Kategorie: USA

Personally, I don’t perceive tabloid journalism to be necessarily a bad thing. Like when there is a room, full of Wall Street businessmen, counting their profits, for someone to like burst in and be like: “And what about the homeless?”, and in case of a general “We don’t care.”, to continue a newspaper article like: “Is this the world we want? A world, where the people at the economical and political top, don’t care even about their fellow citizen freezing to death in the thousands!” – such turns to sensationalism, but seems fair game.

But – while in this case, the cause may be all noble-like, just wanting to cause a commotion to get the topic rolling in public – when the entire business model is about scandalizing everything, to sell them copies and/or ad-revenue, it usually ends up as quite cheap sensationalism. “Cheap”, as in for someone to spend some hours on research, such as about eviction law in the jurisdiction, and talking to a judicial expert about whether landlords adhere at least to that minimal set of requirements as laid out by law, and so on, that requires work-time. And when the article then brings in perhaps $100 with ad-revenue, that aren’t really many hours that can be paid from it.

And what we are looking at these days, seems to be quite a number of groups trying to make profit with cheap content. Something, which sure sounds sweet. Just talking for an hour, or making some blog-posts, and thanks to ads, there is an income, some are able to live on. But, this isn’t necessarily quality content, even if the studio looks like all posh – just like a fine-dining restaurant, but ends up serving microwave-meals they got from a supermarket.

So, myself, I am not a fan of spending time, to listen to someone just rambling on about stuff. But just as I like being able to express my thoughts, as in these words here, it’s the modern day, with everyone being able to broadcast, with just a PC, smartphone, and similar.

What seems quite a pity to me though, is when the cheap ramblings get treated like it would be professional stuff. That isn’t to say that a ramble may not have a point. But, a load of pathos is just that, and far from actual journalism or even politics. In example, I may ramble on for an hour about how I am unemployed, after Mr Trump made life harder for economies in Europe. But to just insult him for an hour, to speculate about his “brain processing power”, and so on, that would be kinda pathetic even if it may be spicy – whereas a political commentary would rather focus on the lack of local job opportunities, and talk about that in a serious manner. Like:

“Welcome to today’s episode of DaLe’s Show. Our topic today, the situation on the job market in Berlin in particular, a situation complicated by recent woes about trade tariffs on both sides of the Atlantic ocean. …”

That may sound boring already, compared to all them variety shows, and whatnot. But like this, it is rather going into actual politics, instead of making a spectacle out of everything.

They canceled Jimmy Kimmel. The apparent reason was this passage (at 2:02), where Mr Kimmel said during a show monologue:

“The MAGA Gang (is) desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it. In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving.”

I talked about this issue in a previous blog-post. And I think Mr Kimmel made a valid point. I would call it a form of Sensationalism, that seems to be going on a lot. Like the headline of this blog-post, totally scandalous how they treat him, and all that – and with this, I perhaps draw a reader in, to be outraged together about it.

And if I were about to fill two hours of a stream, with no care about doing preparation nor about like journalistic standards, it might quickly turn to speculations, like: “You know, when Jimmy said it, that was after Mr Trump said the thing on Fox about California. And the chair of the FCC threatened to take action because of what Jimmy said, who happens to be in California. So, could it be, that the witch-hunt of Jimmy Kimmel is politically motivated, to cleanse California of everyone Mr Trump doesn’t deem worthy of existence? Crazy, right? And have you heard of Herschel Grynszpan? He killed a German diplomat in 1938, and the Nazis used it as pretext to launch pogroms.”

Or if I were be looking to score a specific point with the main audience of Jimmy Kimmel, I might be like: “Let’s rename something after Jimmy, to remind us of what he stood for, such as (insert agenda point, even something such as that Jimmy would have wanted us to purchase a new TV, link below).”

But do I actually care? Well, I don’t think that Jimmy Kimmel and Co. will necessarily join the masses of the homeless in California. I mean, if someone of the staff had perhaps relatively little salary, with which they were barely able to make mortgage payments, that may get tough. But a loss of job, happens, as I also know from own experience. So, it is not like I am grieving for them.

On the other hand, generally, for what sounds like a political critique to me, to receive such repercussion, that seems to be quite lacking a civil discourse. Such as asking, whether it would honor Mr Kirk’s legacy, to go hard in on everyone deemed a political activist not in line with what a sort of U.S. politburo deems to be in order. Mr Kirk may have been more of a showman, than an academician. But he seemed to enjoy to talk as he deemed fit to, and as far as that went, similar would be e.g.:

“Mr Trump is just a quota guy. Republicans were like: Oh, who we gonna nominate for President. He has to be white. Let’s switch on the TV, and look at Donald, he is white…ish. And that’s how he got the job, for being a white guy, but he doesn’t have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously.”

and so on. And it is hypocritical, when a double standard is used. Like, when the standard in U.S. is, that everyone can call everyone else a retard, even based on some racial categorization from the 19th century, then that is the standard. And quite weird to say: “But how dare this Kimmel say such a thing!”, isn’t it?

“If you don’t have freedom over your own body, none of the rest of it matters.”

Melissa Hortman made a very good point.

In the U.S., likely many associate this quote with questions about abortion. And that sure is also an aspect. But let’s first take a look at the issue at large.

That is the issue of cases, when someone didn’t or doesn’t have freedom over their own body. E.g. slavery – that was usually a case, where humans got treated like cattle. In Europe, during feudalism something similar existed until the end of the 18th century, called serfdom. And the list of cases goes on. Even getting punched, limits or violates a person’s freedom, when this person didn’t specifically agree to take part e.g. in a proper boxing match. And when the case is, that children receive corporal punishment in schools, which is still legal in some parts of the U.S., even worse.

So, quite a range of cases, where modern states usually agree, that every individual is their own person, who shouldn’t be subject to arbitrary limitations of their freedoms and rights by other persons – and that where the state i.e. imprisoning someone is concerned, it must have proper standards.

This means, for the State (police, courts, lawmakers) to get to forcefully enter a flat of an individual, or to arrest the person, there needs to be a “probable cause”. The threshold of when even a razzia may occur, such tends to vary a bit among countries, respectively among jurisdictions. But generally, a state which doesn’t take liberties, such state respects the liberties of all individuals, and even offers (legal) protection for these liberties (as in: “If not even the state gets to enslave civilians to build a pyramid for the head of state, then so shall no one else.”).

Due to the aforementioned, I perceive the modern State to be way more of a care-taker, than some patriarch authority of old, ruling about every matter of public and private matters. In example, if a restaurant offers one, two, or three bathrooms, even from the side of the state, I would say that it is their business, as long as there is some provision as agreed by the license to run a restaurant. Whereas some notion of that some council of elders decides how many bathrooms there have to be in every restaurant (such as Republicans apparently saying two), such notion seems quite absurd to me. That said, it would be nice, if restaurants would be more accessible to persons with a handicap, in particular in wheelchair, including accessible sanitary facility. But instead of forcing everyone to rebuild their restaurants, the “caretaking” involves rather to take a look at minimum inside-area requirements for new buildings with commercial use, where also e.g. an area for changing diapers is practical, such as at a shopping mall, or at train stations.

And as such modern state, with deep-rooted respect for individual liberties, when it comes to the topic of abortion, the main question is, at which point is an unborn considered an individual person, who comes with rights and freedoms, an abortion would infringe upon.

Like, when Catholics are asked, many seem to be like: “Even sperm is sacred, as it serves procreation, and that’s why masturbation is sinful, as it doesn’t serve procreation.” (a stance, which seem to be largely based on a passage in the Bible about Onan, where it may have been merely about the fact, that someone had to clean the floor afterwards). And when Rabbis are asked, they seem to say, that the soul enters the body with the first breath – that is, with birth, as the child didn’t breath itself in the womb.

Talking about this topic further, it even comes to stem-cell research being mentioned. That is the research, where some are basically dissecting human embryonic stem cells – at a stage such as 4 days after fertilization, at which point the human egg and sperm, have turned into around 100 cells.

Personally, I find it difficult to view these 100 cells as an individual. And where I am like: “Now it starts to get interesting.”, is around the 6th week, when the heart starts beating, and around the 8th week of pregnancy, when there starts to be electrical activity in the brain area.

In such context, to me it seems plausible, that professional medical assistance is available, when a girl or woman wants to abort a pregnancy, within a number of weeks since the pregnancy started. In Germany, this comes with a mandatory interview.

That said, it would be nice, if the situation would not occur, that someone wants to abort their pregnancy. Meaning, use of contraceptives, would help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, to begin with. Or if it is about a couple, who despite employment can’t afford or find a bigger flat, they would need for a family life – some support and politics, which actually would help the couple, would make way more sense, than an abortion.

But generally, for the public, parliament, king, pope, or whoever, to say that they have complete authority over what is expected of the couple, in regard to them having consensually mixed their bodies with each other, in my view, that is overstepping a boundary into private matters of the couple.

Meanwhile, traditional values don’t need to get cast aside. But instead of wanting to uphold these values by restrictions, it would already help quite a lot, when there would be some help for young families to get a foothold in these crazy markets, where not everyone has like their own clan-corporation ship to live on – and such support perhaps even to an extent that both don’t have to work full time all the time, just to be able to afford rent and food.

After the murder of Melissa Hortman und her husband in June 2025, a number of prominent figures in the U.S., claimed that “the left” was to blame. The arrested suspect was a Trump supporter though.

And since some people are basically claiming that the murder investigation is already solved, blaming once again “the left”, even though the suspect is at large and no manifesto or anything – is it an attempt to mislead the public about what really happened?

After all, what is known at this point? A single sniper shot killed Charlie Kirk. That sounds like a professional was involved. But that in itself doesn’t imply that it had to be a leftist, unless one assumes that a politically right-oriented shooter would have been too drunk at that time of day.

Also, it happened in Utah. Utah has a Republican governor. And crime is according to some figures in the U.S. only a problem in states with Democratic governors.

So, could it have been an inside job, to clean the ranks of those, who are considered to be a problem for the administration?

Charlie Kirk clearly had at least access to the inner circle of the Trump administration, and he had some media reach. Based on that, he may have obtained information, that someone didn’t want the public to learn. Information, such as possible insight into the Epstein files – and possibly details about what Mr Trump and Mr Epstein were all doing together, before they had a falling out, apparently over Virginia Giuffre having worked for Mr Trump, and then having been hired to work for Mr Epstein instead.

The are other possibilities as well though. Charlie Kirk pointed out in 2023 that the second amendment comes with some gun deaths. He did consider it “a cost worth paying”, and was supportive of the second amendment. But perhaps some NRA supporter didn’t like, what may have sounded like a hint of criticism.

He was also talking about second amendment being there, “so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government” – and that doesn’t sound like something those would like, who want to decide for the people that Republicans ought to rule them forever and about everything – even telling the people what to think, despite no evidence even pointing in that direction, such as with the claims of a “leftist perpetrator” in the case of the murder of Melissa Hortman and her husband.

And further speculating, the murder could have been, because the girlfriend of the shooter, fell in love with Charlie Kirk, and she split up with the shooter over it – and now he is perhaps comforting her in his arms.

And another story, after the attack on Hamas leadership in Qatar, perhaps a retaliation was ordered.

That said, it sure may have also been, as is implied by some commentators, that a radical far-left organization is on the loose, killing Democrats and Republicans left and right, until none remains. But, based on the facts at hand, to claim it to be so, while the criminal investigation barely started, that sounds quite like a fictional thriller movie some want to sell.

As you may have heard, there is talk from the White House about sending military to Chicago, Illinois.

The overall notion by the U.S. administration seems to be, that the crime in Chicago is generally to be attributed to undocumented immigrants, and that by deporting them, it will solve everything.

Looking at the crime numbers for Chicago, compared to Berlin in Europe, it does seem quite high. I.e. homicide rate, in Berlin, it is less than 10%, of what Chicago has. Two aspects strike me as quite relevant about this though:

First, the general prevalence of firearms in the United States of America. Back in the days, being all alone with the family-clan on a ranch somewhere, it sure sense, wanting to be able to protect oneself, in case Billy the Kid, or any of them infamous gangsters of the first days, showed up.

These days, kids grow up with constant pictures of destruction, such as from television, and with romanticized tales about the them tough guys, such as Billy, and then they get access to a gun. That doesn’t seem to be a good combination anywhere in the U.S. – In example, see Houston, where there are also hundreds of homicides per year, and e.g. biker gangs.

Secondly, while cartels sure seem to have a presence in the United States, from what I have read, many of the gangs are homebrew. Especially in Chicago, a number of the gangs go back to the 1950s – and their recruits, pretty much U.S. citizen, are simply from poor neighborhoods, who had barely job prospects, and it wasn’t until 1968 that all forms of segregation had been declared unconstitutional. And by estimates, there are more than 100,000 gang members in Chicago these days.

And to me personally, it would seem to make sense for actual politics to happen, for youth to not even end up joining a gang, and for there to be more professional detectives.

So, ICE may rake up their target numbers a bit from Chicago, even though the people it affects may be even mostly cases such as a single mother with child from Mexico, just looking for a better future for their child, who gets deported to some cartel territory.

But in regards to actual criminal cases, I find it to be very doubtful, that it will improve anything with Mr Hegseth going in with the Department of War, with statements about a “white deadly army”, which is supposed to be even more efficient at killing, due to some notion of “Clone army has no diversity, and therefore is strongest.” apparently.

And with it being mostly U.S. citizen there, with them guns, I would say, that it could become an actual warfare situation, as the White House makes it out to be. As in, the gangs sure may lay low for a bit, and not start out digging trenches, to defend the city. But if the troops are by now mostly the guys, who are in it, to establish ‘white dominance’ and such stuff, I wouldn’t be surprised if things flare up quite quickly after an incident, involving such a American Neonazi in uniform, with a gun he can’t wait to pull the trigger on. Hopefully, that won’t the be the case though.