with suicide of the perpetrator) every year as just recently (both German)?
But nothing causes as much sensation - and claim for actions - as the school killings. Is it the sheer number of victims? I think it is rather the impossibility to comprehend the incomprehensible, the idea of somebody causing as much damage as possible before committing suicide, the question how nobody could have noticed the gunman's psychological strain. A murder with robbery happens out of greed, a family killing out of jealousy or despair, they are "explainable" - a school killing, in both its extent and randomization of victims, can not be explained with a single reason though, if at all.
But then why do people look for simple solutions? Is it the only thing to hold on to? Some examples:
- The ban on (German) "killer games" is a classic. First person shooters are usually approved for people of age 16 in Germany if they are diluted (e.g. no showing of blood). Otherwise they must be only sold to adults. Minister of Family Affairs proposed test purchases to control shops stick to the law. One chain completely stopped selling of games with 18-plus ratings.
- Controls in rifle clubs are rather new. It's only that 1.5 million people are organized in the parent organization Deutscher Schützenbund. Should everyone provide a psychological assessment?
- Chancellor Angela Merkel even thought out loud about unannounced controls for weapon owners. Without any concrete reasons how is that consistent with the Grundgesetz (German constitution, basic law), not talking about sheer practicability?
- A more reasonable idea is the separate storage of weapons and ammunition (the quote from Handelsblatt), others propose a limit on the number of weapons (German), even more unlikely is the total prohibition of keeping weapons at home (Where should they be kept?).
One of the saddest proposals is the one for swipe cards, metal detectors and security guards (see the quote from Die Welt) at schools. This will turn schools into prisons:
[Schools] shouldn't be turned into bunkers, and they can't be turned into fortresses without their ability to teach suffering. After the murders in Winnenden, it's understandable that people would start discussing things like swipecards and metal detectors. But there is no such thing as absolute security, and every added bit of preventative technology brings with it the danger of making people feel even more vulnerable. If you go into one of the schools in the United States that has been outfitted to become a high-security facility, you feel anything but safe and secure. Instead, you feel completely lost at sea.
All the proposals have some things in common: The effectiveness is at least questionable. Germany has already one of the tightest weapons law in Europe if not the world. Similar the regulations on video games or films. And then there is always the black market to get either video games or weapons and ammunition.
And second all the proposals only address symptoms, not the causes. No video game (World Of Bullshit, German) has ever caused a school shooting. The membership in rifle clubs might actually provide acceptance though I would argue if anybody needs to learn how to shoot except for security services as police or military.
But what about the perpetrator, not Tim K. in particular but in general. What about personal responsibility of people associated with such killers? What about parents allowing their children to play the games (or not knowing it)? In analogy to the proposals above why does nobody think about testing parents whether they qualify for raising children? What about teachers, classmates, coaches, friends? What about the selective German school system? Will psychological counselors help to find precarious "candidates"?
These questions shall illustrate the complexity of the problem where easy solutions just don't work - and question the mentioned proposals even stronger. The bottom line is: We are living in a free society. There is and will never be 100 percent security. As hard as it might be to accept, especially because of their senselessness: School shootings are rare. Giving up freedoms for questionable means can't be the solution. Neither can just going on - but that's exactly what simple solutions tend to. It's in everybody's responsibility to take care. Sounds naive? Maybe it is but the government simply can't help and is not supposed to help. If society does not change on its own accord we just have to live - with the incomprehensible.
15 February, 2009
A Heart for Producers
Last week I had to try hard to keep from laughing. I was shopping for grocery and saw a new campaign: Ein Herz für Erzeuger (A Heart for Producers). The idea: Rather than spending 49 cents on a liter of milk you pay 59 cents and the additional 10 cents go completely to the farmer. This is ridiculous in many ways!
In Germany there is both a charity campaign Ein Herz für Kinder (A Heart for Children) for needy children and a magazine Ein Herz für Tiere (A Heart for Animals respectively Pets). And now needy farmers? So first it's simply a ridiculous name from a marketing perspective - or am I the only one who thinks first of a donation account when hearing this campaign name?
Second, why should I pay more for the same product? For my good nature or my conscience? I'm sorry, but this is the same milk from the same intensive livestock farming where cattle is fed with the same antibiotics! Isn't it understandable I don't feel sympathy for this kind of farming? If I want to have a better product for which I'm willing to pay more I'll get organic milk.
Third, I'm not denying that many farmers, especially small businesses, have major problems with the low milk price and their costs. But the problem is far more complex (German) - and needs painful consequences. For years the market for milk was totally regulated (just like every other agricultural product in the EU) by setting quota how much a farm can produce. This led to the infamous so-called milk seas or butter hills - products produced beyond the market's needs, bought with huge subsidies by the EU and destroyed or fed to livestock.
Now the quota system is going to be removed - and the market will fix the distortions caused by the regulations: The price will likely drop due to the oversupply. Some farms might switch to the production of organic food which gives them higher income per unit (a liter of organic milk costs 89 cents). But there will definitely be individual fates, especially small farms, that will have to shut due to reduced income. But it is not possible to work against the market or it will cost an enormous amount of money. It makes more sense economically to spent the money otherwise despite the costs for social benefits or other support for the victims of this change. Only one thing is sure: The 10 cents can't prevent that change. If at all it will extend the agony.
In Germany there is both a charity campaign Ein Herz für Kinder (A Heart for Children) for needy children and a magazine Ein Herz für Tiere (A Heart for Animals respectively Pets). And now needy farmers? So first it's simply a ridiculous name from a marketing perspective - or am I the only one who thinks first of a donation account when hearing this campaign name?
Second, why should I pay more for the same product? For my good nature or my conscience? I'm sorry, but this is the same milk from the same intensive livestock farming where cattle is fed with the same antibiotics! Isn't it understandable I don't feel sympathy for this kind of farming? If I want to have a better product for which I'm willing to pay more I'll get organic milk.
Third, I'm not denying that many farmers, especially small businesses, have major problems with the low milk price and their costs. But the problem is far more complex (German) - and needs painful consequences. For years the market for milk was totally regulated (just like every other agricultural product in the EU) by setting quota how much a farm can produce. This led to the infamous so-called milk seas or butter hills - products produced beyond the market's needs, bought with huge subsidies by the EU and destroyed or fed to livestock.
Now the quota system is going to be removed - and the market will fix the distortions caused by the regulations: The price will likely drop due to the oversupply. Some farms might switch to the production of organic food which gives them higher income per unit (a liter of organic milk costs 89 cents). But there will definitely be individual fates, especially small farms, that will have to shut due to reduced income. But it is not possible to work against the market or it will cost an enormous amount of money. It makes more sense economically to spent the money otherwise despite the costs for social benefits or other support for the victims of this change. Only one thing is sure: The 10 cents can't prevent that change. If at all it will extend the agony.
10 November, 2008
The Speeches to the White House
Last Tuesday, on November 4, 2008 Barack Hussein Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States. His way to the White House has been marked by great speeches. I want to start with the keynote address at the Democratic Convention on July 27, 2004 in Boston. It was the first time he and his central message became known to a broader audience beyond the borders of Illinois (not to me though):
At the end of 2004 Obama didn't feel ready for running for president in 2008. Within the next 2 years he had changed his mind no longer ruling out to run:
It was the time when the media recognized his qualifications but questioned his experience to be ready in 2008. But there was no question he was going to play a bigger role in American politics in the future. At the end of October in 2006 the Time had a cover story on "why Barack Obama could be the next President". And the German author Florian Gathmann wrote recently in retrospect (German) to his 2-months scholarship in the summer of 2006 at the Chicago Tribune that there was no way around Obama:
His article "Der Gesegnete" (German, "The Blessed") was released on October 27, 2006 in German newspaper Thüringer Allgemeine, refering to Obama's first name Barack meaning "blessed" in Swahili. On February 10, 2007 Obama finally announced his candidacy giving the guideline for his politics:
It's this style of patriotism - loving the country, but looking for ways to perfect it, not ideologically! - that's so atypical for a politician and that impresses me the most.
But on July 7, 2007, when I flew to the US to work for one year in Philadelphia, I still had not heard of Obama at all. It must have been at some point within the next 3 months that I got to know him since I remember being all for Obama already at the Democratic debate at Drexel University in Philadelphia on October 30, 2007.
Eventually, on January 3, 2008 the primary season started - when Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was still expected to wrap up the nomination of the Democratic party on Super Tuesday (February 5, 2008). But she had a false start with losing Iowa to Obama - and no plan for beyond Super Tuesday.
Obama had it's own struggles with the unwelcome race issue bubbling up incarnated by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for 20 years. He could rebut the cliche of the "angry black man" by giving a speech on race in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008. He analyzed that "black anger" and "white resentments" result from historical discrimination and social injustice (and the perception of it) nowadays - and that they have to be taken seriously. But it takes more than talking about the symptoms to fix one single cause. The idea must be to overcome race:
Again the central points are 1. perfecting the 2. one America.
At the end Obama secured the nomination as Democratic candidate for the presidential election with the last primaries on June 3, 2008. In the evening he gave his nomination speech in St. Paul with the main focus on reuniting the party after the tough fight with Hillary Clinton. His opponent on the Republican ticket was Senator John McCain who secured his candidacy 3 months before on March 4, 2008.
On a campaign tour around the world Obama introduced himself to international leaders in the Middle East and Europe. The highlight on this tour was for sure his speech on July 24th, 2008 in Berlin to 200,000 people around the Victory Column in Berlin - and the millions in front of the TV screens in the US. Here he put his message with profound references to history not only of Berlin into a global context:
Unfortunately, it was only two weeks later when so many called for the next Cold War when the conflict for South Ossetia between Russia and Georgia broke out - and called Obama's inexperience to people's mind and his comfortable lead in the polls started to shrink. But while many Western politicians including McCain ("Today, we are all Georgians!") were very fast to blame the Russians while the the sequence of events wasn't actually that clear.
Another three weeks later, on August 28, 2008 Obama accepted the nomination at the Democratic Convention in Denver after choosing Joe Biden as his running mate for Vice President. With the general election entering the critical stage his speech was much more aggressive, but still he did not divide the country but only separated himself clearly from John McCain:
The next day McCain presented Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate for Vice President. In my opinion he chose her to appeal to both disappointed Democratic voters of Hillary Clinton in the primaries and to the conservative Republican base. The surprising choice seemed to work out for McCain by electrifying the Republican base. He even took the lead in CNN's national polls of polls in early and mid September.
It was not before Palin gave two disastrous interviews and especially the economic crisis became acute that Obama gained ground again. McCain was criticized for his crisis management, not having a consistent campaign. He couldn't untie himself from the Bush government, which was hold responsible for the economic crisis, despite his reputation as maverick. As last argument he tried to denounce Obama as friend of a terrorist (because of his alleged connection to Bill Ayers) and socialist (because of his tax plan) while Obama could simply keep a steady hand: In his 30-minutes infomercial six days before the election Obama presented his program without even mentioning Bush or McCain. Simply everything played into Obama's cards. On November 4, 2008, after a nearly flawless campaign of more than 20 months, Senator Barack Hussein Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States and gave his victory speech later in the evening in Chicago.
So what do I expect from the President Obama? Not less than "changing the world"! That doesn't mean he is supposed to fix all problems the US face at the moment or even the world. He will have a hard time to solve only part of them within the next 4 years: tumbling economy, 2 wars, crumbling infrastructure, cracked image in the world, inefficient social security systems and imbalances in the constitutional powers. But I expect him to introduce another tone in US politics, to reach across the aisle not only in the US but also work together with the partners in a multilateral world.
I might be naive but I'm positive this will allow Obama to address the problems. If some of them can't be solved in his first term and not even in a possible second term it still might pave the way for the future. The world isn't just black and white as it was seen in the last 8 years. Obama often showed in the debates or his speeches that he is willing to see gray shades - and hopefully this change leads the world into a bright future :)
There is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America — there's the United States of America.
At the end of 2004 Obama didn't feel ready for running for president in 2008. Within the next 2 years he had changed his mind no longer ruling out to run:
When the election is over and my book tour is done, I will think about how I can be most useful to the country and how I can reconcile that with being a good dad and a good husband. I haven't completely decided or unraveled that puzzle yet.
It was the time when the media recognized his qualifications but questioned his experience to be ready in 2008. But there was no question he was going to play a bigger role in American politics in the future. At the end of October in 2006 the Time had a cover story on "why Barack Obama could be the next President". And the German author Florian Gathmann wrote recently in retrospect (German) to his 2-months scholarship in the summer of 2006 at the Chicago Tribune that there was no way around Obama:
In den folgenden zwei Monaten, die ich in Chicago bei der "Tribune" verbringe, ist an Barack Obama kein Vorbeikommen mehr.
His article "Der Gesegnete" (German, "The Blessed") was released on October 27, 2006 in German newspaper Thüringer Allgemeine, refering to Obama's first name Barack meaning "blessed" in Swahili. On February 10, 2007 Obama finally announced his candidacy giving the guideline for his politics:
That is our purpose here today. That is why I'm in this race. Not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation. I want to win that next battle — for justice and opportunity. I want to win that next battle — for better schools, and better jobs, and better health care for all. I want us to take up the unfinished business of perfecting our union, and building a better America.
It's this style of patriotism - loving the country, but looking for ways to perfect it, not ideologically! - that's so atypical for a politician and that impresses me the most.
But on July 7, 2007, when I flew to the US to work for one year in Philadelphia, I still had not heard of Obama at all. It must have been at some point within the next 3 months that I got to know him since I remember being all for Obama already at the Democratic debate at Drexel University in Philadelphia on October 30, 2007.
Eventually, on January 3, 2008 the primary season started - when Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was still expected to wrap up the nomination of the Democratic party on Super Tuesday (February 5, 2008). But she had a false start with losing Iowa to Obama - and no plan for beyond Super Tuesday.
Obama had it's own struggles with the unwelcome race issue bubbling up incarnated by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for 20 years. He could rebut the cliche of the "angry black man" by giving a speech on race in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008. He analyzed that "black anger" and "white resentments" result from historical discrimination and social injustice (and the perception of it) nowadays - and that they have to be taken seriously. But it takes more than talking about the symptoms to fix one single cause. The idea must be to overcome race:
It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper. [..]
This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. [..]
This time we want to talk about how the lines in the emergency room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care. [..]
This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job. [..]
This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag.
Again the central points are 1. perfecting the 2. one America.
At the end Obama secured the nomination as Democratic candidate for the presidential election with the last primaries on June 3, 2008. In the evening he gave his nomination speech in St. Paul with the main focus on reuniting the party after the tough fight with Hillary Clinton. His opponent on the Republican ticket was Senator John McCain who secured his candidacy 3 months before on March 4, 2008.
On a campaign tour around the world Obama introduced himself to international leaders in the Middle East and Europe. The highlight on this tour was for sure his speech on July 24th, 2008 in Berlin to 200,000 people around the Victory Column in Berlin - and the millions in front of the TV screens in the US. Here he put his message with profound references to history not only of Berlin into a global context:
The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down. [..]
In this century - in this city of all cities - we must reject the Cold War mind-set of the past, and resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must, and to seek a partnership that extends across this entire continent.
Unfortunately, it was only two weeks later when so many called for the next Cold War when the conflict for South Ossetia between Russia and Georgia broke out - and called Obama's inexperience to people's mind and his comfortable lead in the polls started to shrink. But while many Western politicians including McCain ("Today, we are all Georgians!") were very fast to blame the Russians while the the sequence of events wasn't actually that clear.
Another three weeks later, on August 28, 2008 Obama accepted the nomination at the Democratic Convention in Denver after choosing Joe Biden as his running mate for Vice President. With the general election entering the critical stage his speech was much more aggressive, but still he did not divide the country but only separated himself clearly from John McCain:
The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America - they have served the United States of America.
The next day McCain presented Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate for Vice President. In my opinion he chose her to appeal to both disappointed Democratic voters of Hillary Clinton in the primaries and to the conservative Republican base. The surprising choice seemed to work out for McCain by electrifying the Republican base. He even took the lead in CNN's national polls of polls in early and mid September.
It was not before Palin gave two disastrous interviews and especially the economic crisis became acute that Obama gained ground again. McCain was criticized for his crisis management, not having a consistent campaign. He couldn't untie himself from the Bush government, which was hold responsible for the economic crisis, despite his reputation as maverick. As last argument he tried to denounce Obama as friend of a terrorist (because of his alleged connection to Bill Ayers) and socialist (because of his tax plan) while Obama could simply keep a steady hand: In his 30-minutes infomercial six days before the election Obama presented his program without even mentioning Bush or McCain. Simply everything played into Obama's cards. On November 4, 2008, after a nearly flawless campaign of more than 20 months, Senator Barack Hussein Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States and gave his victory speech later in the evening in Chicago.
So what do I expect from the President Obama? Not less than "changing the world"! That doesn't mean he is supposed to fix all problems the US face at the moment or even the world. He will have a hard time to solve only part of them within the next 4 years: tumbling economy, 2 wars, crumbling infrastructure, cracked image in the world, inefficient social security systems and imbalances in the constitutional powers. But I expect him to introduce another tone in US politics, to reach across the aisle not only in the US but also work together with the partners in a multilateral world.
I might be naive but I'm positive this will allow Obama to address the problems. If some of them can't be solved in his first term and not even in a possible second term it still might pave the way for the future. The world isn't just black and white as it was seen in the last 8 years. Obama often showed in the debates or his speeches that he is willing to see gray shades - and hopefully this change leads the world into a bright future :)
03 June, 2008
Cause and Effect
Just 2 weeks ago I wrote about the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus arguing that allowing students to carry weapons on campuses would make them safer places. Obviously I don't agree with it, but think that's rather ridiculous. Now in the face of everyday incidents the British government started an advertising campaign supporting my point of view:
The campaign wants to make 2 points directly supporting their view though: The chance your knife is being used against you: A knife that you don't carry with you can obviously not be used against you. And (not only out of this) the only imaginary safety, similar to what I asked 2 weeks ago ("How do they think this is going to work out?"):
If you are not too sensitive watch the videos like the imaginary knife wounds lecture.
If you carry a knife, you are more likely to get stabbed yourself.The question is if this statement can stand deeper investigation, especially in terms of cause and effect. I expect at least the statistical correlation to be verifiable. I would not be surprised though if the actual correlation is between the crime rate of the districts those people live in and the chance of getting stabbed (which is a quite logical conclusion since stabbing is a crime on its own). And those people just carry knives with them to feel safer.
The campaign wants to make 2 points directly supporting their view though: The chance your knife is being used against you: A knife that you don't carry with you can obviously not be used against you. And (not only out of this) the only imaginary safety, similar to what I asked 2 weeks ago ("How do they think this is going to work out?"):
When someone is attacked by a knife they normally find out AFTER they have been stabbed.Whatever cause and effect are, the point is made - and I highly support it. Imagine only few people don't carry a knife anymore. The next time they argue they can't pull their knives immediately. They stay with words - or fists which are at least not as harmful as knives. Now just imagine what this means for the US and guns!
If you are not too sensitive watch the videos like the imaginary knife wounds lecture.
20 May, 2008
Some people just don't get it!
I would have thought students are just more intelligent but it seems that's not compelling reasoning. Have you heard of the SCCC, the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus? This organization is not affiliated with the NRA, but has the same ridiculous mindset: Guns for everyone will make this world a safer place. Actually I wrong them because they don't want guns for everyone but only
But that's not the point. The question is how more guns should make this happen. I mean how do they think this is going to work out? The person running amok is presenting himself and everybody got a free shot? I would rather fear that in such a situation full of panic self-proclaimed wannabe heroes just shoot wildly around and cause even more casualties. Ever heard of friendly fire? More than one fifth of the deaths in the Operation Desert Storm has been killed by friendly fire - and we are talking about professional soldiers here, in a "controlled" operation (as far as it is possible). Not hobby shooters with people running around panicking.
Also what do you think is going to happen when everybody is allowed to carry a weapon? Isn't it likely that the potential gunman will just take more powerful weapons, e.g. full-automatic ones or grenades? Just think about it, we are talking about people that want to cause as much damage and casualties as possible. There own life usually doesn't matter to them anymore. Another example, what happens in case of somebody taking hostages? Do you want to have uncontrollable people around trying to free the hostages and endangering their lifes?
The believe in weapons is naive to say it mildly. It's just hard to scare somebody who wants to sacrifice his life. That's why George W. Bush's War on Terror had to fail and that's why the idea of the SCCC or the NRA can't work - neither on campuses nor on the streets. Maybe it's just a problem of too many guns on the streets. Maybe somebody should just start thinking about the actual problems in the (American) society. But that would require intelligent people which I would have hoped you can find easily on universities.
those individuals--age twenty-one and above, in most states--who possess valid concealed handgun licenses/concealed carry weapons permits to be afforded the same right to carry on college campuses that they are currently afforded virtually everywhere else.
But that's not the point. The question is how more guns should make this happen. I mean how do they think this is going to work out? The person running amok is presenting himself and everybody got a free shot? I would rather fear that in such a situation full of panic self-proclaimed wannabe heroes just shoot wildly around and cause even more casualties. Ever heard of friendly fire? More than one fifth of the deaths in the Operation Desert Storm has been killed by friendly fire - and we are talking about professional soldiers here, in a "controlled" operation (as far as it is possible). Not hobby shooters with people running around panicking.
Also what do you think is going to happen when everybody is allowed to carry a weapon? Isn't it likely that the potential gunman will just take more powerful weapons, e.g. full-automatic ones or grenades? Just think about it, we are talking about people that want to cause as much damage and casualties as possible. There own life usually doesn't matter to them anymore. Another example, what happens in case of somebody taking hostages? Do you want to have uncontrollable people around trying to free the hostages and endangering their lifes?
The believe in weapons is naive to say it mildly. It's just hard to scare somebody who wants to sacrifice his life. That's why George W. Bush's War on Terror had to fail and that's why the idea of the SCCC or the NRA can't work - neither on campuses nor on the streets. Maybe it's just a problem of too many guns on the streets. Maybe somebody should just start thinking about the actual problems in the (American) society. But that would require intelligent people which I would have hoped you can find easily on universities.
10 February, 2008
Sharia is for Everyone!
One of the most ridiculous proposals I read lately was the one by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, who is also leader of the Anglican church. He proposed to allow certain parts of the Sharia, the central body for the Islamic law, to be used in western societies. By allowing Muslims to apply the Sharia in questions of day-to-day life like marital or financial matters he wants to raise the acceptance of Muslims for western life style.
In the first place I wonder why this is necessary at all? Yes, everybody should have the right to move to a place where he wants to live. And western societies seem to be very appealing because of their prosperity. But this prosperity results from a certain society model. So if somebody wants his part of the prosperity he has to be part of the society - including its rules and laws. It's not necessary to like everything, and there are definitely many things that can be improved in these societies. But immigrating people first have to accept the rules and laws - and not the rules and laws have to be changed for immigrating people!
Second why is the church that tolerant against the Islam? Let's have a look at other relevant groups like homosexuals. The same Dr. Rowan Williams on an openly gay bishop:
Another issue with this proposal is outlined by Henryk M. Broder (That's where the title of this post is from.): Can British who are not Muslims also select the rules of the Sharia - and only marry for a certain period? No longer "Until Death Do Us Part" for Christian marriage?
Broder writes often about inter-cultural matters. Lately he wrote an article entitled Suicide for Fear of Dead (German). And that's really what the actions (German) in these western societies look like:
Respect for other cultures is good - but this goes way too far. Do officials in Arabic countries fast during the Lenting season? Can basic rights in voting still be assured if the person voting can not even be identified? I wonder what they are doing on the air ports - or is security more important than those fundamental rights?
Another ridiculous proposal came from the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan: Germany should establish Turkish high schools and universities. (Turks are by far the biggest group of immigrants in Germany.) Necla Kelek calls his push for Turkish educational institutions an "intrigue against integration" (German) - and I fully agree with her. This does not help with integration but makes the separation permanent.
Yes, a lot has been done wrong in integration of immigrants in many western societies. But the examples above are misunderstood integration. Integration means helping the immigrants to adapt their way of living, to learn the language and the culture. It does not mean that the immigrants have to give up their own culture - as long as the habits comply with the rules and laws. And especially it does not mean that the affiliating society has to change for the immigrants.
Lately there was also a discussion in Germany about integration. It all got started with a brutal attack on a pensioner by a Greek and a Turkish young man in Munich. State Governor of Hesse, Roland Koch, used this as an opportunity to make an embarrassing and polemic election campaign against "criminal young foreigners". Indeed the ratio of foreigners to the whole population is disproportionate to the committed crimes in Germany. (The numbers are quite different. While they form around 10% of the German population around 20% of the suspected criminals (German) are immigrants.) But this is probably more a problem of social background than origin - foreigners are just not criminals per se. And here we are back to the questions of integration. According to the PISA study in hardly any country the social background determines the future chances as much as in Germany. By the way, not suprisingly Roland Koch got applause from the Neo-Nazis for his campaign - and luckily it backfired though his party still won the election.
So the western societies definitely have to do their homework in questions of integration - not by giving up their culture or basic rights, but by welcoming the immigrants, by helping them to get started and provide fair chances. Starting a new life in Germany does not seem to be easy. The people still have to learn a lot, even after 50 years of major integration. Eventually Germany can't without immigrants.
Update: There is now also an article about Dr. Rowan Williams available on the English Spiegel Online website, taken from Der Spiegel magazine, which provides more background information.
Update: Henryk M. Broder wrote a new article on this topic, in particular on Geert Wilders and the recently released Islam-critical video "Fitna". Due to serious threats to the LiveLeak staff the video had to be removed for some time from the web site though it's now back online. Is there any further need to comment on this?
In the first place I wonder why this is necessary at all? Yes, everybody should have the right to move to a place where he wants to live. And western societies seem to be very appealing because of their prosperity. But this prosperity results from a certain society model. So if somebody wants his part of the prosperity he has to be part of the society - including its rules and laws. It's not necessary to like everything, and there are definitely many things that can be improved in these societies. But immigrating people first have to accept the rules and laws - and not the rules and laws have to be changed for immigrating people!
Second why is the church that tolerant against the Islam? Let's have a look at other relevant groups like homosexuals. The same Dr. Rowan Williams on an openly gay bishop:
In most of our provinces the election of Canon Gene Robinson would not have been possible since his chosen lifestyle would give rise to a canonical impediment to his consecration as a bishop.In my opinion that's hypocritical.
If his consecration proceeds, we recognise that we have reached a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican Communion and we have had to conclude that the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy.
Another issue with this proposal is outlined by Henryk M. Broder (That's where the title of this post is from.): Can British who are not Muslims also select the rules of the Sharia - and only marry for a certain period? No longer "Until Death Do Us Part" for Christian marriage?
Broder writes often about inter-cultural matters. Lately he wrote an article entitled Suicide for Fear of Dead (German). And that's really what the actions (German) in these western societies look like:
- In Brussels (Belgium) policemen were instructed to no longer smoke and drink in public during Ramadan - to not offend Muslims.
- In Zürich (Switzerland) they should even refrain from drinking and eating for one day - to learn more about Islamic culture.
- The BBC appends "Peace be upon him" whenever they name the Prophet. Broder mentions that it might be ridiculous when the BBC reports about suicide bombers in the name of Allah and the Prophet, peace be upon him.
- Following the British interior ministry "Islamic extremism" is now "anti-Islamic activities".
- The Bishop of Breda (Netherlands), Tiny Muskens, proposed to rename God to Allah.
- In Canada completely veiled women are allowed to vote when they have two identity certifications and one witness of identity.
Respect for other cultures is good - but this goes way too far. Do officials in Arabic countries fast during the Lenting season? Can basic rights in voting still be assured if the person voting can not even be identified? I wonder what they are doing on the air ports - or is security more important than those fundamental rights?
Another ridiculous proposal came from the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan: Germany should establish Turkish high schools and universities. (Turks are by far the biggest group of immigrants in Germany.) Necla Kelek calls his push for Turkish educational institutions an "intrigue against integration" (German) - and I fully agree with her. This does not help with integration but makes the separation permanent.
Yes, a lot has been done wrong in integration of immigrants in many western societies. But the examples above are misunderstood integration. Integration means helping the immigrants to adapt their way of living, to learn the language and the culture. It does not mean that the immigrants have to give up their own culture - as long as the habits comply with the rules and laws. And especially it does not mean that the affiliating society has to change for the immigrants.
Lately there was also a discussion in Germany about integration. It all got started with a brutal attack on a pensioner by a Greek and a Turkish young man in Munich. State Governor of Hesse, Roland Koch, used this as an opportunity to make an embarrassing and polemic election campaign against "criminal young foreigners". Indeed the ratio of foreigners to the whole population is disproportionate to the committed crimes in Germany. (The numbers are quite different. While they form around 10% of the German population around 20% of the suspected criminals (German) are immigrants.) But this is probably more a problem of social background than origin - foreigners are just not criminals per se. And here we are back to the questions of integration. According to the PISA study in hardly any country the social background determines the future chances as much as in Germany. By the way, not suprisingly Roland Koch got applause from the Neo-Nazis for his campaign - and luckily it backfired though his party still won the election.
So the western societies definitely have to do their homework in questions of integration - not by giving up their culture or basic rights, but by welcoming the immigrants, by helping them to get started and provide fair chances. Starting a new life in Germany does not seem to be easy. The people still have to learn a lot, even after 50 years of major integration. Eventually Germany can't without immigrants.
Update: There is now also an article about Dr. Rowan Williams available on the English Spiegel Online website, taken from Der Spiegel magazine, which provides more background information.
Update: Henryk M. Broder wrote a new article on this topic, in particular on Geert Wilders and the recently released Islam-critical video "Fitna". Due to serious threats to the LiveLeak staff the video had to be removed for some time from the web site though it's now back online. Is there any further need to comment on this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)