Why did the Nashvilles transit plan fail

The series "Miscellaneous" represents a collection of found objects from the net, which I found subjectively interesting. They are teased with a quote from the text, which I consider to be representative of my following comments. In order to understand my comments, it is usually necessary to read the linked article beforehand; I will not summarize the source texts again. The individual parts are numbered for reference in the comments; please stick to it for the sake of clarity.

1) "Germany overslept"
SPIEGEL ONLINE: The word "genocide" was officially used in Germany for the first time in 2015 for what happened in Namibia. Why is that? Melber: That has to do with the fact that it is painful to have to realize that Germany's dark past is not limited to the chapter of Nazi rule.SPIEGEL ONLINE: That means, because you are already so busy coming to terms with the Holocaust, there is no room left?Melber: Exactly. And the colonial era was and is still romanticized as the good old days. This has resulted in a lack of public awareness of the colonial crimes. This results in an attitude that follows the motto: "Now let it be good. How far should we go back in history and see what German guilt is and what is not?"SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is the reappraisal only about the question of guilt?Melber: It's about an admission of guilt. That doesn't mean we have to walk around in penitent clothes as if we personally committed the colonial crimes. But Namibia expects Germany to admit the injustice it has committed and to apologize for it. This is a prerequisite for a joint coming to terms with history. (SpOn)
I already mentioned it in the last verse: Germany should urgently do more to come to terms with the genocide in colonial times. This interview with an Africanist gives a number of good reasons and assessments for this. On the other hand, the government's stance is understandable. If you officially recognized "genocide" and paid reparations, you would open Pandora's box and get a whole wave of lawsuits. Therefore, the government will absolutely avoid these terms. But that in and of itself is not the problem; that would be quite possible. Unfortunately, the government is already struggling with basic recognition. And that is a shame, because it encourages the spiritual bird shit that pigs like Gauland represent. And before someone criticized my choice of words, I didn't realize that anyone could interpret these words negatively. Gauland will certainly understand that.

2) The secret behind it

The conspiracy theory is no longer the mode of the madmen who stand in the pedestrian zone and preach, it can no longer be marginalized. It is the mental way out of the middle, exists in the minds of influential publicists, in the Bundestag. Not only with the AfD. Christian Lindner justifies the need for a Bamf committee of inquiry by pointing out that the basis must be removed from conspiracy theorists. With which he is ostensibly against conspiracy theories, but at the same time ennobles them. Apparently, Lindner considers the theory that behind the official waving of refugees there is a major political plan, worth refuting. The more complex the world imprint in our perception, the higher the risk that the head will switch to safe mode. When a civil war breaks out in Syria, which becomes more complicated from day to day, from year to year, with the participation of Iran, Russia, the USA, terrorists, Islamists, Salafists, Kurds, when hundreds of thousands are on the run, some religious, some not, the one nice, the other not, each with their own biography - when these people march torn apart across fields and suddenly stand in front of us, as a challenging fact, as a mosaic of millions of stories, then it is tempting to suspect a general plan behind it. For example Angela Merkel's plan to completely replace the German population. Let somebody prove that it is not so first! (Time)

Before someone ends the article with "Ah, rights-bashing!" ignored, even the left from Lafontaine to Augstein gets their fat off. The article linked above explains pretty well what actually constitutes a "conspiracy theory" and why these things always attract the same group of people. I would like to emphasize in particular that Lindner's ostentatious approach to this nonsense is actually just an attempt to play along without getting your hands dirty. There was a similar game in World War I: In view of the increasingly poor situation at the front, the Supreme Army Command decided to create an internal lightning rod and commissioned a study with a lot of publicity to check whether - how from the criticism of the right was always asserted - in fact fewer Jews served at the front than their proportion of the population would correspond to. Through the aggressively published study, the conspiracy theory, according to which Jews (however and from whomever) should receive preferential treatment and not sacrifice themselves for Germany, as "real Germans" did, was only anchored in the consciousness of the majority outside the right-wing hotbed received the "Seal of Approval" from the OHL. When it came out that the Jews were serving (and falling) at the front with an above-average frequency, the OHL let the study be quietly and secretly buried because it did not fit into the narrative. But the well was poisoned, and the accusation was a permanent component of Hitler's inflammatory speeches and those of other anti-Semites for the next thirty years. The moral of the story: Lindner gets his hands dirty, even if it doesn't look like it at the moment, and he should be attacked and condemned for it. The normalization of all this filth through him and his ilk is what poisons the climate in Germany, not the AfD. They and their 13% could simply be isolated and ignored.

3) Generation Pickleball: Welcome to Florida's political tomorrowland
The Villages is America’s largest retirement community, a carefully planned, meticulously groomed dreamscape of gated subdivisions, wall-to-wall golf courses, adult-only pools and old-fashioned town squares. It's advertised as “Florida’s friendliest hometown,” and it's supposed to evoke a bygone era of traditional values ​​when Americans knew their neighbors, respected their elders and followed the rules. It has the highest concentration of military veterans of any metropolitan area without a military base. It has strict regulations enforcing the uniformity of homes (no second stories, no bright colors, no modern flourishes) as well as the people living in them (no families with children, except to visit). And it is Trump country, a reliably Republican, vocally patriotic, almost entirely white enclave that gave the president nearly 70 percent of the vote. Older voters are America’s most reliable voters, which is why baby-boomer boomtowns like The Villages represent the most significant threat to a potential Democratic wave in Florida in 2018 — and the most significant source of Republican optimism for many years to come. [...] Republicans outnumber Democrats by more than 2: 1 here, and in interviews, they generally expressed support for Trump’s tax cuts, as well as his hands-off approach to Medicare and Social Security. That has helped blunt the perennial Democratic pitch to seniors: Choose us, because Republicans are coming for your checks. But what really attracted them to Trump were issues that had little to do with their pocketbooks or their daily lives — like his opposition to sanctuary cities, or his insistent rhetoric about strength, or his attacks on Muslims, MS-13 and protests by black athletes . They feel like Trump is on their side in a cultural war against cop-haters, their perception of scheming foreigners, global warming alarmists, and other politically correct avatars of disorder and decline; they thought President Barack Obama was on the other side, standing with transgender activists, welfare freeloaders and Islamic terrorists. And when Trump vows to make America great again, they sense that he means more like The Villages. “They want an America that’s a little more like it was when they were growing up, and that’s what Trump is offering,” says Daniel Webster, the area’s conservative Republican congressman. Dennis Baxley, the area’s equally conservative Republican state senator, points out that The Villages offers that, too, with safe streets, light traffic, artificial lakes that provide a real sense of serenity, and hundreds of support groups for every imaginable malady or hardship. It's a throwback to when they were children in 1950s America, without actual children. (Politico)
It is the baby boomer generation that is ruining the world. Whether Brexit, Trump, LePen or AfD, everywhere it is the over 60s who are at the forefront. They insistently assert their interests, and future generations don't give a shit. The frustrating thing is that they can only do this because they have an extremely high and reliable turnout, while the boys obviously cannot afford to save their own future. It reminds me of a conversation I recently had with a colleague (around 30). It was about the company pension scheme, and I wanted to achieve something for it in the works council (details are not relevant). She just laughed and said that she wasn't worried about the pension yet, that she didn't care about the topic. With this hammered attitude, I see colleagues in my age group act all the time as long as they have no children. It doesn't matter if the salary is 300 or 400 euros higher or lower, it is enough for the single lifestyle. YOLO. But if you don't ignore politics, you will always be ruled by those who ignore politics. Even if it is the neglected, gentrified dystopia in Florida.

4) Nuclear power won't survive without a government handout
There are 99 nuclear reactors producing electricity in the United States today. Collectively, they're responsible for producing about 20 percent of the electricity we use each year. But those reactors are, to put it delicately, of a certain age. The average age of a nuclear power plant in this country is 38 years old (compared with 24 years old for a natural gas power plant). Some are shutting down. New ones aren't being built. And the ones still operational can't compete with other sources of power on price. Just last week, several outlets reported on a leaked memo detailing a proposed Trump administration plan directing electric utilities to buy more from nuclear generators and coal plants in an effort to prop up the two struggling industries. The proposal is likely to butt up against political and legal opposition, even from within the electrical industry, in part because it would involve invoking Cold War-era emergency powers that constitute an unprecedented level of federal intervention in electricity markets. But without some type of public assistance, the nuclear industry is likely headed toward oblivion. “Is [nuclear power] dying under its own weight? Yeah, probably, ”said Granger Morgan, professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University. (FiveThirtyEight)
Nuclear power has never worked without massive government subsidies, not for a day. That is why it is so ridiculous when opponents of the energy turnaround lament its costs compared to "cheap" nuclear power. If you calculate the costs of nuclear power in real terms, it is significantly more expensive than that from solar or wind energy. Only a large part of the costs is externalized and does not appear on the electricity bill. Or does anyone seriously believe that the power companies will pay to clean up all the trash and dismantle the power plants over the next few decades? That will be our taxpayers ’money, namely, to remain the subject of Find 3), the taxpayers’ money of the younger generation. The old people, who had cheap electricity for decades, are no longer there and leave us with the ruins of their unsustainable lifestyle. But at least they could always make fun of the green do-gooders and their naivete, that's something.

5) How the Koch brothers are killing public transport

The group, the local chapter for Americans for Prosperity, which is financed by the oil billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch to advance conservative causes, fanned out and began strategically knocking on doors. Their targets: voters most likely to oppose a local plan to build light-rail trains, a traffic-easing tunnel and new bus routes. [...] In places like Nashville, Koch-financed activists are finding tremendous success. Early polling here had suggested that the $ 5.4 billion transit plan would easily pass. It was backed by the city’s popular mayor and a coalition of businesses. Its supporters had outspent the opposition, and Nashville was choking on cars. But the outcome of the May 1 ballot stunned the city: a landslide victory for the anti-transit camp, which attacked the plan as a colossal waste of taxpayers ’money. "This is why grass roots works," said Tori Venable, Tennessee state director for Americans for Prosperity, which made almost 42,000 phone calls and knocked on more than 6,000 doors. [...] The Kochs ’opposition to transit spending stems from their longstanding free-market, libertarian philosophy. It also dovetails with their financial interests, which benefit from automobiles and highways. [...] The Nashville strategy was part of a nationwide campaign. Since 2015, Americans for Prosperity has coordinated door-to-door anti-transit canvassing campaigns for at least seven local or state-level ballots, according to a review by The New York Times. In the majority, the cooks were on the winning side. (New York Times)

What is described above is a direct result of the fact that the Conservatives in the USA dominated the Supreme Court and in 2010 were able to push through the decision that money in any amount is only an expression of freedom of expression and is therefore protected by the constitution (in contrast, for example on the voting rights of blacks, which do not enjoy such protection). The Koch Brothers are obviously the worst outflow of the American money nobility, who try to determine politics with massive amounts of money. What is particularly striking is the sheer maliciousness of these measures. Sabotaging public transport practically only harms the poor, who would benefit most from getting cheap jobs, and with it the economic growth of the country as a whole. The Kochs could still stand up and turn puppies' necks, but much more increases are hard to imagine. Also noteworthy is what I preach over and over again: any strategy is value-neutral. Just because Obama won an election campaign on the doorstep in 2008 or Bernie Sanders built his base with grass-roots methods doesn't mean that the good guys will always be the only ones who do it. Nobody prevents the Kochs from using these methods as well, and at the local level, as the article shows, the successes can be resounding - and very lucrative for the Kochs, who, by the way, are quite old, too.

6) Trump aides plan fresh immigration crackdown before the midterm elections
The president and his top aides have framed the family separation issue as something Democrats could end by signing on to Republican legislation addressing Trump's priorities, including funding the border wall - even though the separation moves are solely the outgrowth of a Department of Justice decision and not grounded in a particular law. Miller, who was instrumental to Trump’s early travel ban - which, like the border separations, triggered widespread public outrage and was put into effect without sufficient logistical planning - is among those who see the border crisis as a winning campaign issue. “That is the fundamental political contrast and political debate that is unfolding right now,” Miller said in an interview with Breitbart News published on May 24. “The Democratic Party is at grave risk of completely marginalizing itself from the American voters by continuing to lean into its absolutist anti-enforcement positions. " (Politico)
It is perfectly obvious that the RepublicansDesign their overall campaign strategy so that their electorate loves racist politics and, in addition, that their electorate loves hurting undocumented immigrants. It's the same scheme as the CSU. Whether the architects of this policy really believe that this is helpful in any way, or even that it could work, is completely secondary. These people assume that their constituents are just dull assholes. The hope is that they are wrong about this.

7) Funds for broadband are not called

Thousands of funding notices have now been distributed to cities and municipalities. But the promised funds have not even rudimentarily flowed out: by the end of May 2018 only just under 27 million euros of around 3.5 billion - not even a hundredth of the funding. This comes from a response from the Ministry of Transport, which is also responsible for the digital infrastructure, to a request from the Greens, which is available today.de."This is a declaration of bankruptcy for the broadband expansion. The federal government has in fact failed with its broadband expansion program," says Green Group vice-president Oliver Krischer on ZDF. Noticeable: In rural parts of Germany in particular, where fast internet has so far been particularly lacking, hardly any funds are accessed. In Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, for example, of the 825 million approved funding, only one million has been paid out - a call rate of just 0.1 percent. In Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Brandenburg, the numbers are only slightly better. In Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg, the access rates are at least over three percent. The front runner is Berlin, where almost 40 percent of the approved funds were actually called up. In response to the Greens' request, the Ministry of Transport has to admit how far Germany is lagging behind in promoting the fast Internet. When asked how many of the thousands of broadband projects have now been completed, the responsible Parliamentary State Secretary Steffen Bilger replied: two. Several projects are now partially in operation. The ministry cannot even answer the question of how many households have so far benefited from the fast Internet of 50 Mbit per second. The exact number cannot yet be determined. Why have so little funding been called up? The ministry points out that there are "too few companies" on site that can implement expansion projects quickly. However, it is also true that the funding guidelines are simply too complicated. Many small communities are overwhelmed with the technical documentation requirements and Europe-wide tenders, not only criticize the Greens. According to a spokesman for the ministry, Transport Minister Andreas Scheuer (CSU) wants to revise the funding guidelines. The aim is to additionally accelerate the expansion of broadband. (ZDF)

The whole misery of German digitization policy. Not only is Germany lagging behind endlessly when it comes to expanding broadband, the pathetic funds that are being made available are not being used either. In part, these are the bureaucratic hurdles mentioned here, and of course Germany has always been great at putting as much "red tape" in the way as possible. But obviously many other countries have no problem with it. The Estonian bureaucracy also has to adhere to European tendering rules and has nevertheless produced much better broadband than we did. So what is it Understaffing of the offices? Lack of specialist knowledge? Frictional losses in federalism because everything is pushed to the smallest possible level? Does anyone have an idea? This is completely unclear to me.

8) Sustainability, returns and the Amazon scandal
During my studies (what felt like 100 years ago) I also attended an SVWL lecture on sustainability. The bottom line is the most important finding from this: The sustainable solution is not always obvious. Because for that you always have to entire involved process are considered. (While the "obvious" solution is only the one whose outwardly visible step appears to be acceptable.) Here, for example: The complete return transport of products is not only more expensive but also less sustainable than the destruction of the products. (Of course, it would be better not to have to do either one or the other, but we're talking about a situation in which the decision lies between these two options.) [...] It is this gotcha journalism that is absolutely the "big one." Platforms ", the" digital giants "," GAFA "want to prove bad behavior that does not bring us any further. Real critical analysis is needed more than ever: Our economy is currently being completely turned upside down. The new dynamics, which are sometimes positive and sometimes dysfunctional, have to be analyzed seriously. Only a well-informed public is a public with a future. The unsubstantial juxtaposition of scandals, on the other hand, is not taken seriously in the economy and therefore fizzles out in the best case ineffectively, in the worst case it leads to economically harmful regulation. Either way: Big Tech offers enough points of attack, also and especially Amazon, for this you don't have to rub yourself against common industry practices, which, when viewed closely, are proportionate and sustainable. (Neunetz)
The article - and those linked there, be sure to read on - is interesting for two reasons. On the one hand as a journalism failure, because a super comfortable narrative is simply parroted. That kind of story comes up all the time because it's something where practically every reader immediately nods their head and is outraged, but about the right things (not sexism or racism, you can't be outraged about that, that would be normalizing) and that then passes on to his friends and acquaintances in small talk, with a "Did you also read in the [newspaper name] that ..." This is the best kind of story for economic reasons too, and the cherry on top is that the corresponding article is itself Write super fast and you can quit work earlier. Ideally, you can then write a clever follow-up on how stupid everyone is that they believed the first, widely spread story, and then the second round created small talk. It happens all the time, and I notice in myself again and again that I am falling into this trap. Reads something outrageous, sounds catchy, something blogged / tweeted quickly, approval received, done. You have to pat yourself on the fingers all the time, and I don't even have circulation lines or editorial deadlines on my neck. On the other hand, it is exciting to see the market dynamics that companies like Amazon are subject to. From the customer's point of view, the store is and will remain an absolute dream. Better sorted, friendlier and more accommodating than practically any sole proprietorship, and it is also cheaper and more convenient. No wonder retail is going under. Nice to see how that works behind the scenes.

8) Congress might finally start to pay its interns
Each year, more than 6,000 wide-eyed interns swarm the halls of Congress. Most of them don’t earn a cent for the hours spent answering calls from angry constituents and regurgitating memorized lines on tours of the Capitol. The rise of unpaid internships on the Hill, as I wrote earlier this year, is a relatively new development. In the '70s and' 80s, when internships took off in Congress, compensation was the norm. As a college student, Chuck Schumer — then a working-class kid from Brooklyn, today the Democratic leader in the Senate — came to Washington for a paid internship in the house that helped start his career in politics. But amid the fever of ‘90s era budget cuts, compensation for internships shriveled up, even as the cost of living in D.C. began to skyrocket. Today, most members of Congress don’t pay their interns. I spoke with one unpaid intern, Kendall, who endured a 90-minute commute and late nights serving appetizers at glitzy cocktail parties to make her internship on Capitol Hill financially viable. For every Kendall, countless other budding politicos turn down or don’t even apply for unpaid congressional internships. That has ripple effects. Since offices snatch up their interns for full-time gigs when positions open up — 90 percent of intern coordinators say that internships are valuable for hiring junior staffers — limiting internships to those who can afford to work for free helps insure that Hill staffers are overwhelmingly white and affluent. Only 7 percent of top Senate staffers are minorities; just one democratic senator, Doug Jones, has a black chief of staff. (Washington Monthly)
Issues like the payment of interns in parliament are admittedly more niche topics, but they are more important than you might think. There is the same problem in the Bundestag. If people are not paid properly, the result will be that an internship will cost you money. And if that is the case, then only rich people can do it, and if that is the case, then an elite reproduces itself, and the valuable perspectives that such an intern could theoretically bring back to the MPs are lost. Instead, the business administration snoopers reaffirm the echo chamber also at the internship level. Incidentally, it must also be noted at this point that this is not a glory for the left-wing parties, which in most cases pay their interns poorly and exploit them effectively.

9) The end of "orderly multilateralism": Markus Söder's attack on the European legal community

But as is so often the case when a political actor pushes the boundaries of what can be said: It is easy to recognize an utterance as an affront and to feel repulsed by it. But as long as the reaction is limited to mere outrage, this may even allow verbal border violators to stage themselves as courageous taboo breakers. It is therefore necessary to be more specific: What exactly is so problematic about Söder's attitude? An obvious answer to this question is quickly found: The CSU's demand to reject asylum seekers at the border would clearly violate current European law. According to Art. 78 TFEU, asylum policy falls within the competence of the EU, which has regulated the question of which Member State has to process which asylum application in the so-called Dublin Regulation. The country in which the asylum seeker first entered the territory of the EU is therefore usually responsible. However, there are a number of priority rules that prevent this principle from applying in all cases: For example, asylum applications from family members should be processed in the same country if possible. Therefore, in each specific case, a separate procedure must first be used to determine which Member State is actually responsible for the asylum application. The Member State in which the asylum application was actually filed has to carry out this responsibility check. If Germany were to reject asylum seekers at the border, it would avoid this obligation and thus violate the rules of the Dublin Regulation. The fact that Söder explicitly justifies such a legal violation by stating that Germany must “think of the local population” and “look after its own interests” is aimed at the waterline of the European Union. One of the principles on which the European integration process is based is the idea of ​​the legal community: The fact that the EU functions despite its weak central executive is due to the respect that the national institutions show for the law that has been set together. However, if the member states begin to rely on the law of the strongest and simply ignore obligations under European law, the EU will have relatively few means of coercion in hand. In the context of infringement proceedings, the European Court of Justice can determine legal violations and, if necessary, impose fines. But such procedures take a long time - and they too are ultimately based on the willingness of the member states to accept the judgments of the ECJ as binding. Söder’s open rejection of “orderly multilateralism” gives rise to at least fears that the CSU would also be ready to break this taboo. (The European federalist)

Quo Vadis, CSU? The line taken by the party on European policy is very reminiscent of what Orban is doing in Hungary. The pocket dictator there also acts with a brash arrogance towards the EU institutions. Similarities can also be seen with the FPÖ government in the early 2000s, when the EU responded with sanctions. I fear that their comparatively less obvious effect - in Austria the people did not go to the sackcloth, and the FPÖ governs again today - wrong conclusions were drawn. Because, of course, the sanctions did not bring about any obvious change at the time, but they made it clear that the EU stands behind its rules and institutions (incidentally, this motive is also behind the EU sanctions against Russia, by the way). This security is missing today. With Poland, Hungary and now also Italy, several countries are already stepping out of line, which, unlike the FPÖ, enjoy the official blessing of the EU. It is most noticeable in the case of Hungary because Fidesz is still a member of the EPP. The fact that the Christian Democrats of Europe considered their parliamentary seats and votes in the EU Parliament to be more important than the central principles of the Union is now taking revenge. The CSU has meanwhile completely swung into the line of the right-wing populists and is ready to throw decades of principles of European policy overboard and to imitate the authoritarianists in Hungary, Poland and Italy. The AfD laughs up its sleeve.

10) Bush family virtue signals

The Trump administration has recently increased efforts to arrest and prosecute adults who have entered the country illegally, while putting their children in the care of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. As is the case when U.S. Citizens are arrested, children do not accompany their parents to jail. Such situations are tragic, regardless of whether the parents are citizens or not. Among the immigrants, many are seeking political asylum, and if they arrive at a legal entry point they at least have a chance of securing it — and won't be separated from their children. The tragedy at the border may extend beyond the apprehended families as the U.S. misses out on the potential societal contributions of new Americans. [...] Into this difficult and sensitive issue dives the Bush family with a message that seems designed to persuade no one who doesn't already agree with them. Jeb Bush tweets that the Trump policy of vigorously enforcing existing law is "heartless." In her Post op-ed Mrs. Bush doesn't suggest a solution, but simply brands the current government policy "cruel" and "immoral." Why not just describe all Americans who favor border enforcement as deplorable? If Democrats have decided that it’s not in their interest to give Mr. Trump another victory before the fall elections, then it makes cynical political sense to inflame the issue and kill the chances of a compromise. But for those who want one, it has to start with a healthy respect for those who want the rule of law at the southern border and everywhere else in America. (Wall Street Journal)

This Wall Street Journal article is a prime example of the tremendous imbalance that characterizes the discussion of "morality" and migration. Not only does the house postil of the serious part of the GOP use the framing of right-wing populists - "virtue signaling", in Germany one would say "do-gooders" - it also results in a bothsiderism that just sucks and like nothing since 2015 helped the right to enjoy such acceptance. A completely uninhibited agency was authorized by Trump to trample on the human rights of immigrants and asylum seekers. Babies and toddlers are torn from their parents at the border, locked in cages and not even registered, so that the same agency is unable to reunite the families that so tore them apart under traumatic circumstances. They do this out of sheer sadism and openly admit it. It is a "difficult and sensitive subject" for the Wall Street Journal, and the fact that Barbara Bush says she finds it "heartless" offends Trump voters. You have to be clear about this crazy argument: Calling sadism against babies and children "heartless", which is certainly not one of the harsher words that come to mind, could hurt the feelings of Trump voters. So the fuck what? These people are campaigning on a wild basis identity politicswon by claiming their right to consider every black as a niggerberating, discriminating against any homosexual and groping any woman they want, all under the waving banner of freedom of expression. But if you call them "heartless" they turn into little mimosas and cry and claim their right not to be offended. This is a bunch of weird scraps. And I use such vulgar words on purpose. Like the AfD and the like, these people demand the right to be insensitive to others and to insult them, from gypsy schnitzel to sinking the refugee boat. Therefore, they should feel what it is like when they have to be measured by their own standards. Perhaps we can then return to a civilized discourse in which respect, manners and basic rights do not only apply to a layer of the privileged.

11) Tweet from Jochen Bittner
And matching 10) we got this pearl from a tweet. Of course Jochen Bittner is right. I even go one step further. No problems are solved on Twitter at all. It's a social platform. People talk to each other, make pithy statements, make stupid jokes, abuse, organize, rush. It's public, digital, but public. How many workable solutions is the time Bittner works for usually discussed? If the alpha journalists of the leading media were only HALF as good at making moral judgments as in a self-satisfied tone of self-portrayal as serious, pragmatic leadership figures, Germany would be a better country.