Bavarian premier Edmund Stoiber announces that he will step down in September 2007.
As argued below (in a German posting) Stoiber is a conservative with strong leanings towards “social” policies. His likely successor Guenter Beckstein, currently interior minister in Bavaria, is a long-time Stoiber friend. Both can be considered as pro U.S., at least regarding the military cooperation between Germany and the U.S.
Both Beckstein and Stoiber are advocates of subsidies for the agricultural sector. They are pro business, but hesitant to subscribe to free market policies – which comes as no surprise in a country such as Germany with a long tradition of cartels.
Moral relativism has a way of producing strange rationales and value systems. Nowhere was this more clearly on display than in a recent article in Germany’s Handelsblatt, a financial daily. The piece, entitled, “US Firms Pressure German Firms Out of Iran,” starts off with this fabulous graphic:
Caption: “Moving on treacherous terrain: Juergen Hambrecht (BASF), Dieter Zetsche (Daimler), Wolfgang Reitzle (Linde), Klaus-Peter Mueller (Commerzbank) and Klaus Kleinfeld (Siemens).”
That’s right. It’s all America’s (and Bush’s) fault. Again. Poor German CEO’s can’t trade in Iran because of US pressure. Here excerpts from the Handelsblatt piece (read the entire translation here):
“USA Pressures German Firms Out of Iran
The USA is putting firms under massive pressure worldwide to stop doing business with Iran. With that economic isolation they want to force the country to stop its controversial atomic program. Especially German firms are hard hit by that, indeed they traditionally do good business in the region. The latest case comes from the banking world.
BERLIN. After massive pressure from the USA, Commerzbank has now announced that it will end its processing of dollar-business for Iran at the end of January. Commerzbank boss Klaus-Peter Mueller has already publicly complained about the pressure from the Americans in his position as President of the Federal Union of German Banks.“
The article almost makes it sound as if the United States is to blame for Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. There is absolutely no hint that it might be wrong or unethical to trade with (and financially prop-up) Iran or other violent dictatorships/state-sponsors of terrorism. This despite the fact that Iranian President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated that Israel should be wiped off the map and that the Holocaust is a myth. There is also no mention of Iran’s support of Hezbollah nor does Handelsblatt mention the country’s bleak human rights record. Instead, America is made out to be the bad guy while Ahmadinejad gets a free pass. One honestly has to ask, where are the German concepts of fair trade and economic and social justice in all of this? Where are the traditional objections to profiteering and capitalist excess?
The article continues:
“Now other German companies in other branches are worried about their traditionally good Iran business. The results of the worsening climate are already clearly visible: The German exports to Iran sank noticeably in 2006 – in the first three quarters by 14 percent.
German businesses are now trying to prevent the contracts they have signed with Tehran from becoming public at all. “Everything that might touch on the US-business is deadly. Therefore nobody in Tehran talks about his Iranian contracts,” said a German business representative in Tehran under the condition that his name would not be printed. Above all, companies that are listed on US stock markets like Daimler-Chrysler with large businesses in America are affected. Siemens, for example, that according to Handelsblatt information is near to concretely completing a 450 million Euro contract with Tehran to deliver locomotives, does not want to comment on it publicly. Other firms listed on the Dax (German stock market) like BASF or Linde are moving on treacherous terrain with their involvement in Iran. BASF has just now signed and sealed a 304 million Euro project involving an Ammoniac-Urea facility in the Shiraz Petrochemical Complex. By contrast, Linde’s contract for a petrochemical facility, believed to be secure, was cancelled by Tehran for the time being.
Not only the German economy is feeling the American intervention. In order to prevent the billion-dollar involvement of the Chinese oil company CNOOC in Iran, Washington presented “our concerns” to the government in Peking and to the company. That was reported by the speaker of the US embassy in Peking. Before that, US interventions lead to the stoppage, for the time being, of Japanese financing for a project in Iran worth about ten billion dollars.
The German government is following the US actions with concern. For one, the Berlin strategy in the Iran negotiations is to only sharpen the sanctions against Iran in increments and to thereby include all countries, in other words Russia and China as well. Chancellor Angela Merkel again emphasized that goal on Wednesday after a meeting with Japanese Minister President Abe. On the other hand, the German government fundamentally rejects the attempt by the US government to enforce American law beyond its borders.
This growing problem of the so-called “Extraterritoriality” is also named as a theme for the “Transatlantic Economic Initiative,” with which Chancellor Merkel seeks to strengthen the economic relations between the EU and the USA.“
Perhaps Chancellor Merkel ought to consider the chronic and growing problem of Iran’s terrorist “extraterritoriality” in Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere in her efforts to improve transatlantic trade. Perhaps she ought to consider the potential impacts of a massive US boycott of goods from German companies like Siemens and BASF that insist on doing business with brutal dictators bent on a second Holocaust. Is it really in Germany’s long-term interest to continue trade with a nation that threatens the fundamental security and moral interests of the entire western world? Are the short-term profits worth the cost?
And how about this double standard: When American investment firms do business in Germany, they are derided as bloodsucking parasites and “locusts” by German politicians and unions. On the other hand, when German firms busily sign deals in nations run by the most violent and reprehensible thugs, they are just trying to do some good business – and it is only the awful American “extraterritorial” interference getting in the way. And make no mistake: Iran is not the only case in point. While the international community struggles to put an end to genocide in Darfur, the German government is actively promoting annual trade fairs in Sudan for many of the same German multinational corporations that want to keep doing business in Iran.
Der SPIEGEL cover, December 2006: “The Greed of Big Money: Finance-Investors Grasp at German Businesses.” Of course many of the “greedy investors” in question are American or British. No mention of greedy German CEOs profiteering in Iran and Sudan.
Perhaps German media like “Der Spiegel” and German politicians such as SPD Minister Franz Muentefering should spend a bit more time reviewing the activities of German corporations abroad before embarking on their next crusade against foreign multinationals. Of course it is far more convenient to make a scapegoat out of “the Americans” and the other foreign “locusts” than it is to stand against the unsavory trading practices of Germany’s corporate giants. One honestly has to wonder why German anti-Globalization demonstrators aren’t lining up by the thousands to protest German multinationals’ dealings with Tehran and Khartoum. Perhaps morality applies only when it can be directed against the United States and Bush.
“USA Pressures German Firms Out of Iran: Commerzbank is most recent case
The USA is putting firms under massive pressure worldwide to stop doing business with Iran. With that economic isolation they want to force the country to stop its controversial atomic program. Especially German firms are hard hit by that, indeed they traditionally do good business in the region. The latest case comes from the banking world.
BERLIN. After massive pressure from the USA, Commerzbank has now announced that it will end its processing of dollar-business for Iran at the end of January. Commerzbank boss Klaus-Peter Mueller has already publicly complained about the pressure from the Americans in his position as President of the Federal Union of German Banks.
Commerzbank was the last large western bank that handled dollar-business for Iran. Now, according to Iranian financial circles, only three financial institutions in the United Arab Emirates continue to supply Tehran with dollars. Before Commerzbank, other credit institutes such as Dresdner Bank, Credit Suisse, UBS, HSBC and Barclays gave into similar American pressure. “Every single bank in the region is being spoken to and pressured by US representatives to stop their business,” said Viennese financial market specialist Albrecht Frischenschlager, who is headquartered in Tehran with the financial advisor Middle East Strategies.
In order to get Tehran to give up its Uranium enrichment, the UN Security Council imposed sanctions, but they only cover delivery of rocket technology and parts necessary for the operation of heavy water reactors. The USA has, on the other hand, unilaterally imposed an economic blockade against Iran.
Now other German companies in other branches are worried about their traditionally good Iran business. The results of the worsening climate are already clearly visible: The German exports to Iran sank noticeably in 2006 – in the first three quarters by 14 percent.
German businesses are now trying to prevent the contracts they have signed with Tehran from becoming public at all. “Everything that might touch on the US-business is deadly. Therefore nobody in Tehran talks about his Iranian contracts,” said a German business representative in Tehran under the condition that his name would not be printed. Above all, companies that are listed on US stock markets like Daimler-Chrysler with large businesses in America are affected. Siemens, for example, that according to Handelsblatt information is near to concretely completing a 450 million Euro contract with Tehran to deliver locomotives, does not want to comment on it publicly. Other firms listed on the Dax (German stock market) like BASF or Linde are moving on treacherous terrain with their involvement in Iran. BASF has just now signed and sealed a 304 million Euro project involving an Ammoniac-Urea facility in the Shiraz Petrochemical Complex. By contrast, Linde’s contract for a petrochemical facility, believed to be secure, was cancelled by Tehran for the time being.
Not only the German economy is feeling the American intervention. In order to prevent the billion-dollar involvement of the Chinese oil company CNOOC in Iran, Washington presented “our concerns” to the government in Peking and to the company. That was reported by the speaker of the US embassy in Peking. Before that, US interventions lead to the stoppage, for the time being, of Japanese financing for a project in Iran worth about ten billion dollars.
The German government is following the US actions with concern. For one, the Berlin strategy in the Iran negotiations is to only sharpen the sanctions against Iran in increments and to thereby include all countries, in other words Russia and China as well. Chancellor Angela Merkel again emphasized that goal on Wednesday after a meeting with Japanese Minister President Abe. On the other hand, the German government fundamentally rejects the attempt by the US government to enforce American law beyond its borders.
This growing problem of the so-called “Extraterritoriality” is also named as a theme for the “Transatlantic Economic Initiative,” with which Chancellor Merket seeks to strengthen the economic relations between the EU and the USA. “The direct access (or efforts to influence) of US authorities towards European businesses and banks is not acceptable,” according to a statement of principles from the Chancellery that Handelsblatt has a copy of. The paper lists the deficits in the transatlantic economic relations and the topics for the planned rounds of discussion. The International Chamber of Commerce has also already publicly criticized the aggressive legal approach of the USA.
European diplomats in Tehran have also shown themselves to be upset over the US pressure. One diplomat claims that, “We are being pushed out by it (the pressure) and the field is being cleared in the long-term for US companies.” Especially notable in that context is that Coca-Cola just happens to have awarded a production license to the Islamic foundation Bouyad-e Imam Reza, one of the most important economic corporations of the Mullahs.
Business with the Mullahs
Trade flourishing: The economic relations between Germany and Iran are traditionally good. In recent years the rising oil price has, above all, given important impulses to trade between the two countries. Between 2000 and 2005, German exports tripled.
Politically burdened: In the past year the fight over the Iranian atomic program has had negative impacts. The fear of international sanctions and American pressure against companies that do business with Iran have burdened economic ties. The data available up until the end of October 2006 already show a clear downwards trend.“
John Rosenthal at Transatlantic Intelligencer shows that a study by German Social Democratic Party’s Friedrich Ebert Foundation underestimates the extent of neo-Nazi sentiment in East Germany.
“Who was fair and balanced after Pres. Bush’s speech?” asked Bill O’Reilly at FoxNews. He answered the question for the U.S. media – and summarized, that some were fair and others weren’t. No clear picture emerged. It looked like a tie between fair and unfair reporting, something you would expect in a situation such as in Iraq where outcomes of military decisions are hard to predict.
As to the German media, unfair reporting on President Bush’s speech wins hands down.
SPIEGEL: “Disaster…Bush completely isolated, like Nixon at the end…”
Stern: “Bush decided against advice of many military experts…Bush didn’t understand discussion of last months…imprisoned in the labyrinth of his absolute truths…”
Sueddeutsche Zeitung: “Bush helpless…sad and unsuccessful one-man-show…his biggest mistake: relying on military means rather than on political initiatives…”
tagesschau: (in an interview with tageschau correspondent Patrick Leclercq) “Nothing will change for Iraqis…all reactions from the Iraqi street are negative…people have no hope regarding the role of Americans…”
heute (ZDF): “Leading republicans against additional troops…Senator Chuck Hagel: “worst blunder since Vietnam”…Bush loses respect of republicans…”
(BTW, the Chuck Hagel quote regularly pops up in the German media’s reporting – as proof for a loss of confidence in President Bush “even among Republicans”. No mention is made of Hagel’s long-time anti-Bush positions (1, 2, 3) or of Lieberman’s critique of Hagel’s remarks.)
There were few fair comments:
FAZ: “Additional U.S. troops mean more targets for insurgents and terrorists…but they are needed to safeguard against a complete victory for terrorism…”
I cannot possibly describe or accurately translate the venomous, polemic tendencies in the reporting on Bush’s speech in many German media outlets. Sure, serious political analysis has never been a major feature of German journalism – but the Bush Derangement Syndrome has apparently forced the system to new lows.
In the dastardly world of criminals, fanatical terrorists and child pornographers have a special place reserved in hell. That is why it was particularly encouraging to read this week that German authorities had won a major victory against child pornographers. How did they do it? SPIEGEL ONLINE author Jens Todt describes it this way:
“Child Pornography on the Internet: Investigators check all German credit cards for the first time
Spectacular strike against child pornography on the Internet: Investigators from Sachsen-Anhalt had hundreds of residences and businesses searched on federal territory. According to information from SPIEGEL ONLINE, all credit cards in Germany were checked over in advance: more than 22 million.”
The article goes on to detail how the efforts of the investigators have resulted in the identification of 322 suspects. In a follow-up article, Todt attributes the strike’s success to the “one time cooperation between the investigators and 14 banks.” He details how investigators have continued to track suspects around the globe to as far away as the Philippines.
This was undoubtedly a successful strike against a particularly disturbing group of criminals. But there is another reason we point this out. Note that the investigators ran a check on all 22 million credit card holders in Germany. You would think that such an action would raise serious questions at SPIEGEL ONLINE as to whether the authorities were violating privacy laws or civil liberties or even spying on unsuspecting Germans. In the first article, those questions are simply not addressed. Instead, the author describes the action only as a “spectacular strike against child pornography.” In the second piece, Todt quotes authorities to reassure readers that the credit cards were only looked at for specific data sets that fulfilled certain characteristics. Sachsen-Anhalt’s officer for the protection of private data is quoted as saying that the action was not about checking the activities of all German credit card holders but about finding a small circle of suspects. Sachsen-Anhalt’s Justice Minister Angela Kolb is quoted as saying that the action will have a “preventative effect.” Little, if any, skepticism is expressed over the action in terms of privacy rights, spying or civil liberties. The overall tone is reassuring and positive.
OK. So why are we making a big deal out of this? Well, let’s take a look at the tone of SPIEGEL ONLINE’s reporting from just this past summer when it was discovered that the US government was using financial data from international banks to track and detain violent terrorists:
“SPIEGEL ONLINE – June 23, 2006 – By Tim Hoefinghoff Account data spied upon worldwide: Banks remain silent, consumer advocates alarmed The CIA, with the help of the transactions-firm Swift looked through information in thousands of accounts worldwide. German bank customers are probably also affected. But the banks remain doggedly silent on the controversial anti-terror action of the USA. Consumer advocates speak of a scandal.”
“SPIEGEL ONLINE – July 18, 2006 Sensitive bank data – US intelligence service continues surveillance When it became known that the intelligence services of the US government had been monitoring the transactions of bank customers since the attacks on the World Trade Center, the outcry was great. The massive criticism has apparently not made an impression on the investigators.”
“SPIEGEL ONLINE – July 11, 2006 European Economy: Fear of US Industrial Espionage Among fear is growing among European firms that the USA is engaging more intensively in industrial espionage. In their anti-terror campaign, US intelligence agencies would collect much confidential data from firms and could use it for unfair competitive advantage.”
Here’s the bottom line: When German authorities go through millions of credit card accounts to get at child pornographers, it is a spectacular and successful strike against criminals (and it really is). When American authorities go through thousands of accounts in a targeted search for terrorists, it is spying, scandalous and threatening, even though the program helped authorities successfully track and capture terrorists including Hambali, Al-Qaeda’s top man in southeast Asia and one of the world’s most dangerous terrorists.
Somehow the journalistic standards (if one can speak of such a thing at SPIEGEL ONLINE) that apply to domestic German affairs are quite different from those applied to coverage of the United States. Put another way: Germany good – America bad.
Joschka Fischer, former German foreign minister, now with Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School, lectures the U.S. on the evils of unilateralism. If only the U.S. would subordinate to the superior teachings of European diplomacy…
Stern Magazine Crumbles in the face of Massive Pressure
In 2005, we first reported on a series on the history of the United States that Stern magazine, one of Germany’s most widely read weekly magazines, has featured on its website for several years. Until very recently, the introductory headline looked this way:
BEFORE DAVIDS MEDIENKRITIK:
“The History of the USA: No nation has
ever dominated the globe like the USA. And its people could care less
about the rest of humanity.” (circled below)
After we published our open letter to Stern less than two weeks ago in official protest, other sites took notice and joined the effort. Scores of readers undoubtedly emailed the magazine to demand they remove the line. After leaving the Hate-America headline up on their site for so many years, Stern finally decided to make a change:
AFTER DAVIDS MEDIENKRITIK:
“The History of the USA: No nation has
ever dominated the globe like the USA. The Stern series describes the history of the United States of America from the colonization to the present.”
This humble victory is further proof that Davids Medienkritik and its readers and partners in the blogosphere can make a difference and demand greater accountability and professionalism from media. The “journalists” at Stern and elsewhere will think twice about publishing this sort of anti-American hate speech again. For that, we thank everyone who supported this effort. Incidentally, this is not the first time we have successfully confronted Stern, and it may not be the last. Stern has a long, well-documented history of this sort of activity. In the long-term, changing attitudes will be far more difficult than changing a few lines of text.
Endnote: To our knowledge, Stern has still made no formal apology for its actions and has not responded to complaints or emails other than to quietly change the line above. If any of our readers actually received a response, we would love to hear about it. Stern has also failed to acknowledge its correction in any official manner on its site or otherwise. Perhaps the editors think they can minimize their own embarrassment with their readers and placate us as well by just acting like this never really happened. It is high time that Stern come out and openly acknowledge that it was wrong in a formal apology and accept responsibility for its actions by posting a clear correction notice.
“The military involvement in Afghanistan is on another, much better mandate in terms of international law than the American’s war in Iraq, which violates international law, that is beyond dispute. Nevertheless, one would have to be blind and deaf not to recognize that in Afghanistan we are factually steering towards an Iraqification of the war. For that, the Bundestag has provided no mandate and for that our Grundgesetz (Constitution) correctly gives us no possibility to participate. Ms. Merkel must make clear in America on this concrete case, that it is without question, for example, that the Bundeswehr and we will not support the confusion and catastrophic conditions that the United States has helped to create and is in part responsible for in southern Afghanistan by making Tornado-aircraft available. We must make it clear to the Americans, or to be more precise the current American government, that they cannot exterminate other cultural aspirations on this planet – and it is not automatically terrorism – as they did with the Apaches and Sioux.”
Here’s the bottom line: Dr. Gauweiler is justifying Germany’s unwillingness to share the burden in Afghanistan by stoking ugly, primitive anti-American stereotypes and hiding behind Germany’s Constitution. In fact, it is not the United States – but the fanatical ideology
that is Radical Islam – that is attempting to “exterminate the cultural
aspirations on this planet.”
Dr. Peter Gauweiler (CSU): Chair of the Bundestag subcommittee on foreign cultural and educational policy: “We must make it clear to the Americans, or to be more precise the
current American government, that they cannot exterminate other
cultural aspirations on this planet (…) as they did with the Apaches and Sioux.”
If anyone is deaf and blind about the
threats facing Germany and the West, than it is truly Dr. Gauweiler,
who apparently feels more threatened by Guantanamo (which President Bush himself said he wanted to shut down while in Germany) and McDonalds than the prospect of mass terror, suicide bombings, Sharia law and total subordination to Islamic order. It
is the Taliban, not the Western forces in Afghanistan and not the
United States, that is clearly responsible for what Dr. Gauweiler
describes as the violent “Iraqification” of the nation’s south. (And that is not even a good analogy because Iraq primarily suffers sectarian violence at this point.)
The blame-America-first-neurosis from which Gauweiler and others like him openly suffer worldwide was best diagnosed by Tony Blair, who recently wrote:
“Moreover, the struggles in Iraq and
Afghanistan are plainly not about those countries’ liberation from U.S. occupation.
The extremists’ goal is to prevent those countries from becoming democracies — not
“Western-style” democracies but any sort of democracy. It is the extremists, not
us, who are slaughtering the innocent and doing it deliberately. They are the only
reason for the continuing presence of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. (…)
Yet despite all of this, which I consider
fairly obvious, many in Western countries listen to the propaganda of the extremists
and accept it. (And to give credit where it is due, the extremists play our own
media with a shrewdness that would be the envy of many a political party.) They
look at the bloodshed in Iraq and say it is a reason for leaving. Every act of carnage
somehow serves to indicate our responsibility for the disorder rather than the wickedness
of those who caused it. Many believe that what was done in Iraq in 2003 was so wrong
that they are reluctant to accept what is plainly right now. (…)
This ideology has to be taken on — and
taken on everywhere. Islamist terrorism will not be defeated until we confront not
just the methods of the extremists but also their ideas. I do not mean just telling
them that terrorist activity is wrong. I mean telling them that their attitude toward
the United States is absurd, that their concept of governance is prefeudal, that
their positions on women and other faiths are reactionary. We must reject not just
their barbaric acts but also their false sense of grievance against the West, their
attempt to persuade us that it is others and not they themselves who are responsible
for their violence.
In the era of globalization, the outcome
of this clash between extremism and progress will determine our future. We can no
more opt out of this struggle than we can opt out of the climate changing around
us. Inaction — pushing the responsibility onto the United States alone or deluding
ourselves that this terrorism is a series of individual isolated incidents rather
than a global movement — would be profoundly and fundamentally wrong.”
On another note, Dr. Gauweiler might want to stop and reflect that Bavaria and its people have benefited enormously from the historic accident of having been occupied by the United States after World War II. One of the reasons Mr. Gauweiler has the freedom to vilify the United States on public radio is because the United States fought and sacrificed hundreds-of-thousands of its sons and daughters to rid Germany of Nazism and fought for German unification after standing guard for decades along the Iron Curtain. We know that some Germans are getting tired of “feeling so thankful” about that, but too damn bad, we are going to remind you again.
Bavaria and the Taliban: Would they still be pouring beer at Oktoberfest?
Further, most people in Bavaria would probably agree that in the six-plus-decades of American military presence, that Bavarian culture is still going strong, as evidenced by the CSU’s iron-death-grip on power in that state. After all, when was the last time you saw an American holding a gun to a Bavarian’s head as he or she was walking into a McDonalds, KFC, Burger King or Pizza Hut? And let us ask this: How would Bavaria have fared had it been occupied for several decades by the Taliban or Al-Qaeda? Would Dr. Gauweiler and his family have slept peacefully at night and worshipped and voted peacefully by day? Would they still be pouring beer at Oktoberfest? The obvious answers to those questions reveal the true threat to “cultural aspirations” in the world today. It is radical Islam – not the United States – that fundamentally theatens our culture and all culture.
Those who truly value the transatlantic partnership must never allow the security versus civil liberties debate taking place in most Western societies to obscure the larger struggle against a fanatical Islamic worldview that would not hesitate to exterminate our societies and way of life if given the opportunity. And while the transatlantic societies may have substantial differences over how best to deal with the threat, they all have a common interest in confronting and defeating that worldview in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world. Hiding behind legalisms and resentments, as Dr. Gauweiler choses to do, simply divides and weakens us all.
Gauweiler’s comments, along with those of Werner Hoyer (FDP), demonstrate that hostility towards the United States stretches across the political spectrum in Germany. The SPD, Greens and PDS have traditionally been the driving force behind anti-American sentiment in the political sphere, but they by no means have a monopoly on this unfortunate form of blame-America-first populism. One has to wonder when, if ever, the World-Scapegoat-USA mentality will ever be vigorously confronted and discredited.
Finally, Atlantic Review gives Gauweiler credit for making some positive statements about the “American dream.” We won’t. Those statements are little more than lip service and a thin veil to mask Dr. Gauweiler’s arrogant disdain for the United States. Anyone who implies that the United States is out to exterminate other cultures, while the Taliban and other Islamic fanatics are running around the planet beheading, bombing and bestializing their enemies, obviously has a very serious screw loose and needs to be confronted with his own ignorance.
Contact Dr. Gauweiler: [email protected] If you would like to write in English, we strongly suggest you contact Ulf Gartzke, the director of the CSU’s representative “Hanns Seidel Foundation” in Washington: [email protected] Conact the CSUin Germany: [email protected] We insist you to keep your comments civil, polite and respectful.
(Emphasis ours throughout)
Endnote: When it comes to throwing stones over the historical extermination of other cultures, Dr. Gauweiler ought to consider for a moment that he himself is sitting in a highly brittle glass house.
No wonder the German economy is making a comeback. Pretty soon Flipper will be pimpin in Berlin. This could open up an entirely new field in Germany’s prostitution industry: Dolphin sex slaves. Why not open a dual-use Sea World in Deutschland? Dolphins doing tricks by day and turning tricks by night. The term “dolphin-friendly” just took on a whole new meaning…
Great question. We’ve been hoping something like that would come along as well. In fact, there is a new fledgling blog called “SpiegelKritik” that is worth checking out.
