Gold?! We want their gold?! Fort Knox is stuffed with gold. America is not in a recession for lack of gold, Mein Herr! It is more complicated than that!
One thing to consider is that whenever an online news article has an option for free commenting, you will generally get reader comments from people who are for one reason or another particularly interested in the issues of the article. There are many issues which bring in certain people who… let’s say they have too much time in their hands. This includes the common conspiracy theorists, nationalists, the typical racists and xenophobics, the anti-whatever-people and then of course also those who are convinced that their idea of economics is the only correct one. Included to the last group are the gold enthusiasts, whose solution to any economy question includes or only consists of buying gold and then buying more gold.
The linked article is well written (and I like Der Spiegel quite a lot, though I will admit that some of their writing tends to go toward self-important, and sometimes I find their reporting to be needlessly negative or pessimistic, but those are not huge problems), it’s just that the subject matter will attract some of the personalities mentioned above, and they will post a lot. Here the gold enthusiasts, the economical pessimists, xenophobes, nationalists as well as extreme euroskeptics and those who have something against English, French or Americans will all share their insights. It’s to be expected, really.
It’s also not as if Germany wouldn’t have its own share of stupid people. Yes, millions of Americans, even majority of them, voted for George W. Bush, so understandably we expect better from other countries, but even in the last German election the NPD, basically a neo-nazi party, got more than half a million votes. That’s already more than enough stupidity to fill any reader comments, even though it makes hardly more than one percent of the voters, and then you have to add the other folks who also have funny ideas. I can imagine that it’s hard to argue with such commenters, since they will often just ignore any reasonable counter-arguments.
Personally, I get my news from sources like this: Link to Der Postillon (in German).
It may be that I expected too much of Der Spiegel’s readership, as to me it seems to be a reasonably sophisticated publication that wouldn’t attract single-issue fanatics. Another factor may be that I don’t read German as easily as I do English, which may make the writing seem more elevated, as it were, than it really is.
Still, if you compare it to Time, the top mainstream news weekly in the States, it obviously has much more content both in the numbers of articles and often in their length. I realize that the length of articles isn’t necessarily a barometer of the readers’ sophistication and taste, but it does indicate they are willing to take the time to read the material which is something. In this regard Der Spiegel is a bit more like The New Yorker, although the latter isn’t strictly speaking a news magazine.
I suppose I thought I’d find the goldbugs and xenophobes over at Bild or Bunte (if they still exist, that is).
I guess the pitting is about the comments rather than moving their gold to their own country. A few idiots come up with various theories as to why.
I’m afraid I can’t get worked up about either. Seems more MPSIMS than anything else.
However, your last line:
"Germans. Early every century they start up with the attitude… "
comes across as every bit bigoted as the accusations you make.
Sense of humor, anyone?
If that was the case I have no issue. However, it did remind me of the accusations and comments made about the French bigwig who was accused of rape.
Hey, only a plurality of us voted for Bush (and even that was only the second time)! :mad:
You’re correct of course, that the lengthy well-written articles somewhat hinder the simplest single-issue fanatics. But still, Der Spiegel’s huge online presence (it’s respected, so gets linked to a lot, so readers will find it) ensures that also people with weird ideas will pay a visit now and then. And since the discussion board seems to be relatively open for new members, it seems that some of them stay and start to make their theories known. Being literate and able to form coherent sentences sadly doesn’t necessarily mean that the person behind the keyboard wouldn’t necessarily believe funny things about “those sneaky Americans”.
Ach, Bild and Bunte, yes those do exist…
btw, based on your comments on that board, you have nothing to worry about your German skills. I can identify on your posts just couple of grammatical issues that are characteristic to us learning German as a foreign language, but nothing that would stand out.
Oops, of course! With a turnout of 60%, in 2004 just a plurality of a bit over 30% voter for Bush. So not even one third of Americans.
It’s good to know! When speaking I’m sure I have a horribly strong American accent, though, as the phonology of each language has diverged so greatly over the centuries.
This doesn’t say a lot for us even so. Why 40% of voters didn’t bother to show up for a presidential election is beyond my comprehension.
After you exclude those who would only be entering a protest vote (Republican voters in California, Democratic voters in Utah, third party voters anywhere), those who are no longer eligible to vote but have not yet been removed from voter rolls*, those who cast votes that weren’t counted**, and so on, 60% turnout isn’t that bad.
*dead, felons, expatriates with no US domicile, etc.
**unable to produce identification, failed to register a recordable vote, and the like.
Clinton vs. Dole. 'Nuf said.
ETA: Actually, I suppose that isn’t really 'nuf. When you think either of the choices are equally mediocre, and you don’t give a shit which one wins, your choice is ‘third party’, just for the hell of it, or stay home. I chose ‘third party’, but I can understand the ones who stayed home.