Nachdem es jetzt bereits Kreise zieht, mach ich einen eigenen Beitrag draus:
Der Verfassungsgerichtshof hat der aktuellen deutschen Bundesregierung untersagt mit Geldern aus den Coronafonds ihr Budget zu sanieren. Jetzt fehlt das Geld. Mit einem Blick darauf wofür das Geld bereits alloziert war, springt besonders ein Punkt ins Auge - die geplante Gleissanierung der Bahn. Die zuvor als Teil des Klima- und Transformationsfonds geearmarkt war. Die Sanierung.
Gleissanierungen sind das Paradebeispiel das immer wieder dafür ins Treffen geführt wird, warum es öffentliche Verwaltung gesellschaftstheoretisch braucht. Da derart hohe langfristig akkumulierende Einmal-Kosten, von keinem Unternehmen der Welt adäquat gemanaget werden, da diese über mehrere Managmentgenerationen gebündelt und dann auf einmal anfallen und diesbezügliche Investitionen daher gerne auf die nächsten Generation abgeschoben werden. Also das Musterbeispiel unter den “not under my watch” Problematiken der freien Marktwirtschaft. Also muss dafür seit jeher die Öffentlichkeit herhalten. Und da hat sich diese deutsche Bundesregierung gedacht, verschieben wir das (also die Sanierung der bestehenden Bahninfrastruktur) doch einfach mal in den Transformationsfond (einen “Zukunftsfond”). Und zahlen den dann mit Covid Geld. Und als dann alles schon fertig verplant war -- bleibts halt leider beim Verfassungsgerichtshof hängen…
HA.
Ehm. Gut, das kann unter einem Finanzminister Lindner schon mal passieren.. 😉 Infrastruktur brauchts in Deutschland ja eh kaum.
Nach Haushaltsurteil
Esken will Schuldenbremse aussetzen
Stand: 18.11.2023 05:34 Uhr
SPD-Chefin Esken hat erneut dafür plädiert, die Schuldenbremse für zwei Jahre auszusetzen. Dies würde mehr Spielraum für staatliche Ausgaben schaffen. Weder beim Klimaschutz noch beim Sozialstaat werde man Einsparungen zulassen.
So if you ever wanted to know how the polling industry works in line with US foreign policy thinktanks to generate public messaging - well, here is a bewildering example:
Here is the entire quote:
Shibley Telhami: Let’s look at the next slide um which is what is “your impression of the performance of the following parties in the Ukraine war” and this is about Russia is failing and Ukraine is uh succeeding. Let me tell you why - we have this measure, of course the public doesn’t really know whether Russia is is failing or succeeding,but the the public forms a perception, based on the coverage from the Press, what politicians say - um what the Ukrainians say, what the Russians say, and that impression we found throughout our polling, to be highly correlated with the degree of support. The more they think Russia is failing, the more they want to support Ukraine, the more they think Ukraine is succeeding, the more they want to support Ukraine. So those two measures about Russia failing and Ukraine succeeding have been essential. So to the extent that there is a change here, it is interesting not in the overall, because when you look at the total public uh all respondents there’s no change within the margin of error, the changes within the margin of error, but there is a bit of a troubling shift within Democrats. So if you look at yeah um uh you know drop from 48 to 43% about Russia is failing and a big drop in Ukraine is succeeding uh from 39 to 31% in September to October and then one final slide I’ll show before I ask you to react - which is a question that we only asked this time, because it was about the counter offensive we knew actually in the spring, that a lot of people were expecting a counter expensive to see um, what - how it impacts you know the the calculus of people in terms of success of failure of Ukraine. And I was obviously -- initially people were hopeful that the counter offensive was going to be more successful, it it seemed to have bogged down maybe more than people were expecting, uh before at least, the public, but surprisingly it’s not uh as bad as I may have expected, because actually it looks like a plurality of the public, 38%, say been somewhat effective, only 5% say very ineffective and 9% say somewhat ineffective, so obviously a lot of don’t knows that you expect a question like that about 30%, but - you know the perception about the counter offensive is more - that it’s more successful than not successful, including among Republicans -- so that’s interesting and and obviously promising from the point of view of supporting Ukraine.
Any reactions you had?
Fiona Hill: Yeah there’s a number of reactions and I mean I know that you you know delve into a lot of the details in this I mean you just said yourself that a lot of it is shared by whatever people are hearing politicians say and that might you know, very well you know, um uh I think um underlined some of the you know issues and differences between Republicans and Democrats, obviously given you know the the fact that we’re right in the middle now of um our presidential election campaign and this has become a domestic political issue just like you know we already said it is in Poland, or has been in Slovakia and you know in Hungary and you know elsewhere where you know inevitably this is part of the fabric of uh politics -- also in the media, I mean you know um there is a lot of um selectivity in the way that um this is covered by uh different organizations some um newspapers that people are reading have corresponds on the ground, others get it from wire feeds, a lot of people particularly in younger generations, and I know that you’ve got some kind of age bracket, you know getting their information from YouTube and Instagram, you know…
Yeah, never mind that the majority of people polled in the US got both of those questions wrong - just - well, just comment that the fact that they did is -- obviously promising from the point of view of supporting Ukraine.
There is this saying in the polling industry, that its not the results of the polls that are telling about societies preferences, its the changing of the numbers.
So nevermind, that more people got this wrong than right, the important part is that this looks “obviously promising from the point of view of supporting Ukraine”.
This (the strong correlation part) is then used to craft the public narrative, which media mostly just copies, at least, when it comes from the Brookings Institution, which is being briefed here.
The correlation in itself is not that astonishing here (people treat wars like a sports event), its more the blasé attitute in which “having a public that gets all of this objectively wrong” can be “obviously promising from the point of view of supporting Ukraine”.
So, that more people on the democratic side got this right, is talked about as a problem, because the numbers fell.
Diese Gesellschaft ist das absolut grotesk und abartigst Allerletzte.
Jerusalem CNN
—
Israel has dropped leaflets across parts of southern Gaza calling on civilians to evacuate and “head towards known shelters,” indicating Israel could soon expand its ground operation against Hamas to the south of the enclave.
Leaflets were dropped Wednesday on four communities to the east of Khan Younis, the largest city in southern Gaza, warning people living there to “evacuate your residence immediately.”
The communities – Al Qarrah, Khuza’a, Bani Suhaila, and Absaan – are near the perimeter fence separating the Gaza Strip from Israel, suggesting possible new incursion points by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) looking to take control of the south.
edit: Es gibt aber natürlich auch wieder gute Nachrichten, das hier ist das was der Standard zum selben Zeitpunkt berichtet:
[Zwei Tanklaster pro Tag sind sehr wahrscheinlich zu wenig um den Mobilfunk in Gaza aufrechtzuerhalten. Geschweige denn das Internet.]
Diese Gesellschaft ist das absolut grotesk und abartigst Allerletzte.
edit: Die NZZ hat dazu auch einen netten Angle:
Der Erfolg der israelischen Operation im Gazastreifen hängt von der Umsicht jedes einzelnen Kommandanten ab
Je mehr Gelände die Bodentruppen gewinnen, desto besser ist die Zivilbevölkerung geschützt. Der Operationsplan kombiniert deshalb militärische Kraft mit bewusster Zurückhaltung.
Je mehr Landraub, desto besser, da sicherer für die Bevölkerung in Gaza und die Verantwortung für Völkerrechtsverstöße hänge von der Umsicht jedes einzelnen Kommandanten ab und könne nicht auf beteiligte Führer von Staaten projiziert werden.
I can’t believe its not Neoimperialism!
I have resigned as poetry editor of the New York Times Magazine.
The Israeli state’s U.S-backed war against the people of Gaza is not a war for anyone. There is no safety in it or from it, not for Israel, not for the United States or Europe, and especially not for the many Jewish people slandered by those who claim falsely to fight in their names. Its only profit is the deadly profit of oil interests and weapon manufacturers.
The world, the future, our hearts—everything grows smaller and harder from this war. It is not only a war of missiles and land invasions. It is an ongoing war against the people of Palestine, people who have resisted throughout decades of occupation, forced dislocation, deprivation, surveillance, siege, imprisonment, and torture.
Because our status quo is self-expression, sometimes the most effective mode of protest for artists is to refuse.
I can’t write about poetry amidst the ‘reasonable’ tones of those who aim to acclimatize us to this unreasonable suffering. No more ghoulish euphemisms. No more verbally sanitized hellscapes. No more warmongering lies.
If this resignation leaves a hole in the news the size of poetry, then that is the true shape of the present.
—Anne Boyer
Derweil hat sich der UN Sicherheitsrat mittlerweile dazu hinreißen lassen doch eine Resolution zu verabschieden, die ist seit dem rechtlich bindend:
Der Uno-Sicherheitsrat hat eine völkerrechtlich bindende Resolution mit der Forderung nach tagelangen humanitären Pausen im Gazastreifen angenommen. Nach langem Ringen einigte sich das mächtigste Uno-Gremium auf den gemeinsamen Beschluss. Israel lehnt eine humanitäre Pause ohne Freilassung der Geiseln ab.
Israel’s official Arabic account affiliated with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs posted a selfie video of a Palestinian nurse condemning Hamas for taking over al-Shifa hospital in the Gaza Strip on Nov. 11.
But some things about the video didn’t add up.
Everything about it smacked of high school theater—from the botched accent that sounded like it was straight out of an Israeli soap opera to the perfectly scripted IDF talking points rolling off her tongue.
Hamas were stealing the fuel. Check.
Hamas were taking morphine. Check.
Then there was the pristine white lab coat looking like it had just come back from the dry cleaner, the audio track of bombs falling that sounded like samples from a late-’80s Casio keyboard, and the contrived stethoscope-waving you‘d expect from an extra on Grey’s Anatomy.
Hamas hadn’t stolen her makeup though, which was immaculate.
The Palestinian Ministry of Health logo slapped strategically in the background but visible over her shoulder looked like an OSINT honeytrap.
“This video must be authentic right, I can see the Health Ministry logo”—at least that’s what whoever made it would hope the burgeoning army of sketchy anonymous OSINT (open source intelligence) researchers might say.
The only thing missing was a degree hanging in the background saying Tel Aviv Upstairs Medical College.
Oh, and perhaps I should have mentioned this first, no one at al-Shifa had ever seen the nurse before.
Soon, the volume of ridicule directed at those sharing it reached such a pitch that the Israel Arabic account deleted their tweet. I guess they didn’t know the source either.
Diese Webseite verwendet Cookies um die Nutzungserfahrung für seine Besucher zu verbessern. Bitte informiere dich bei Gelegenheit darüber wie sich Cookies auf deine Privatsphäre im Web auswirken.
