Imagine facebook in reality
and learn about the danger of sharing your privacy in public
-->click on the title to watch the video!
*be aware: Facebook is just one (the most common) example! There are many other social networks to be conscious of!
References:
Facebook in Reality http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrlSkU0TFLs;
The Truth about Facebook http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B37wW9CGWyY.
2010-01-29
further Moment of Zen #18 (for August 18, 2009)
Does "Englis(c)h" ruin our native language?
Not only since the youth slang dominates our spoken language in everyday life, the German language gets lost.
It is no longer "Hallo, na, wie geht es dir so?" but "Hi, wie isset?"
And much worse, people are mixing up the grammar: It is no longer "Tims Fernseher" but "Dem Tim sein Fernseh" or "nach Aldi" (mixing up the four cases: Dative and Genitive) instead of "zu Aldi" (as if this shop was a city).
Another heavy influence has the English language. Which is, as we learned, the new universal language: without it - you're lost. Obviously even in your native country: What about simply saying "Ich brauche einen Ausdruck davon" instead of "Ich brauche ein print out davon" Augmented anglicisms float into our native language, so that nowadays we are not able to have a proper German conversation with our friends (believe me - I tried to!).
So what are the reasons why? And is this change a bad one?
Maybe it is because of globalization (isn't that the reason for everything?), maybe it is because of a bad educational background (some old-fashioners could argue), maybe it is because of the teenagers have too much time these days (the same old-fashioners), or maybe it is a lack of conscious: Because nobody actually cares about the right way of talking anymore. Or maybe it is just the course of time. Maybe having a language being heavy influenced by the world language Number one can be a challenge. Maybe it can open up new vistas for us.
Or maybe it cannot. We will see when time goes by.
But what about the media?
Since they changed the spelling a perceived hundred thousand times since, even the journalists (who in most cases studied their languages, communication studies or studies in their specific area of reporting) have got their problems with writing (and talking) properly. What we learned in primary school can be wrong in junior high can be wrong in high school can be wrong at college can be wrong in voluntary service can be wrong afterwards. It seems like the spelling reform did nothing but confusing everyone. And even teachers make a lot of mistakes and pass them on to the next generation. So it used to happen that our language got rotten. And this is the reformer's fault. And not the English's fault.
So don't ask yourself what your language can do for you. Ask yourself: What can you do for your language?
For further reading:
http://www.weikopf.de/index.php?article_id=69
http://www.atlantic-times.com/archive_detail.php?recordID=279
Not only since the youth slang dominates our spoken language in everyday life, the German language gets lost.
It is no longer "Hallo, na, wie geht es dir so?" but "Hi, wie isset?"
And much worse, people are mixing up the grammar: It is no longer "Tims Fernseher" but "Dem Tim sein Fernseh" or "nach Aldi" (mixing up the four cases: Dative and Genitive) instead of "zu Aldi" (as if this shop was a city).
Another heavy influence has the English language. Which is, as we learned, the new universal language: without it - you're lost. Obviously even in your native country: What about simply saying "Ich brauche einen Ausdruck davon" instead of "Ich brauche ein print out davon" Augmented anglicisms float into our native language, so that nowadays we are not able to have a proper German conversation with our friends (believe me - I tried to!).
So what are the reasons why? And is this change a bad one?
Maybe it is because of globalization (isn't that the reason for everything?), maybe it is because of a bad educational background (some old-fashioners could argue), maybe it is because of the teenagers have too much time these days (the same old-fashioners), or maybe it is a lack of conscious: Because nobody actually cares about the right way of talking anymore. Or maybe it is just the course of time. Maybe having a language being heavy influenced by the world language Number one can be a challenge. Maybe it can open up new vistas for us.
Or maybe it cannot. We will see when time goes by.
But what about the media?
Since they changed the spelling a perceived hundred thousand times since, even the journalists (who in most cases studied their languages, communication studies or studies in their specific area of reporting) have got their problems with writing (and talking) properly. What we learned in primary school can be wrong in junior high can be wrong in high school can be wrong at college can be wrong in voluntary service can be wrong afterwards. It seems like the spelling reform did nothing but confusing everyone. And even teachers make a lot of mistakes and pass them on to the next generation. So it used to happen that our language got rotten. And this is the reformer's fault. And not the English's fault.
So don't ask yourself what your language can do for you. Ask yourself: What can you do for your language?
For further reading:
http://www.weikopf.de/index.php?article_id=69
http://www.atlantic-times.com/archive_detail.php?recordID=279
2009-11-17
further Moment of Zen #17 (for August 11, 2009)
"to unfriend so."
"Unfriend" just became the 2009 Word of the Year in the New Oxford American Dictionary.
It's a verb, as in "You can unfriend people by clicking 'Remove from Friends' at the bottom of their profiles."
References:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/facebook?ref=nf /
http://blog.oup.com/2009/11/unfriend
"Unfriend" just became the 2009 Word of the Year in the New Oxford American Dictionary.
It's a verb, as in "You can unfriend people by clicking 'Remove from Friends' at the bottom of their profiles."
References:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/facebook?ref=nf /
http://blog.oup.com/2009/11/unfriend
2009-08-03
further Moment of Zen #16 (for August 4, 2009)
Duden saw Twitter
It is official.
Twitter has just got it.
Now “to twitter” (or simply German: “twittern”) is an officially accredited word like ”to breath”, “to eat” or “to sleep” – for many people it might be similarly important.
The “Duden” (which is the most common encyclopedia in Germany in a long tradition) admitted Twitter to join his new edition (25. Auflage, Juli 2009).
Therewith it became as popular as Google, which is (“to google” / “googeln”) in the Duden since 2006. And if you compare both of them – on the one hand the big, huge, always consulted by the whole international public web crawler Google and on the other hand this Cell-Phone-service – Twitter must be used very often to owe such a privilege.
With “twittern” a lot of other web-based-vocabulary got into the Duden like:
"Blogosphäre, Blu-Ray, Buschfunk, Datenklau, DAU, Entpacken, Handy-TV, Internetaffin, Internetfernsehen, Nickname, Onlinedurchsuchung, Vorratsdatenspeicherung, Web 2.0, Wiki"
But quite “normal” / interesting words as well like:
"Ehrenmord, Ersti, Fernbeziehung, Frauenversteher, Heizpilz, Hüftgold, It-Girl, Komasaufen, Konjunkturpaket, Mehrgenerationenhaus, Produktpiraterie, Sommermärchen, Stockbrot, Vorglühen"
Twitter is arising. Get used to it.
References:
DUDEN: die deutsche Rechtschreibung. Band 1. 24. Auflage, Mannheim, August 2006. Page 463.
http://www.duden.de
http://www.duden.de/presse/detail.php?id=871
It is official.
Twitter has just got it.
Now “to twitter” (or simply German: “twittern”) is an officially accredited word like ”to breath”, “to eat” or “to sleep” – for many people it might be similarly important.
The “Duden” (which is the most common encyclopedia in Germany in a long tradition) admitted Twitter to join his new edition (25. Auflage, Juli 2009).
Therewith it became as popular as Google, which is (“to google” / “googeln”) in the Duden since 2006. And if you compare both of them – on the one hand the big, huge, always consulted by the whole international public web crawler Google and on the other hand this Cell-Phone-service – Twitter must be used very often to owe such a privilege.
With “twittern” a lot of other web-based-vocabulary got into the Duden like:
"Blogosphäre, Blu-Ray, Buschfunk, Datenklau, DAU, Entpacken, Handy-TV, Internetaffin, Internetfernsehen, Nickname, Onlinedurchsuchung, Vorratsdatenspeicherung, Web 2.0, Wiki"
But quite “normal” / interesting words as well like:
"Ehrenmord, Ersti, Fernbeziehung, Frauenversteher, Heizpilz, Hüftgold, It-Girl, Komasaufen, Konjunkturpaket, Mehrgenerationenhaus, Produktpiraterie, Sommermärchen, Stockbrot, Vorglühen"
Twitter is arising. Get used to it.
References:
DUDEN: die deutsche Rechtschreibung. Band 1. 24. Auflage, Mannheim, August 2006. Page 463.
http://www.duden.de
http://www.duden.de/presse/detail.php?id=871
2009-07-25
2009-07-20
conclusion (for July 21, 2009)
So, you guys!
My blog is polished now - the course is almost over, the semester as well.
It was a great experience to do all this "politics in the new media"-stuff" and we all learned a lot. :)
I would always choose to take this course again. Well done!
Hope, you'll all have nice holidays!
See you next semester then.
I'd be happy if you'd consult my blog furthermore...!
----------------------------------------------------------
WITH SPECIAL THANKS TO
OUR BRILLIANT COURSE-INSTRUCTOR
SVETLANA MAKEYEVA !
for competence, good advice,
sympathy and a dear person
at any time.
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm looking forward.
Love,
Kirsty
My blog is polished now - the course is almost over, the semester as well.
It was a great experience to do all this "politics in the new media"-stuff" and we all learned a lot. :)
I would always choose to take this course again. Well done!
Hope, you'll all have nice holidays!
See you next semester then.
I'd be happy if you'd consult my blog furthermore...!
----------------------------------------------------------
WITH SPECIAL THANKS TO
OUR BRILLIANT COURSE-INSTRUCTOR
SVETLANA MAKEYEVA !
for competence, good advice,
sympathy and a dear person
at any time.
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm looking forward.
Love,
Kirsty
Moment of Zen #14 (for July 21, 2009)
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Moment of Zen #2 (for April 28, 2009)
Just no interest?
About disenchantment with politics
If you ask any person on the street here in Germany or Europe „What do you think about politics?“ nearly everybody – that’s the sad thing – will give you an answer like “Politics? Oh, I don’t care.” or “I have no idea.” That is so depressing. Everyone should have – even if it’s just a small glimpse – an opinion, should have a vague idea of what is going on actually That is a general knowledge: People tend to solely be interested in politics if there is no other possibility – like an upcoming war explicitly affecting them personally – and for no other reason.
That is the way life goes. And to get people interested in a topic you will usually have to find some part that is related to them. No reference? No interest.
But if you ask these people about Obama – suddenly everybody has an opinion…
* very old stuff !
About disenchantment with politics
If you ask any person on the street here in Germany or Europe „What do you think about politics?“ nearly everybody – that’s the sad thing – will give you an answer like “Politics? Oh, I don’t care.” or “I have no idea.” That is so depressing. Everyone should have – even if it’s just a small glimpse – an opinion, should have a vague idea of what is going on actually That is a general knowledge: People tend to solely be interested in politics if there is no other possibility – like an upcoming war explicitly affecting them personally – and for no other reason.
That is the way life goes. And to get people interested in a topic you will usually have to find some part that is related to them. No reference? No interest.
But if you ask these people about Obama – suddenly everybody has an opinion…
* very old stuff !
Moment of Zen #1 (for April 21, 2009)
First think, then vote!
(American) People used to not think about politics before Obama in such a huge magnitude. Luckily they started when the hype about Obama began.
They should have done much earlier. If they did, they probably wouldn’t have voted for Bush Junior after the regency of his father, would they? They could have anticipated the quality of his son’s politics (unless a behavior like Iraq, Katrina, … could not have been foreseen).
But unfortunately a huge number of people did not learn as much as they should have and confirmed him in his office after four years.
Obama is a good orator. But if he can really do and make things happen – that is what future will show. But we are already on a good track…!
*very old stuff !
(American) People used to not think about politics before Obama in such a huge magnitude. Luckily they started when the hype about Obama began.
They should have done much earlier. If they did, they probably wouldn’t have voted for Bush Junior after the regency of his father, would they? They could have anticipated the quality of his son’s politics (unless a behavior like Iraq, Katrina, … could not have been foreseen).
But unfortunately a huge number of people did not learn as much as they should have and confirmed him in his office after four years.
Obama is a good orator. But if he can really do and make things happen – that is what future will show. But we are already on a good track…!
*very old stuff !
2009-07-19
Moment of Zen #12.2 (for July 7, 2009)
The Revolution will not be televised?
The revolution will not be televised. As Joe Trippi already told us.
Where is the media if whole peoples are killed? No newsworthiness? The revolution will not be televised.
But what about humanity? Ten people killed in Iraq. Who cares? And who cares without media coverage? The revolution will not be televised.
What about forgotten wars? Who cares about all those things like human rights, relief services, donations, etc. etc. without the media? Hardly conceivable. The revolution will not be televised.
People around the world are not able to make their experiences concerning happenings around the world by themselves. So we do finally need the media to bring them to us. Don’t let us down!
The revolution will not be televised? That's true. Iran doesn't want that.
They calmed down the citizens, journalists and politicians. They could disclose Ahmadinedschads election fraud. And the government cannot accept that.
But they didn't count on the public. And the world's public.
They will not let themselves be shut up. So – with our global correspondents, cameramen, technicians chained – blogging is the only way out here.
Luckily one has to admit. Luckily we got communities like twitter or facebook (even though you still have the same problems with them like no professionalism, no transparency of information, no checked sources – such as the example of “Neda”). Otherwise we would just get know: “We do not know anything. We are repressed.”
This is electoral freedom. This is freedom of speech. This is freedom of press.
“Where is my voice?!”
See further links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS3QOtbW4m0 /
http://edition.cnn.com/CNNI/Programs/political.mann
The revolution will not be televised. As Joe Trippi already told us.
Where is the media if whole peoples are killed? No newsworthiness? The revolution will not be televised.
But what about humanity? Ten people killed in Iraq. Who cares? And who cares without media coverage? The revolution will not be televised.
What about forgotten wars? Who cares about all those things like human rights, relief services, donations, etc. etc. without the media? Hardly conceivable. The revolution will not be televised.
People around the world are not able to make their experiences concerning happenings around the world by themselves. So we do finally need the media to bring them to us. Don’t let us down!
The revolution will not be televised? That's true. Iran doesn't want that.
They calmed down the citizens, journalists and politicians. They could disclose Ahmadinedschads election fraud. And the government cannot accept that.
But they didn't count on the public. And the world's public.
They will not let themselves be shut up. So – with our global correspondents, cameramen, technicians chained – blogging is the only way out here.
Luckily one has to admit. Luckily we got communities like twitter or facebook (even though you still have the same problems with them like no professionalism, no transparency of information, no checked sources – such as the example of “Neda”). Otherwise we would just get know: “We do not know anything. We are repressed.”
This is electoral freedom. This is freedom of speech. This is freedom of press.
“Where is my voice?!”
See further links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS3QOtbW4m0 /
http://edition.cnn.com/CNNI/Programs/political.mann
2009-07-13
Moment of Zen #13 (for July 14, 2009)
Don’t slumber your life away!
Thursday, 2:02 p.m.
A wonderful sunny warm Pentecost-weekend lies ahead of us.
I’m sitting in the train diagonally through the Ruhr Area.
Outside hedges and trees, streets and cars, buildings and skyscrapers fly by.
And what do the people do?!
Regarding this unbelievable plurality of our beloved homeland and wallow in euphoria?
Oh no.
They sleep!
Everyone’s sleeping!
Earnestly.
I mean honestly. What the-
Is it due to the occurring weekend? to the time of day? to the season? or to this grey weather?
Look around you! The so called “carbon-pot” as it is called by natives, however is damn beautiful!
I use to take this roadway every day as well – and I still just can’t get enough of it!
See link:
http://www.ruhrgebiet.de /
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0Mzqd-9J8E
*for everyone who ain't lovin any other region <3
Thursday, 2:02 p.m.
A wonderful sunny warm Pentecost-weekend lies ahead of us.
I’m sitting in the train diagonally through the Ruhr Area.
Outside hedges and trees, streets and cars, buildings and skyscrapers fly by.
And what do the people do?!
Regarding this unbelievable plurality of our beloved homeland and wallow in euphoria?
Oh no.
They sleep!
Everyone’s sleeping!
Earnestly.
I mean honestly. What the-
Is it due to the occurring weekend? to the time of day? to the season? or to this grey weather?
Look around you! The so called “carbon-pot” as it is called by natives, however is damn beautiful!
I use to take this roadway every day as well – and I still just can’t get enough of it!
See link:
http://www.ruhrgebiet.de /
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0Mzqd-9J8E
*for everyone who ain't lovin any other region <3
Moment of Zen #12 (for July 7, 2009)
Twitter – the rising king
Boom of Blogs
Watch out for twitter: A new star is arising on the internet-market-firmament.
In May 2009 it reached a mass of 37,3mio Users!
(it already took out AOL with 33mio. Members!) His great aunt facebook got more than 200mio. users actually and the German equivalent had around a mio. users by 2006.
And even Google and Microsoft established an own search engine for twitterers.
twitter – which has to be described with ‘to chirp’ – is a social network where you can share everything you want (e.g. what you’re doing just at the moment – text, pictures, music, videos, … ) with everyone you want to let know. From your computer, your notebook or just easily from en-route. One Tweet offers a maximum volume of 140 signs.
It became popular in the widespread public during the 2008 elections. Former Senator Obama used this platform to reach young or mobile citizens as well. Knocking on the door, 11 a.m. in the morning won’t work if everyone is at work.
And even the German politicians try it out for their campaigns nowadays as well – but just with minor success. Twitter got around 50.000 German users by 2009. And the rate is increasing significantly. The news attracting the world’s attention – first published on Twitter. No professional medium is that quick. Information, pictures, videos etc. are uploaded immediately. Brilliant communication!
But is it trustable?
No funded research. No double-checking. No professionalism.
Good fast interesting interactive new media? Or doom of the serious traditional media? The Hudson hero, massacre of Winnenden, case of Neda, Michael Jackson’s death, … was all being twittered at first.
Everything unchecked, just published. Attracts the people’s attention. Shows skewed opinions, draws a broken-mirror-picture of the whole thing.
But not only private persons or news-companies use this platform to express themselves, people with special interest do so as well: companies try to communicate with their clients to do Public Relation and celebs use their social life to get even more famous. The problem is that you cannot check personal profiles. So some free-riders use the celeb’s publicity to get more famous as well or to just have made a good joke.
So - let twitter rule our information-agenda?
References:
http://www.n-tv.de/technik/Twitter-weiter-im-Hoehenflug-article395230.html
http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics
http://studivz.irgendwo.org/
http://www.tecchannel.de/news/themen/business/410121/ueber_33_millionen_aol_mitglieder
Boom of Blogs
Watch out for twitter: A new star is arising on the internet-market-firmament.
In May 2009 it reached a mass of 37,3mio Users!
(it already took out AOL with 33mio. Members!) His great aunt facebook got more than 200mio. users actually and the German equivalent had around a mio. users by 2006.
And even Google and Microsoft established an own search engine for twitterers.
twitter – which has to be described with ‘to chirp’ – is a social network where you can share everything you want (e.g. what you’re doing just at the moment – text, pictures, music, videos, … ) with everyone you want to let know. From your computer, your notebook or just easily from en-route. One Tweet offers a maximum volume of 140 signs.
It became popular in the widespread public during the 2008 elections. Former Senator Obama used this platform to reach young or mobile citizens as well. Knocking on the door, 11 a.m. in the morning won’t work if everyone is at work.
And even the German politicians try it out for their campaigns nowadays as well – but just with minor success. Twitter got around 50.000 German users by 2009. And the rate is increasing significantly. The news attracting the world’s attention – first published on Twitter. No professional medium is that quick. Information, pictures, videos etc. are uploaded immediately. Brilliant communication!
But is it trustable?
No funded research. No double-checking. No professionalism.
Good fast interesting interactive new media? Or doom of the serious traditional media? The Hudson hero, massacre of Winnenden, case of Neda, Michael Jackson’s death, … was all being twittered at first.
Everything unchecked, just published. Attracts the people’s attention. Shows skewed opinions, draws a broken-mirror-picture of the whole thing.
But not only private persons or news-companies use this platform to express themselves, people with special interest do so as well: companies try to communicate with their clients to do Public Relation and celebs use their social life to get even more famous. The problem is that you cannot check personal profiles. So some free-riders use the celeb’s publicity to get more famous as well or to just have made a good joke.
So - let twitter rule our information-agenda?
References:
http://www.n-tv.de/technik/Twitter-weiter-im-Hoehenflug-article395230.html
http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics
http://studivz.irgendwo.org/
http://www.tecchannel.de/news/themen/business/410121/ueber_33_millionen_aol_mitglieder
Moment of Zen #11.2 (for June 30, 2009)
How did your Tech Usage change?
Doing the quiz
When I started this course at University I had an email-access. One.
According to this quiz I was a “Media Mover”
-> information and creativity.
Healthy.
Now I am addicted.
4 email-addresses, StudiVZ, facebook, Myspace and several other communities, ICQ, MSN, TS2, a Blog, Twitter, YouTube, eBay, Amazon, … did I forget something?
It’s horrible.
And it’s time-killing.
Learning? Indication error.
Is there an emergencyexit? – hopefully it is (special thanks to Sveta):
http://blog.futurelab.net/2008/05/are_you_suffering_from_faceboo.html
(By the way, I received this link via facebook)
According to this quiz I am a Digital Collaborator now.
-> information technology shared with others (“communitist”).
Unhealthy.
And of course I speak the language perfectly. Not to mention all those smiley-combinations.
Thx. Np.
Brb. Kay.
Re. Wb.
Lol. Rofl.
Jumbled mess of letters?
Thanks. No problem.
Be right back. Okay.
Returned. Welcome back.
Laughing Out Loud. Rolling Over Floor Laughing.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Take the quiz:
http://www.pewinternet.org/Participate/What-Kind-of-Tech-User-Are-You.aspx
and free yourself:
http://blog.futurelab.net/2008/05/are_you_suffering_from_faceboo.html
Doing the quiz
When I started this course at University I had an email-access. One.
According to this quiz I was a “Media Mover”
-> information and creativity.
Healthy.
Now I am addicted.
4 email-addresses, StudiVZ, facebook, Myspace and several other communities, ICQ, MSN, TS2, a Blog, Twitter, YouTube, eBay, Amazon, … did I forget something?
It’s horrible.
And it’s time-killing.
Learning? Indication error.
Is there an emergencyexit? – hopefully it is (special thanks to Sveta):
http://blog.futurelab.net/2008/05/are_you_suffering_from_faceboo.html
(By the way, I received this link via facebook)
According to this quiz I am a Digital Collaborator now.
-> information technology shared with others (“communitist”).
Unhealthy.
And of course I speak the language perfectly. Not to mention all those smiley-combinations.
Thx. Np.
Brb. Kay.
Re. Wb.
Lol. Rofl.
Jumbled mess of letters?
Thanks. No problem.
Be right back. Okay.
Returned. Welcome back.
Laughing Out Loud. Rolling Over Floor Laughing.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Take the quiz:
http://www.pewinternet.org/Participate/What-Kind-of-Tech-User-Are-You.aspx
and free yourself:
http://blog.futurelab.net/2008/05/are_you_suffering_from_faceboo.html
Moment of Zen #11 (for June 30, 2009)
Is race supervalued?
I thought about
writing something
about the Bradley
Effect in relation to Obama in the 2008 elections.
The Bradley Effect is what turns out
not-white-candidates in a political election to
actually pass office, even though they already won the pre-elections.
Voters proclaim officially to vote for the black candidate to pretend they are no racists. But when the chips are down, they do make their “X” for the white candidate.
Those elections are in fact – sadly to say but true – always a decision for or against a black person. That is the same with gender. Or ethnicity / religion / disability / age / illness / sexuality (see Article 3, German constitution). Sure, not to be named the same but in the people’s views tragically quite similar.
The “Bradley Effect” is named by former LA-Mayor Tom Bradley, a black man who lost the 1982 governor’s race despite contrary prognoses. Or called the “Wilder Effect” after VA-Governor Doug Wilder, who had a good perspective but hardly won with bravery.
But I came to the conclusion that I do not want to do so.
Because it is not right to mention it at all.
People are not different because of being man or woman, young or old, black or white, Christian or Muslim, inside or outside of a wheelchair, gay or hetero. This is what is already marked in our constitution. But why isn’t that remarked in our heads as well?
Sure, there is maybe some cultural and educational difference, but this does not turn these minorities out to be “abnormal” or “kind of strange(rs)”.
Of course if there is such an opinion occurring in the people’s minds, this must be talked over. To erase those limited views.
Juggling with clichés does not help you here.
But it is the fact that those opinions shouldn’t even exist which is the solution.
Me, personally – I do not have this view in my daily life. It is owing to my upbringing that I do not look at people thinking “well, are they black, or maybe just a bit colored or Muslim or homosexual” because I assume talking to a person out of sorts. I do not have that view on life. On our fellows. Thanks, family / teachers / friends!
So, why do a lot of people do so?
Is it education? Environment?
Must be something really going wrong here!
References:
http://www.bundestag.de/parlament/funktion/gesetze/Grundgesetz/gg_01.html
I thought about
writing something
about the Bradley
Effect in relation to Obama in the 2008 elections.
The Bradley Effect is what turns out
not-white-candidates in a political election to
actually pass office, even though they already won the pre-elections.
Voters proclaim officially to vote for the black candidate to pretend they are no racists. But when the chips are down, they do make their “X” for the white candidate.
Those elections are in fact – sadly to say but true – always a decision for or against a black person. That is the same with gender. Or ethnicity / religion / disability / age / illness / sexuality (see Article 3, German constitution). Sure, not to be named the same but in the people’s views tragically quite similar.
The “Bradley Effect” is named by former LA-Mayor Tom Bradley, a black man who lost the 1982 governor’s race despite contrary prognoses. Or called the “Wilder Effect” after VA-Governor Doug Wilder, who had a good perspective but hardly won with bravery.
But I came to the conclusion that I do not want to do so.
Because it is not right to mention it at all.
People are not different because of being man or woman, young or old, black or white, Christian or Muslim, inside or outside of a wheelchair, gay or hetero. This is what is already marked in our constitution. But why isn’t that remarked in our heads as well?
Sure, there is maybe some cultural and educational difference, but this does not turn these minorities out to be “abnormal” or “kind of strange(rs)”.
Of course if there is such an opinion occurring in the people’s minds, this must be talked over. To erase those limited views.
Juggling with clichés does not help you here.
But it is the fact that those opinions shouldn’t even exist which is the solution.
Me, personally – I do not have this view in my daily life. It is owing to my upbringing that I do not look at people thinking “well, are they black, or maybe just a bit colored or Muslim or homosexual” because I assume talking to a person out of sorts. I do not have that view on life. On our fellows. Thanks, family / teachers / friends!
So, why do a lot of people do so?
Is it education? Environment?
Must be something really going wrong here!
References:
http://www.bundestag.de/parlament/funktion/gesetze/Grundgesetz/gg_01.html
Moment of Zen #10.2 (for June 23, 2009)
Steinmeimania
Frank-Walter Steinmeier – in short “f-w” for his campaign – is the former member of the German social-democratic party and their candidate for chancellor. He tries the US-fad to gain the European Elections and Bundestag elections by a kind of German-Obamania. “Steinmeimania”.
He tries to suit voters via StudiVZ/MeinVZ (the German national facebook), facebook, twitter, an interactive internet portal and whatever medium: pointing out how awesome he is, how brilliant his politics is, and how participatory his party is. And of course – how bad all the other parties are. Their slogan: “Financial sharks would vote for FDP. Minimum wages would vote for CDU. Hot air would vote for DIE LINKE.”
He uses his forenames like Hillary did, uses new media (in a dimension that tend to even be spam) and merchandise like Obama did, tries to mobilize the citizens, talks big like every successful politician should do…
No bad idea. But in fact it was the conservatives who gained the elections all over Europe. Even though they partly tend to not even occur in those social networks. No messages-all-the-time, no spam, no donation-/participating-appeal, no chivvy.
And it can be anticipated that the middle-/middle-left parties tend to lose the national elections most likely as well.
So why doesn’t that strategy work here as well?
Is it because of not being in America – Land of opportunity, country of voting-euphoria?
Because of the Germans / Europeans in general not being that euphemistic, mobile, interested in politics, or hardly national-orientated?
Or because of not being interested in Europe as a community?
Or because of not being Obama, man of all international hope?
Or because of trying to be kind of a new Obama instead of being himself?
Or is it because of inner-party-problems and a missing structure?
Or is it because his “middle-left-in-the-past-labor-party” struggles in this financial crisis even though it was their political enemies who helped carrying the crisis forward?
Or was it because of not being able to stand their ground in the past grand coalition?
Or is it because of Steinmeiers personality, who turned out to just not have the balls as like Merkel showed up when criticism occurred?
Or is it because voters simply do not like smear campaigns?
I guess all these factors prized the SPD out of the market by themselves.
All this new-media-campaign does not work if you chose the wrong agency.
But whatever it was: New media solely won’t help the SPD out of here.
Just remember where you come from.
Remember your roots and everything will be fine.
Change your campaign. Not your media.
Otherwise you will fail.
References:
http://www.wahlkampf09.de/2009/4/finanzhaie-wrden-fdp-whlen
Frank-Walter Steinmeier – in short “f-w” for his campaign – is the former member of the German social-democratic party and their candidate for chancellor. He tries the US-fad to gain the European Elections and Bundestag elections by a kind of German-Obamania. “Steinmeimania”.
He tries to suit voters via StudiVZ/MeinVZ (the German national facebook), facebook, twitter, an interactive internet portal and whatever medium: pointing out how awesome he is, how brilliant his politics is, and how participatory his party is. And of course – how bad all the other parties are. Their slogan: “Financial sharks would vote for FDP. Minimum wages would vote for CDU. Hot air would vote for DIE LINKE.”
He uses his forenames like Hillary did, uses new media (in a dimension that tend to even be spam) and merchandise like Obama did, tries to mobilize the citizens, talks big like every successful politician should do…
No bad idea. But in fact it was the conservatives who gained the elections all over Europe. Even though they partly tend to not even occur in those social networks. No messages-all-the-time, no spam, no donation-/participating-appeal, no chivvy.
And it can be anticipated that the middle-/middle-left parties tend to lose the national elections most likely as well.
So why doesn’t that strategy work here as well?
Is it because of not being in America – Land of opportunity, country of voting-euphoria?
Because of the Germans / Europeans in general not being that euphemistic, mobile, interested in politics, or hardly national-orientated?
Or because of not being interested in Europe as a community?
Or because of not being Obama, man of all international hope?
Or because of trying to be kind of a new Obama instead of being himself?
Or is it because of inner-party-problems and a missing structure?
Or is it because his “middle-left-in-the-past-labor-party” struggles in this financial crisis even though it was their political enemies who helped carrying the crisis forward?
Or was it because of not being able to stand their ground in the past grand coalition?
Or is it because of Steinmeiers personality, who turned out to just not have the balls as like Merkel showed up when criticism occurred?
Or is it because voters simply do not like smear campaigns?
I guess all these factors prized the SPD out of the market by themselves.
All this new-media-campaign does not work if you chose the wrong agency.
But whatever it was: New media solely won’t help the SPD out of here.
Just remember where you come from.
Remember your roots and everything will be fine.
Change your campaign. Not your media.
Otherwise you will fail.
References:
http://www.wahlkampf09.de/2009/4/finanzhaie-wrden-fdp-whlen
2009-06-22
Moment of Zen #10 (for June 23, 2009)
Mixing up Mary & Jesus
I am working as a penguin now.
As a waitress, you know?
And after 8hours at work and 6hours working actually we (the staff) finally were allowed to eat from the buffet as well.
It was that delicious!
But a lot.
And a lot mixed up.
So I asked my colleagues after a while: “Can you tell me where the restrooms are?”
“Oh, that is very easy! Go along the corridor. It’s right on the left side. There’s a Holy Mary on the door. Just right here the left door.”
So I walked along, saw Mary and entered.
And then fate took its course.
I went into the cabin and locked the door.
Everything’s okay.
But suddenly something felt strange.
I was hanging over the toilet bowl – you ought to know, well girls don’t use to “really sit” on foreign toilets – with my waitress-pinafore on the hook when suddenly-
Suddenly somebody came in.
Heavy steps.
And I thought “okay, maybe this is just a heavy woman.”
Male voices.
And I thought “okay, maybe cursed with a deep voice.” – But why isn’t the other-toilet door clapping?
The door swung. Another steps.
Male voices.
And I thought “okay, maybe they took the wrong door.”
Steps. Steps. Steps. Voices.
And I thought “okay, maybe this is an unisex-toilet.”
(Are they even allowed?)
Steps. Steps. Steps. Voices. Other voices I did not really want to think about.
So, finally I thought “okay, it was YOU who really got something wrong right here!”
So what to do?
So I prayed to all gods I don’t believe in to just having a bad dream and wake up. Bud this luck wasn’t mine.
I was still hanging over the toilet-bowl getting really uncomfortable and of course the situation turned out to become exceedingly awkward.
All right. I jumped up from my “hanging-looking-a-small-bundle-of-misery-position”, did my stuff done, got dressed like a penguin again and paused behind the door.
There were times before when there was just silence. So my belief was that I just had to wait for one of those.
Steps. Voices. Steps. Weird sounds.
No loneliness,
no silence at all.
So I stood there, watched the minute hand running out of time.
And that was when I realized “okay, you will have to stand your ground now.”
So I aligned the bow tie, turned the lock, breathed in, gritted my teeth, closed and opened my eyes again and opened the door.
My heart was beating. What A day!
So I screwed up my courage and walked straight forward to the basins.
Fixed like with blinders.
Water. Soap. Tissues.
Not noticing the men starring at me.
Not noticing the men standing in front of the urinals.
(which were exactly right next to the basins…)
When I came out of the Gents it took a load off my mind.
And it turned out that this Holy Mary on the restroom-door was in fact a Jesus-figure.
How could I really have mixed them up?!
This day I was really lucky to not be interested in men. I mean really.
And I should honestly read the Bible now.
References:
http://bible.com /
http://bibel.de
I am working as a penguin now.
As a waitress, you know?
And after 8hours at work and 6hours working actually we (the staff) finally were allowed to eat from the buffet as well.
It was that delicious!
But a lot.
And a lot mixed up.
So I asked my colleagues after a while: “Can you tell me where the restrooms are?”
“Oh, that is very easy! Go along the corridor. It’s right on the left side. There’s a Holy Mary on the door. Just right here the left door.”
So I walked along, saw Mary and entered.
And then fate took its course.
I went into the cabin and locked the door.
Everything’s okay.
But suddenly something felt strange.
I was hanging over the toilet bowl – you ought to know, well girls don’t use to “really sit” on foreign toilets – with my waitress-pinafore on the hook when suddenly-
Suddenly somebody came in.
Heavy steps.
And I thought “okay, maybe this is just a heavy woman.”
Male voices.
And I thought “okay, maybe cursed with a deep voice.” – But why isn’t the other-toilet door clapping?
The door swung. Another steps.
Male voices.
And I thought “okay, maybe they took the wrong door.”
Steps. Steps. Steps. Voices.
And I thought “okay, maybe this is an unisex-toilet.”
(Are they even allowed?)
Steps. Steps. Steps. Voices. Other voices I did not really want to think about.
So, finally I thought “okay, it was YOU who really got something wrong right here!”
So what to do?
So I prayed to all gods I don’t believe in to just having a bad dream and wake up. Bud this luck wasn’t mine.
I was still hanging over the toilet-bowl getting really uncomfortable and of course the situation turned out to become exceedingly awkward.
All right. I jumped up from my “hanging-looking-a-small-bundle-of-misery-position”, did my stuff done, got dressed like a penguin again and paused behind the door.
There were times before when there was just silence. So my belief was that I just had to wait for one of those.
Steps. Voices. Steps. Weird sounds.
No loneliness,
no silence at all.
So I stood there, watched the minute hand running out of time.
And that was when I realized “okay, you will have to stand your ground now.”
So I aligned the bow tie, turned the lock, breathed in, gritted my teeth, closed and opened my eyes again and opened the door.
My heart was beating. What A day!
So I screwed up my courage and walked straight forward to the basins.
Fixed like with blinders.
Water. Soap. Tissues.
Not noticing the men starring at me.
Not noticing the men standing in front of the urinals.
(which were exactly right next to the basins…)
When I came out of the Gents it took a load off my mind.
And it turned out that this Holy Mary on the restroom-door was in fact a Jesus-figure.
How could I really have mixed them up?!
This day I was really lucky to not be interested in men. I mean really.
And I should honestly read the Bible now.
References:
http://bible.com /
http://bibel.de
2009-06-12
Moment of Zen #9.2 (for June 16, 2009)
Granny’s on facebook
It’s becoming larger. More interactive.
It’s becoming transatlantic. Worldwide.
Social web-communities like
facebook, MySpace or Studi-/Schüler-/MeinVZ and all the others.
There is no way to get away from this.
Bands are on MySpace.
Politicians are on MeinVZ / facebook.
Cousin (10) is in icq.
Mom is on meinVZ.
Grandma is on facebook.
One of my friends said
(during a boring-as-hell-seminar
spending all our time and pleasures on facebook):
Oh, look! Grandma’s on facebook.
We died of laughter.
“I didn’t anticipate Aristotle to cause you that much fun?!”
Silence.
Granny’s on facebook. Funniest image ever.
She found her host grandma from the States online.
My grandma does not even have a cell phone. She never turned on a computer. She doesn’t even speak English.
My mom uses her PC for work. It’s my dad who writes the emails und uploads pictures, repairs the scanner and does all the research. At least my mom knows the password.
And now she knows how to get into the “Verzeichnis”-thing after I created her a profile.
“Oh no! I won’t be online ever! It is such a waste of time!”
“Hey! I saw your mom online at studi. Didn’t know she was there.
Great! I chatted with her a long time.”
…
But even it is that much fun - be aware of bad things like computer viruses / faked profiles from men with dangerous intentions / cyber-bullying / wasting your life / …
I am addicted. What about you?
See links:
http://www.facebook.com /
http://www.myspace.com /
http://www.studivz.net /
http://www.meinvz.net /
http://www.schülervz.net
It’s becoming larger. More interactive.
It’s becoming transatlantic. Worldwide.
Social web-communities like
facebook, MySpace or Studi-/Schüler-/MeinVZ and all the others.
There is no way to get away from this.
Bands are on MySpace.
Politicians are on MeinVZ / facebook.
Cousin (10) is in icq.
Mom is on meinVZ.
Grandma is on facebook.
One of my friends said
(during a boring-as-hell-seminar
spending all our time and pleasures on facebook):
Oh, look! Grandma’s on facebook.
We died of laughter.
“I didn’t anticipate Aristotle to cause you that much fun?!”
Silence.
Granny’s on facebook. Funniest image ever.
She found her host grandma from the States online.
My grandma does not even have a cell phone. She never turned on a computer. She doesn’t even speak English.
My mom uses her PC for work. It’s my dad who writes the emails und uploads pictures, repairs the scanner and does all the research. At least my mom knows the password.
And now she knows how to get into the “Verzeichnis”-thing after I created her a profile.
“Oh no! I won’t be online ever! It is such a waste of time!”
“Hey! I saw your mom online at studi. Didn’t know she was there.
Great! I chatted with her a long time.”
…
But even it is that much fun - be aware of bad things like computer viruses / faked profiles from men with dangerous intentions / cyber-bullying / wasting your life / …
I am addicted. What about you?
See links:
http://www.facebook.com /
http://www.myspace.com /
http://www.studivz.net /
http://www.meinvz.net /
http://www.schülervz.net
2009-06-05
Moment of Zen #8.2 (for June 9, 2009)
Obamania?!
Are we crazy? Weird?
I mean honestly!
The US-president is no pop star. No celeb.
He is a politician.
Why don’t we treat him like that?
How interested have we (means the whole world including the Americans and the Europeans) been into politics till now?
If we are not really interested in every other political action here in the EU or in the world – why are we in everything this man takes?
Don’t get me wrong – as a completed citizen it is absolutely necessary to be political. But please not in this one-sided-way!
Where is the reason everyone being so “semi-American”?
Everyone’s so proud and there’s all this euphoria and American attitude,
every employee is so heavenly lucky to be allowed to work in the “3000-kilometers-around-Obama-area”.
There is all this patriotic music and everyone is dying to “once-see-Mister-President”.
And even the Protestant priest of the Dresden’s Frauenkirche seems to see a heaven sent angel in him.
Even Forbes-mag - which is an economic magazine - put him on #49 of the most important celebs. The first time a President is set here now. He had earned around $2.5mio. just by his published books last year. Heidi Klum, Germany's best-known celebrity, just got position 78.
I ask you: why has this one man such a huge influence?
Why are we all going crazy right here?
Like seeing the biggest rock star on stage?
And: Is there a way out?!
Hope is still lasting. Let’s see how long.
See links:
http://www.rtl.de/rtlaktuell/rtl_aktuell_videoplayer.php?article=28973 /
http://www.rtl.de/rtlaktuell/rtl_aktuell_videoplayer.php?article=28957 /
http://www.mdr.de/thueringen/6413214.html /
http://obama.lvz-online.de/lvzs.site,postext,news,artikel_id,7165.html?PHPSESSID=19j3re8an2j2frj0dpl0pf0j05 /
http://www.mdr.de/thueringen/6413214.html /
http://www.frauenkirche-dresden.de/pfarrer.html
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/leute/0,1518,628493,00.html
Are we crazy? Weird?
I mean honestly!
The US-president is no pop star. No celeb.
He is a politician.
Why don’t we treat him like that?
How interested have we (means the whole world including the Americans and the Europeans) been into politics till now?
If we are not really interested in every other political action here in the EU or in the world – why are we in everything this man takes?
Don’t get me wrong – as a completed citizen it is absolutely necessary to be political. But please not in this one-sided-way!
Where is the reason everyone being so “semi-American”?
Everyone’s so proud and there’s all this euphoria and American attitude,
every employee is so heavenly lucky to be allowed to work in the “3000-kilometers-around-Obama-area”.
There is all this patriotic music and everyone is dying to “once-see-Mister-President”.
And even the Protestant priest of the Dresden’s Frauenkirche seems to see a heaven sent angel in him.
Even Forbes-mag - which is an economic magazine - put him on #49 of the most important celebs. The first time a President is set here now. He had earned around $2.5mio. just by his published books last year. Heidi Klum, Germany's best-known celebrity, just got position 78.
I ask you: why has this one man such a huge influence?
Why are we all going crazy right here?
Like seeing the biggest rock star on stage?
And: Is there a way out?!
Hope is still lasting. Let’s see how long.
See links:
http://www.rtl.de/rtlaktuell/rtl_aktuell_videoplayer.php?article=28973 /
http://www.rtl.de/rtlaktuell/rtl_aktuell_videoplayer.php?article=28957 /
http://www.mdr.de/thueringen/6413214.html /
http://obama.lvz-online.de/lvzs.site,postext,news,artikel_id,7165.html?PHPSESSID=19j3re8an2j2frj0dpl0pf0j05 /
http://www.mdr.de/thueringen/6413214.html /
http://www.frauenkirche-dresden.de/pfarrer.html
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/leute/0,1518,628493,00.html
Moment of Zen #9 (for June 16, 2009)
Obama the bad guy
Guest lecture Mitchel Cohen
(June 4, 2009)
Mitchel Cohen comes from Brooklyn but lives in France, is an author and political activist (New York Green Party) and has been sent to prison because of lobbying for political prisoners. He identifies himself as an anarchical Communist.
According to his own quotations he “emphasizes that Obama has
- endorsed the genetic engineering of plants
- promoted development of new nuclear power plants
- bailed out billionaire bankers and brokers (but not the working class!)
- intensified the war in Afghanistan and treats against Pakistan
- relied primarily on market-based mechanisms to address global warming and pollution.” *
The title of this lecture was “Time for a change? Obama and the American left”. But in fact he did not really talk about this.
Mitchel Cohen talked about cancer, the failed American politics of the Bush Administration, the swine flu and a lot of other stuff before he actually comes to his principle point:
What is cancer? Where does it come from? (-> pesticides in agriculture / eating habits in society / animal’s excrements / pollution from chemical industry / failing waste separation / growing ozone whole / monoculture on the fields / widespread pesticide spraying allover the whole city).
Bush did everything wrong, he is the devil himself, blocked the Kyoto-Plan.
Swine flu is dangerous and it is everywhere.
And then he comes to the point. Mitchel Cohen sees Obama as the bad guy:
-> Political: Obama pushes genetically modified food forward, increased troops in Afghanistan, no arrangements against water-boarding, deteriorates global warming (is worse than Bush).
-> Personal: Obama wears the “white coat” of being the president. He is greenwashing: pretends to be but sells it out and bedazzles the American citizens and the whole political world. He turns around the people’s reliance on authority by using masks. He uses his office-position to get the check on the country. The American president is the most powerful man in the world.
Maybe – most likely – Barack Obama knows the fact that creating a friendly, successful, dressed-well, sophisticated and “the-guy-next-door”-image of himself opens several doors which would be still closed without that. But this must not be a bad thing. He can use this huge and easily agreement to actually make some changes.
Furthermore Cohen goes overboard to compare Obama to Bush in a way I guess a lot of people will disagree:
“Obama is just another Bush. Just another face. I cannot trust him. Bush was the evil himself – the whole world knows that now. But Obama isn’t better than that. […] We need to elect a different guy. Someone who really cares about what we need. Why don’t we do that? Resistance is not only possible, it’s necessary!”
But who should that be according to him? And what should he do?
This is very flimsy in his lecture.
He asks us:
Why did the government give the money (economic stimulus package) to the national banks? And not to the people?
Because if you let the banks die – you kill the whole economy!
And of course if you let the banks die – you let the citizens die as well (because you revoke their means of existence).
Yes, sure – it could have been better to prevent a crisis like that. But that was not Obama’s job at that time.
So, give everyone $200 and let the banks die
(= destroy their savings over $100.000 from the deposit guarantee fund)?
Or what?
Anarchy is no solution, I guess we all know that.
His theses quite annoyed several listeners.
Mitchel Cohen uses the famousness of new president Barrack Obama to distinguish himself. “Oh, come on, here I am! Look at me. I have nothing to talk about, so I talk about Obama. Oh, you already heard a lot of good stuff about him? Okay, let’s try it the other way round and make even some more money.”
He has no real criteria to argue. When he is asked concrete questions, he has no real answers. He accepts opposite views and listens to opposite statements. But he has no criteria against it. Confronting him with facts, the whole thing is over.
So, what about him?
Is he really doing against Obama’s politics? Or against Obama as a person? Where is his motivation? Gender/Race/his own profit…?
Obama may have some mistakes. He isn’t perfect. Of course nobody is. He is only a human being like all of us. Don’t forget that! And it is crystal-clear that he cannot achieve this wonder that everyone anticipated from him. The whole nation hopes for a new world, some kind of paradise where Obama is the only key. But this image is not what he created himself. He proclaimed a change. But he did not promise a miracle. That was what his fans conceived. But the point is that Obama is not the bad guy Cohen tries to turn him out to.
---
Here are some reasonable quotes:
What is politics?
Concerning to the 60s everything is political:
“Whatever you do – or don’t do – is political.”
You cannot be apolitical, that is factual impossible.
- M.C. -
“Nobody’s accepting to suffer a little bit in order to gain the most.”
“We create our own authorities in our heads.
But in the consequence we try to fight these authorities.”
- M.C. -
“The margin between the ‘haves’ and the ‘not-haves’ is increasing. That is the root of our financial crisis. To solve this problem we need to create a vast powerful middle-class. But contrary to that the political attitudes converge more and more: a new party is created: the Republicrats.”
- M.C. -
---
Asinde from his political views – concerning to our regards, it is very obvious that Mitchel Cohen definitely had the wrong audience.
References:*Flyer TU Dortmund, Institut für Amerikanistik
Guest lecture Mitchel Cohen
(June 4, 2009)
Mitchel Cohen comes from Brooklyn but lives in France, is an author and political activist (New York Green Party) and has been sent to prison because of lobbying for political prisoners. He identifies himself as an anarchical Communist.
According to his own quotations he “emphasizes that Obama has
- endorsed the genetic engineering of plants
- promoted development of new nuclear power plants
- bailed out billionaire bankers and brokers (but not the working class!)
- intensified the war in Afghanistan and treats against Pakistan
- relied primarily on market-based mechanisms to address global warming and pollution.” *
The title of this lecture was “Time for a change? Obama and the American left”. But in fact he did not really talk about this.
Mitchel Cohen talked about cancer, the failed American politics of the Bush Administration, the swine flu and a lot of other stuff before he actually comes to his principle point:
What is cancer? Where does it come from? (-> pesticides in agriculture / eating habits in society / animal’s excrements / pollution from chemical industry / failing waste separation / growing ozone whole / monoculture on the fields / widespread pesticide spraying allover the whole city).
Bush did everything wrong, he is the devil himself, blocked the Kyoto-Plan.
Swine flu is dangerous and it is everywhere.
And then he comes to the point. Mitchel Cohen sees Obama as the bad guy:
-> Political: Obama pushes genetically modified food forward, increased troops in Afghanistan, no arrangements against water-boarding, deteriorates global warming (is worse than Bush).
-> Personal: Obama wears the “white coat” of being the president. He is greenwashing: pretends to be but sells it out and bedazzles the American citizens and the whole political world. He turns around the people’s reliance on authority by using masks. He uses his office-position to get the check on the country. The American president is the most powerful man in the world.
Maybe – most likely – Barack Obama knows the fact that creating a friendly, successful, dressed-well, sophisticated and “the-guy-next-door”-image of himself opens several doors which would be still closed without that. But this must not be a bad thing. He can use this huge and easily agreement to actually make some changes.
Furthermore Cohen goes overboard to compare Obama to Bush in a way I guess a lot of people will disagree:
“Obama is just another Bush. Just another face. I cannot trust him. Bush was the evil himself – the whole world knows that now. But Obama isn’t better than that. […] We need to elect a different guy. Someone who really cares about what we need. Why don’t we do that? Resistance is not only possible, it’s necessary!”
But who should that be according to him? And what should he do?
This is very flimsy in his lecture.
He asks us:
Why did the government give the money (economic stimulus package) to the national banks? And not to the people?
Because if you let the banks die – you kill the whole economy!
And of course if you let the banks die – you let the citizens die as well (because you revoke their means of existence).
Yes, sure – it could have been better to prevent a crisis like that. But that was not Obama’s job at that time.
So, give everyone $200 and let the banks die
(= destroy their savings over $100.000 from the deposit guarantee fund)?
Or what?
Anarchy is no solution, I guess we all know that.
His theses quite annoyed several listeners.
Mitchel Cohen uses the famousness of new president Barrack Obama to distinguish himself. “Oh, come on, here I am! Look at me. I have nothing to talk about, so I talk about Obama. Oh, you already heard a lot of good stuff about him? Okay, let’s try it the other way round and make even some more money.”
He has no real criteria to argue. When he is asked concrete questions, he has no real answers. He accepts opposite views and listens to opposite statements. But he has no criteria against it. Confronting him with facts, the whole thing is over.
So, what about him?
Is he really doing against Obama’s politics? Or against Obama as a person? Where is his motivation? Gender/Race/his own profit…?
Obama may have some mistakes. He isn’t perfect. Of course nobody is. He is only a human being like all of us. Don’t forget that! And it is crystal-clear that he cannot achieve this wonder that everyone anticipated from him. The whole nation hopes for a new world, some kind of paradise where Obama is the only key. But this image is not what he created himself. He proclaimed a change. But he did not promise a miracle. That was what his fans conceived. But the point is that Obama is not the bad guy Cohen tries to turn him out to.
---
Here are some reasonable quotes:
What is politics?
Concerning to the 60s everything is political:
“Whatever you do – or don’t do – is political.”
You cannot be apolitical, that is factual impossible.
- M.C. -
“Nobody’s accepting to suffer a little bit in order to gain the most.”
“We create our own authorities in our heads.
But in the consequence we try to fight these authorities.”
- M.C. -
“The margin between the ‘haves’ and the ‘not-haves’ is increasing. That is the root of our financial crisis. To solve this problem we need to create a vast powerful middle-class. But contrary to that the political attitudes converge more and more: a new party is created: the Republicrats.”
- M.C. -
---
Asinde from his political views – concerning to our regards, it is very obvious that Mitchel Cohen definitely had the wrong audience.
References:*Flyer TU Dortmund, Institut für Amerikanistik
2009-06-03
Moment of Zen #8 (for June 9, 2009)
The need for social networking?
Online social networks
(like Myspace / Facebook / StudiVZ and all the others)
are important to you ?
Do you like them ?
Or do you need them ?
Is it a free-time activity ?
Or a "full-time-'next-to-your-ordinary-boring-job'-job" ?
Do they make life easier ?
Or more complex ?
Do you use them for pleasure ?
Or for satisfaction ?
Is it fun ?
Or commitment ?
Do they connect people ?
Or do they keep people away from each other ?
Are all these 300plus persons in your “Friends-List” really people you like / love / would offer everything an honest friendship contents?
Online social networks
(like Myspace / Facebook / StudiVZ and all the others)
are important to you ?
Do you like them ?
Or do you need them ?
Is it a free-time activity ?
Or a "full-time-'next-to-your-ordinary-boring-job'-job" ?
Do they make life easier ?
Or more complex ?
Do you use them for pleasure ?
Or for satisfaction ?
Is it fun ?
Or commitment ?
Do they connect people ?
Or do they keep people away from each other ?
Are all these 300plus persons in your “Friends-List” really people you like / love / would offer everything an honest friendship contents?
.
.
Social networks do not exist in cyberspace.
.
They exist in your heart.
.
Let's be honest: We are nothing without our friends.
It is the way they look at you, criticize you, hand you a pencil, call you, talk to you, help you, need you, search for presents with you, meet you, greet you, dance with you, read stories to you, tell you right from their heart, lend you a quater, frighten you, cry with you, cook a cup of tea for you, forget your hair blower everytime, drink a beer with you, slag just somebody off, borrow some redecoration-stuff for you from a friend's friend (and so on), hold you, catch your falling, stand by you the way up and down, discuss with you all night long, fight with you, love you. Not the way they answer an e-Mail or write some sweet postings on your pinboard.
.
Let's be honest: We are nothing without our friends.
It is the way they look at you, criticize you, hand you a pencil, call you, talk to you, help you, need you, search for presents with you, meet you, greet you, dance with you, read stories to you, tell you right from their heart, lend you a quater, frighten you, cry with you, cook a cup of tea for you, forget your hair blower everytime, drink a beer with you, slag just somebody off, borrow some redecoration-stuff for you from a friend's friend (and so on), hold you, catch your falling, stand by you the way up and down, discuss with you all night long, fight with you, love you. Not the way they answer an e-Mail or write some sweet postings on your pinboard.
.
Don't miss reality.
References:
*inspired by one of my closest friends
("also-'in-fact-existing-in-real-life'-and-'even-appearing-in-my-world'-friends").
.
.
.
.
2009-06-02
Moment of Zen #7 ( for June 2, 2009 )
Obama on Hacking FBI-computers
"Cyberspace is real.
And so are the risks that come with it."
- Barack Obama -
References:
2009-05-25
Moment of Zen #6 ( for May 26, 2009 )
Obama on torture-pictures from external American prisons
Recently he changed his mind. President Barack Obama does not want to show pictures from torture-procedures in prisons in Iraq like Abu Ghraib or Afghanistan anymore. The inhabitants had been humbled and abused by their guardsmen (exactly these people who should have protected them!)
This decision caused him a huge wave of worldwide outrage and criticism. It is in fact exactly the opposite of what Obama had proclaimed in his election campaign. At that time he had accused his political enemy of hiding those terrible pictures and leaned on this statement in respect of his voters. And it is a change in his current political guideline. After exposing the “water-boarding-affair” – which was incredibly horrible – he now does everything to inhibit sticking to his promise he gave. So, why does he start to backpedal so suddenly?
Fortunately a lot of criticism comes from human rights organizations as well. The President had to be forced by judicial order (in the initiation of an American civil-rights movement) to reveal these pictures. He now wants to contest this action.
He argues, taking these photos was a part of official inquiries against the suspects in the US-army and could maybe hinder the commissioned courts of justice for offenders and victims in equal shares. These photos have no information value and are less sensational than the ones before.
He now suddenly fears, showing them would “inflame anti-American opinion” and endanger American soldiers abroad. Three weeks earlier when he made this promised he obviously did not care about that.
But, as we now know him, in the future everything will work better and everything will be alright and now please calm down and relax: He promised to not tolerate those behavior in his political leadership and prohibited it. I am sure, this will do the trick. Of cause, those pictures from torture done by the military and tolerated by their elites could be a new medium for terrorists to recruit new members to their mission against the western world. But please mind your own business first. What you can do right immediately.
So, why doesn’t he show those pictures to calm down the public and his critics? If these photos are as boring as he proclaimed? We have to ask ourselves: Where is the problem? If he says the truth – and for these effected inhabitants I hope he does so – I don’t see any.
Well, is this the kind of change we voted for?
See links:
http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/audio/audio38272.html /
http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/audio/audio38282.html /
http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/video/video496424.html /
http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/video/video496154.html /
http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/audio/audio38326.html /
http://www.tagesschau.de/kommentar/kommentarfolterfotos100.html
and previous links
Recently he changed his mind. President Barack Obama does not want to show pictures from torture-procedures in prisons in Iraq like Abu Ghraib or Afghanistan anymore. The inhabitants had been humbled and abused by their guardsmen (exactly these people who should have protected them!)
This decision caused him a huge wave of worldwide outrage and criticism. It is in fact exactly the opposite of what Obama had proclaimed in his election campaign. At that time he had accused his political enemy of hiding those terrible pictures and leaned on this statement in respect of his voters. And it is a change in his current political guideline. After exposing the “water-boarding-affair” – which was incredibly horrible – he now does everything to inhibit sticking to his promise he gave. So, why does he start to backpedal so suddenly?
Fortunately a lot of criticism comes from human rights organizations as well. The President had to be forced by judicial order (in the initiation of an American civil-rights movement) to reveal these pictures. He now wants to contest this action.
He argues, taking these photos was a part of official inquiries against the suspects in the US-army and could maybe hinder the commissioned courts of justice for offenders and victims in equal shares. These photos have no information value and are less sensational than the ones before.
He now suddenly fears, showing them would “inflame anti-American opinion” and endanger American soldiers abroad. Three weeks earlier when he made this promised he obviously did not care about that.
But, as we now know him, in the future everything will work better and everything will be alright and now please calm down and relax: He promised to not tolerate those behavior in his political leadership and prohibited it. I am sure, this will do the trick. Of cause, those pictures from torture done by the military and tolerated by their elites could be a new medium for terrorists to recruit new members to their mission against the western world. But please mind your own business first. What you can do right immediately.
So, why doesn’t he show those pictures to calm down the public and his critics? If these photos are as boring as he proclaimed? We have to ask ourselves: Where is the problem? If he says the truth – and for these effected inhabitants I hope he does so – I don’t see any.
Well, is this the kind of change we voted for?
See links:
http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/audio/audio38272.html /
http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/audio/audio38282.html /
http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/video/video496424.html /
http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/video/video496154.html /
http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/audio/audio38326.html /
http://www.tagesschau.de/kommentar/kommentarfolterfotos100.html
and previous links
2009-05-15
Moment of Zen #5.2 ( for May 19, 2009 )
CDU proclaims:
“Homosexuality is healable!”
We are saved!
Oh holy lord, we are saved!
Finally there is a solution!
The world will be a better place now.
Thank you so much!
God save the “Christian Democratic Union of Germany” (CDU)!
The conservatives found the answer.
Now, we all can be free. And Heterosexual.
Yes, we always waited for that.
Thank you, politicians.
We couldn’t have known what to do without you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: April, 22, 2009 01:15:53
Author: Jochen Trebmann
Topic: New Therapy-Methods change homosexuals into heterosexuals.
Dear Readers.
Homosexuality as a cross-social problem could be contained very soon. New scientifical cognition offer therapeutic rudiments. Changing homosexuality to heterosexuality is possible, even though gay- and lesbian-associations assert the opposite.
Receipts for that provide the US-organization “National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality”. Particularly die research studies from Psychiatry-professor Benjamin Kaufman and the psychologists Charles Socarides and Joseph Nicolosi show exciting results. In many cases homosexuals could be changed to heterosexuals by new therapeutic rudiments.[1]
The indications intensify more and more that homosexuality is not a sexual orientation on an equal footing with heterosexuality – but a disorientation, which has multifarious reasons. Scientific researches for instance, show that Homosexuality – contrary to former published views – could in fact be a mental disorder, which is healable under certain circumstances.
Quite interesting in this context are the research-results of psychoanalyst Prof. Dr. Benjamin Kaufman. The amazing results of his analyses about how to heal homosexuals – particularly lesbians – definitely suggest that we have to rethink: Obviously a “native” homosexuality does not exist. Recently because of certain living circumstances a human sickens psychically on homosexuality.
Even Prof. Dr. Robert Spitzer, one of the leading scientists of homosexuality who researches and teaches at Columbia University in New York, had to admit a treatability of homosexuals after eight years of researching. thitherto he had been
Spitzer war vorher noch vastly of another opinion.[2]
Well, something is happening. A world without homosexuality is no longer Utopia or vision. Obviously it is possible. Now it depends on furthering the researches in this area. These must be free from ideology, particularly from such kind of ideology, which is carried from gay- and lesbian-associations.
Regards,
Jochen Trebmann
(CDU)
[1]
xxxxx://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_and_Therapy_of_Homosexuality
[2]
xxxxx://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_(psychiatrist)
(trans. Germ. -> Engl.: Kir.H.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This change is exactly the one we need. Thank you!
References:http://www.wirreswirken.de/wp/?p=1142 / http://www.cdu.de/cgi-bin/errorpage.cgi
“Homosexuality is healable!”
We are saved!
Oh holy lord, we are saved!
Finally there is a solution!
The world will be a better place now.
Thank you so much!
God save the “Christian Democratic Union of Germany” (CDU)!
The conservatives found the answer.
Now, we all can be free. And Heterosexual.
Yes, we always waited for that.
Thank you, politicians.
We couldn’t have known what to do without you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: April, 22, 2009 01:15:53
Author: Jochen Trebmann
Topic: New Therapy-Methods change homosexuals into heterosexuals.
Dear Readers.
Homosexuality as a cross-social problem could be contained very soon. New scientifical cognition offer therapeutic rudiments. Changing homosexuality to heterosexuality is possible, even though gay- and lesbian-associations assert the opposite.
Receipts for that provide the US-organization “National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality”. Particularly die research studies from Psychiatry-professor Benjamin Kaufman and the psychologists Charles Socarides and Joseph Nicolosi show exciting results. In many cases homosexuals could be changed to heterosexuals by new therapeutic rudiments.[1]
The indications intensify more and more that homosexuality is not a sexual orientation on an equal footing with heterosexuality – but a disorientation, which has multifarious reasons. Scientific researches for instance, show that Homosexuality – contrary to former published views – could in fact be a mental disorder, which is healable under certain circumstances.
Quite interesting in this context are the research-results of psychoanalyst Prof. Dr. Benjamin Kaufman. The amazing results of his analyses about how to heal homosexuals – particularly lesbians – definitely suggest that we have to rethink: Obviously a “native” homosexuality does not exist. Recently because of certain living circumstances a human sickens psychically on homosexuality.
Even Prof. Dr. Robert Spitzer, one of the leading scientists of homosexuality who researches and teaches at Columbia University in New York, had to admit a treatability of homosexuals after eight years of researching. thitherto he had been
Spitzer war vorher noch vastly of another opinion.[2]
Well, something is happening. A world without homosexuality is no longer Utopia or vision. Obviously it is possible. Now it depends on furthering the researches in this area. These must be free from ideology, particularly from such kind of ideology, which is carried from gay- and lesbian-associations.
Regards,
Jochen Trebmann
(CDU)
[1]
xxxxx://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_and_Therapy_of_Homosexuality
[2]
xxxxx://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_(psychiatrist)
(trans. Germ. -> Engl.: Kir.H.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This change is exactly the one we need. Thank you!
References:http://www.wirreswirken.de/wp/?p=1142 / http://www.cdu.de/cgi-bin/errorpage.cgi
Moment of Zen #5 ( for May 19, 2009 )
Obama the smart guy?
Obama is a nice guy. He is a good politician, a brilliant orator and his heart is in the right place.
And it is true that he already did a lot for the United States: He spent a huge sum to save the financial system: Economic stimulus package (787 Mrd. $), saving banks (2 Bil. $), recapitalization of banks (Mio.-$-credits and last resorts). It's the economy, stupid!
But all that glitters is just not gold. He talks big and knows how to grab the audience’s attention. But already there are some details missing.
After the election – hoping that this ‘Obamania’ he caused would continue – he starts to back pedal:
Closing Guantánamo?
yes. ->Good!
But:
Civil Courts?
no. ->court-martials
Taking care of inhabitants?
no. ->deporting / flying them out to Europe
---
Closing all the other military prisons (like in Afghanistan / Iraq)?
no. ->but there are also human rights abuses
---
Afford transparency (policy)?
no. ->fearing bad reputation
---
Publicize torture-pictures from Iraq?
no. ->reason: shelter soldiers
So, where are the details?!
Why doesn’t he do the whole job?
Good start but we anticipated more probably.
Nevertheless Obama has the right ideas and concepts – but where are the detailed actions?
Suddenly he had to realize that there is a difference between getting into politics and doing politics actually.
So – Obama – Please take care of not being started as a lion but ending up as a paper tiger!
Further information:
links: http://www.n-tv.de/1147921.html / http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/video/video482210.html / http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/guantanamo252.html
and: http://www.friedenssicherung-und-sicherheitskonzepte.de/
and: http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/usa220.html / http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/usa222.html / http://www.tagesschau.de/kommentar/kommentarfolterfotos100.html
and: http://www.n-tv.de/1146380.html / http://www.n-tv.de/1145642.html / http://www.n-tv.de/1145252.html / http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/obama1292.html / n-tv: “Barack Obama. Aufstieg ins Weiße Haus.” (reportage) April 29, 2009, 22:05 h.
Obama is a nice guy. He is a good politician, a brilliant orator and his heart is in the right place.
And it is true that he already did a lot for the United States: He spent a huge sum to save the financial system: Economic stimulus package (787 Mrd. $), saving banks (2 Bil. $), recapitalization of banks (Mio.-$-credits and last resorts). It's the economy, stupid!
But all that glitters is just not gold. He talks big and knows how to grab the audience’s attention. But already there are some details missing.
After the election – hoping that this ‘Obamania’ he caused would continue – he starts to back pedal:
Closing Guantánamo?
yes. ->Good!
But:
Civil Courts?
no. ->court-martials
Taking care of inhabitants?
no. ->deporting / flying them out to Europe
---
Closing all the other military prisons (like in Afghanistan / Iraq)?
no. ->but there are also human rights abuses
---
Afford transparency (policy)?
no. ->fearing bad reputation
---
Publicize torture-pictures from Iraq?
no. ->reason: shelter soldiers
So, where are the details?!
Why doesn’t he do the whole job?
Good start but we anticipated more probably.
Nevertheless Obama has the right ideas and concepts – but where are the detailed actions?
Suddenly he had to realize that there is a difference between getting into politics and doing politics actually.
So – Obama – Please take care of not being started as a lion but ending up as a paper tiger!
Further information:
links: http://www.n-tv.de/1147921.html / http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/video/video482210.html / http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/guantanamo252.html
and: http://www.friedenssicherung-und-sicherheitskonzepte.de/
and: http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/usa220.html / http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/usa222.html / http://www.tagesschau.de/kommentar/kommentarfolterfotos100.html
and: http://www.n-tv.de/1146380.html / http://www.n-tv.de/1145642.html / http://www.n-tv.de/1145252.html / http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/obama1292.html / n-tv: “Barack Obama. Aufstieg ins Weiße Haus.” (reportage) April 29, 2009, 22:05 h.
2009-05-11
Moment of Zen #4 ( for May 12, 2009 )
In how far did the media help electing President Obama?
Does the media coverage of a political event like presidential elections in America have such a huge effect on the voting decisions that it can change the whole outcome?
The widespread positive coverage leading to real support drove Barack Obama’s campaign further. The democrats decline – but of cause the conservative party claims it anyway and talks of a ‘loss of reality’ concerning journalists and media concerns towards the elections.
But did the media really lose their “professional-best-possible-objectivity”?
Here are some facts:
American journalists: 7% identified themselves as conservative (1/3 liberal).
American public: 20% identified themselves as liberal.
The larger part of negative coverage was not liberalism or conservatism but skepticism towards Obama as a person himself – treated by rumors in most cases.
Sometimes it was not just extremely positive coverage of Obama but the extremely negative coverage of the McCain-campaign. Even more problematic was the fact that Obama was attacked every time. Fortunately he had to do absolutely nothing when the conservatives tried to put him down: Because they derogated themselves even enough. Another reason for these imbalanced media-reports was that the journalists aimed their coverage at polls all through the American public.
Usually the American media split the two candidates and their campaigns up completely: there were no links, no same-ideas – just all the differences. So this topic polarized: Yes or No, Up or Down, New or Old, Black or White. You have the choice. That turns out to be no good journalism quality! But of cause the journalists were not aware of the fact of being less objective – one of the worst things a journalist (in his/her “media-as-the-fourth-statewide-authority”-self-conception) can slip up.
So – please! – all the journalists:
- Check Your Sources,
- Look, Who’s Talking,
- Play The New News Game,
- Understand that Absence of Evidence Can Be Evidence of Absence.
Shortsightening the coverage is no solution! To seem kind of trustworthy to the public news coverage needs journalism quality.
Too positive support for Obama?
Too much of everything in the media?
Even too unobjective coverage?
Maybe.
But we are so lucky to be able to name him our new president. Future will tell if we are allowed to.
Sources:
McCollam, Douglas: “In the Tank”. In: Columbia Journalism Review: Strong Press, Strong Democracy. Jan/Feb 2009. http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/192310357.html
Massing, Michael: “Un-American”. In: Columbia Journalism Review: Strong Press, Strong Democracy. Jan/Feb 2009.http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/6775
Does the media coverage of a political event like presidential elections in America have such a huge effect on the voting decisions that it can change the whole outcome?
The widespread positive coverage leading to real support drove Barack Obama’s campaign further. The democrats decline – but of cause the conservative party claims it anyway and talks of a ‘loss of reality’ concerning journalists and media concerns towards the elections.
But did the media really lose their “professional-best-possible-objectivity”?
Here are some facts:
American journalists: 7% identified themselves as conservative (1/3 liberal).
American public: 20% identified themselves as liberal.
The larger part of negative coverage was not liberalism or conservatism but skepticism towards Obama as a person himself – treated by rumors in most cases.
Sometimes it was not just extremely positive coverage of Obama but the extremely negative coverage of the McCain-campaign. Even more problematic was the fact that Obama was attacked every time. Fortunately he had to do absolutely nothing when the conservatives tried to put him down: Because they derogated themselves even enough. Another reason for these imbalanced media-reports was that the journalists aimed their coverage at polls all through the American public.
Usually the American media split the two candidates and their campaigns up completely: there were no links, no same-ideas – just all the differences. So this topic polarized: Yes or No, Up or Down, New or Old, Black or White. You have the choice. That turns out to be no good journalism quality! But of cause the journalists were not aware of the fact of being less objective – one of the worst things a journalist (in his/her “media-as-the-fourth-statewide-authority”-self-conception) can slip up.
So – please! – all the journalists:
- Check Your Sources,
- Look, Who’s Talking,
- Play The New News Game,
- Understand that Absence of Evidence Can Be Evidence of Absence.
Shortsightening the coverage is no solution! To seem kind of trustworthy to the public news coverage needs journalism quality.
Too positive support for Obama?
Too much of everything in the media?
Even too unobjective coverage?
Maybe.
But we are so lucky to be able to name him our new president. Future will tell if we are allowed to.
Sources:
McCollam, Douglas: “In the Tank”. In: Columbia Journalism Review: Strong Press, Strong Democracy. Jan/Feb 2009. http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/192310357.html
Massing, Michael: “Un-American”. In: Columbia Journalism Review: Strong Press, Strong Democracy. Jan/Feb 2009.http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/6775
2009-05-03
Moment of Zen #3 ( for May 5, 2009 )
Obama on Guantánamo
Barack Obama – new elected U.S.-president – has to stand a huge wave of criticism these days. One of the most powerful and convincing arguments in his presidential campaign concerned Guantánamo Bay Cuba. He promised the American public – and the political world – to close this detention-center and to enable every inhabitant a fair civil suit right after being elected president.
But hardly after a hundred days in office, Obama suddenly changed his mind. He is going to close Guantánamo. But there will not be civil processes. Instead of that, every effected will be court-martialled without having the same spread of fairness and evidence-trial as in a normal court of justice. The brutal police-questioning-procedure named “water-boarding”, which simulates a realistic drowning-situation, will not be prosecuted criminally. If these inhabitants would be treated like promised, in most cases the civil courts would acquit them probably.
So, what about keeping these promises he gave?
Don’t get me wrong - this decision does not turn him out as a bad president or a brutal leader. But it can do kind of a huge crack to the “new-and-better-world-after-Bush-perception” a lot of – not solely only American – people have built up since Obama entered the political stage.
See link: http://www.n-tv.de/1147921.html
and: http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/video/video482210.html
Barack Obama – new elected U.S.-president – has to stand a huge wave of criticism these days. One of the most powerful and convincing arguments in his presidential campaign concerned Guantánamo Bay Cuba. He promised the American public – and the political world – to close this detention-center and to enable every inhabitant a fair civil suit right after being elected president.
But hardly after a hundred days in office, Obama suddenly changed his mind. He is going to close Guantánamo. But there will not be civil processes. Instead of that, every effected will be court-martialled without having the same spread of fairness and evidence-trial as in a normal court of justice. The brutal police-questioning-procedure named “water-boarding”, which simulates a realistic drowning-situation, will not be prosecuted criminally. If these inhabitants would be treated like promised, in most cases the civil courts would acquit them probably.
So, what about keeping these promises he gave?
Don’t get me wrong - this decision does not turn him out as a bad president or a brutal leader. But it can do kind of a huge crack to the “new-and-better-world-after-Bush-perception” a lot of – not solely only American – people have built up since Obama entered the political stage.
See link: http://www.n-tv.de/1147921.html
and: http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/video/video482210.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
