The NBN needs emergency triage

Now that the election is done and sorted and there isn’t a hung parliament, it is time for Australia to get on to the job of urgent policy-making. There are lots of areas in need of help but I am going to focus here on one close to my heart: broadband.

By any measure, broadband policy in Australia has been an abject failure. Despite brief moments of hope, we moved from a regulatory morass dominated by a private monopoly to a set of deals and politics dominated by a government monopoly. No one advocated for this but in the reality of political mess that is what happened. As a result, broadband has not improved in almost a decade. Indeed, much of regular internet use by ordinary Australians has moved to wireless.

I know the Prime Minister agrees with me about this because he and I had a public conversation on it in 2011 before the Coalition was in government. You can read the transcript here. But I suspect that political truths have prevented progress. Thus, the first course of action is to cut out those political truths.

The first one is that one size cannot fit all in broadband. There is variation in demand. There is variation in the costs of supply. That means setting equal terms in urban and rural areas won’t cut it. It is far better to explicitly subsidise than cross-subsidise. Full stop. But because it takes time, a period of unequal pricing and quality is necessary. Any solution that tries to do otherwise will only continue the morass.

The second one is that the NBN’s active role needs to be diminished. It needs to retreat to the backbone. I am not sure what architectural requirements would be needed but taking any customer facing role of the NBN (they may not be any but it is hard to tell from the media reporting) and divesting it — and yes privatising it — is probably the right way to go. If you don’t want privatisation, then split it up into local areas and hand it over to local government. Broadband is not a national public good it is a local one. It shares more in common with garbage collection than defense. Treat it that way.

The third is that it then needs a clear open access regime. We need to encourage retail competition at the local level. Full stop.

The fourth thing is that we need to diminish any sort of exclusivity the NBN has. Any sort. Mobile should be able to compete with it fully. Other wired providers should be able to build over the top of it.

The fifth thing is that a temporary sacrifice in local environmental regulations on wires not in the ground needs to be nationally suspended. The idea is to allow these unsightly things for 5 years on the condition that they be then grounded. Sorry. That is what the rest of the world has done. If local governments want to pay to speed up grounding them then fine. It should not slow down any rollouts.

The final thing is a big one. After all these years we have learned that the biggest broadband use is video consumption mostly for private purposes. The wholesale pricing model and also retail ones will need to switch to something that ensures that those consumers using the most video have to pay more. That means no ‘under the count’ options. You will find them willing. The only thing is that means broadband caps as a default. That sucks — I know — I pay to have mine removed but the economics require it.

If it is wanted to make this more politically compatible then the basic free account is something that can be offered. That will open up the notion of broadband as a citizen right.

[Updated to reflect user comments and clarifications]

Adverse Action Lawyer wanted in Frijters versus UQ case

I am seeking a lawyer to run an Adverse Action case connected to the recent Fair Work Commission verdict that found systematic breaches of procedures and procedural fairness in the University of Queensland’s actions against me following my research on racial attitudes in Brisbane. I first raised these breaches late 2013, but they were never addressed, with lots of new ones added to them as the case dragged on. The VC of the university was also personally informed of these breaches in April 2014, publicly denying there was anything wrong about UQ’s action in February 2015. He was again informed in March 2015, consistently failing to rectify breaches of procedure brought to his attention. I wish to bring an Adverse Action case to claim back my considerable costs.

feb2015cover3264x1078

I expect the case to be worth at least a few hundred thousand dollars in terms of damages (legal cost, value of my time, etc.), and for it to be potentially one of many others because the FW case uncovered widespread breaches of procedures in UQ’s handling of misconduct cases. So there might well be many others who are now looking to bring Adverse Action cases against UQ.

I offer a pay-for-success contract wherein the first part of any awarded damages would go to the lawyer, but after a threshold payment I want 50% to go to the successful lawyer and 50% towards Vanavil, which is a school for orphaned victims of the 2004 Tsunami flood in India. I feel that helping the poorest Indians will go some way to nullify the damage that the managers of UQ did when they suppressed evidence of adverse treatments of Indians (and Indigenous peoples) in Brisbane and made it harder to research these things in general. And I want to feel that I haven’t wasted my time these last three years on fighting mindless bureaucracies, but that my efforts ended up helping people in need.

Negotiations on the offered contract are possible. Please contact me on email if you are interested or have a good suggestion for a good adverse action lawyer ( p dot frijters AT uq dot edu dot au).

[Ps. The VC of UQ was still making inappropriate claims last week on the UQ media about his lack of involvement and has refused to retract his claims this last week when I pointed his errors out to him.]

Finally, return to work tax rebates

I have been following the Australian election at a distance and it is amazing how much more policy-centered it is than elections taking place here in North America. There are so many policies it is easy to miss some. Thankfully an alert Twitter follower noticed something familiar about the ALP’s new policy with regard to employment by small businesses.

Top of the list was a new promise to give small businesses an additional $20,000 a year tax deduction for taking on a new employee who is under 25, over 55 or a parent returning to employment and parental leave.

There is alot here but the one that got my attention was the notion of giving small businesses a tax rebate for employing someone return from parental leave. I searched for details and couldn’t find any but I did want to say that this has the makings of the best parental leave policy ever, anywhere. Of course, I would say that as it is the same as the policy I have been advocating for almost a decade.

Anyhow, for those interested, here are some links to accessible articles about this:

And here is a set of videos I recorded explaining the scheme.

The bottom line is that rather than simply handing out dollars to parents on leave, this policy targets the real issue — discrimination in the workplace — and makes it easier for businesses to encourage parental leave and ensure parents return to work successfully. In other words, target the problem rather than the symptoms. While the policy announced is small scale relative to what I was proposing, I should note that is the sensible place to start so we can learn whether what is proposed in theory actually works in practice.

What the FWC DECISION on Frijters v University of Queensland can teach us

In the wake of the recent academic-freedom cases involving Safe Schools co-founder and academic Roz Ward (here, here, and here) and the journalism academic Martin Hirst, comes the decision that the Fair Work Commission (FWC) posted yesterday in the case of Frijters v University of Queensland.

As you may recall I wrote about this deplorable situation more than a year ago here on CET  (for a refined version, see here) and suggested that UQ’s attempt to charge Professor Frijters — the 2009 winner of the bi-annual Young Economist Award of the Economic Society of Australia — with (serious) research misconduct and to suppress his, and his former student’s, research on racial discrimination on Brisbane public transportation, was ill-considered and that at that point already the University’s ongoing and drawn-out attempts to hang on Frijters those charges were at the minimum disproportionate to the facts then known and also apparently unduly influenced by Brisbane bus company Translink.

The University administration under VC Peter Hoj decided — for what now looks like poorly veiled punitive reasons –- to push on, finding in a March 25 2015 report by one Professor Wright that Frijters was guilty of misconduct and that disciplinary actions were warranted. This led Frijters on 13 April 2015 to make his application for the Fair Work Commission to deal with the dispute.

The DECISION that commissioner Bissett posted yesterday is a pointed slapdown for UQ and some of its top administrators. While couched in typical legalese, the commissioner does not mince many words given the restraint that her office and position require. On more than 50 dense pages, and no less than 379 detailled statements of fact, assessments, and decisions, she makes it very clear that the University systematically, and through-out the three-year saga, violated its own Enterprise Bargaining Agreement, and that these violations were substantial and in several cases prejudiced.

To wit,

“[239] For the University to suggest that these are not fatal errors is to not give proper weight to the words of the agreement it has entered into with staff or a set of procedures it developed.”

Says the Commissioner, concluding:

“[374] I am satisfied that there were substantial flaws and a lack of procedural fairness in the process applied to Professor Frijters with respect to dealing with a complaint about the research.

[378] I am satisfied that the failures in the process, and hence the failure to apply the provisions of the 2010 Agreement properly are such and extend so far back that the entire process, including outcomes, is not reliable. There is no point in the process where it is possible to say that everything before that point in time was reasonable. The process was infected by error from so early on that the fairest thing would be to commence the process from the beginning again.”

The whole document makes for depressing reading and shows key admin players at the University have lost whatever compass, moral or of proportionality, one could and should reasonably expect. The document presents administrative arrogance of the kind that many academics here in Australia unfortunately have come to expect too often.

Again Commissioner Bissett does not beat around the bush (here and in many other places):

“[200] The 2010 Agreement and the research misconduct procedures have set out clearly how an investigation is to come about and how it is to be conducted. That the process and requirement may appear inconvenient or even if they are not fully fit for purpose in the particular circumstances does not give the University the right to alter those procedures. The procedures provide staff members with understanding and confidence in what is to take place. To vary from them so markedly is to undermine the importance of the 2010 Agreement entered into by the University freely with its employees. This is not something to be lightly put aside.”

I urge my fellow academics to read this document; who-dunnits and morality plays do not get much better.

What can we learn from the Frijters v University of Queensland saga?

First, discovery procedures such as FWC hearings are a beautiful thing.

Second, universities – even in the G8 – have more than their fair share of unscrupulous people who believe that under the cover of hierarchy and bureaucratic procedures they can act out any way they see fit. (I know, for many a reader here that is hardly a surprise.)

Third, for a leadership team that has been so clearly unmasked as being in contempt of its own agreements, it seems impossible to regain rapport with its staff members under the best of circumstances (such as an honest apology). The honourable thing to do seems to accept the finding (and for key players to take their hat).

Fourth, in [379] Commissioner Bissett notes that “It is not for the Commission to indicate the fairness or otherwise of Professor Frijters being put through the process again. That was always a likely outcome of the instigation of these proceedings.” It is to be hoped that the Commissioner is incorrect in that assessment and that those responsible for the ordeal they inflicted on Professor Frijters are not allowed give it another shot.

Fifth, Professor Frijters – at considerable costs to his health and also straight out-of-pocket and opportunity costs to himself – has provided us with a public good of considerable value. We should appreciate it. And learn from it. It seems about time to start a FIRE in Australia.

Sixth, every academic should be glad, and grateful, that an entity such as the FWC exists.

 

The benefits and costs of Facebook (and how to maximize surplus for self)

Facey is in the news again. Apparently one of Zuckerberg’s former employees went rogue and told the world that the news that is being streamed and trended is not determined by some “objective” algorithm. Rather the news is curated by a bunch of left-wing Ivy-Leaguers. Shocking news indeed. Who would have thought that a paragon of virtue such as Facebook and its owners would feed us biased news and opinions?

Predictably, plenty of social-media activity ensued. Also, the Facebook overlords invited a bunch of conservative / right-wing “victims” of that bias to its headquarters for a – undoubtedly very sincere – session. It must have been quite something, as even Glenn Beck found some aspects of it unpalatable. More social-media activity ensued.

Facebook also recently played an enabling role in the Aussie cases of Safe Schools co-founder and academic Roz Ward [see here and here and here],  Senator Levonhjelm’s senior policy advisor Helen Dale [see here], and racist posts directed at outgoing Senator Nova Peris. All cases demonstrate that the boundary of what is private and public are not well defined, and that in fact for all practical purposes the boundary is evaporating. Always expect everything that you post on Facey to find its way into the public discourse even if your privacy settings are non-public.

Discourses on Facebook can, of course, quickly spin out of control.  I doubt there is anyone who has not been through, or at least watched, debates that quickly deteriorated into exchanges of accusations, imputations of beliefs, insults, and more. Lots of virtue-signalling, too. As the adage has it, it can be a good thing for everyone to have a voice but it is often not. Too many people do not take the opportunity not to say something when it is offered.

While for years Facebook has been considered a necessary evil by many, its scope and usage continue to grow, with recent numbers suggesting that more than half of the Australian population have an account and on average spend 1.7 hours a day on it, qualifying them as some of the heaviest users world-wide.

Time, in any case, to the weigh the benefits and costs of it, with all the self-serving biases that might entail.

Let’s get the costs out of the way first.

There are at least three costs and they are considerable, no doubt:

First, the Facebook business model monetizes the kind of private information that (all too) willing customers are providing by liking this and reacting to that in the various ways that it provides. Facebook uses these revealed preferences to customize the messages that it sends and the ads it presents. The more of these ads the Facebook user reacts to, the better for Facebook since that kind of activity translates straight into Facebook’s profits, click-through rates being an important success metric. For the Facebook user that does not only imply various annoyance costs but quite possibly subtle meddling with preferences and never-ending targeted marketing. Lots of attention costs on top of the opportunity cost that Facebooking brings about in any case.

Second, Facebook presents a considerable invasion in privacy and security all the way to outright scams (google “skype video scam”). Reasonable pre-caution – for me, for example, not accepting the many requests by scantily dressed pretty young things who want to friend me – can avoid some of it but it is essentially impossible to escape the milking of emails that Facebook seems somehow be able to do. It is surely no coincidence (although it seems, as often, poor inference on Facebook’s part) that ads for some airline show up when I just made a booking on that airline for a trip.

Third, and possibly the most important negative thing about it, is Facebook’s addictive features. Like e-mail, or texting,  it is now well understood to induce a form of neural addiction and, like e-mail, or texting that addiction gets triggered faster when its rewards are structured in an intermittent-variable way. This does not even take designers to do, it is in a sense a feature that is built-in. Your mind gets easily hi-jacked, the reason being the choice between the considerable effort a serious  task takes– writing that article, or report, or preparing that lecture – or reading up on a couple chatty news item.

Relatedly, there are also health costs that come with it. Because Facebook is often read on mobile devices –  in Australia of the 10 million that are on Facebook every day, 9 million are on a mobile device –, “text necks” have become a recent epidemic with serious consequences for those affected by it.

Now that we got the costs out of the way, why would anyone in their sane mind use it?  Well, for starters, other social media platforms such as twitter are not much better. (Not that I knew first-hand.)

I see at least three benefits:

First, it is an easy way to stay in touch with the large number of people I met over the years. Friends from kindergarden (quite literally), to peers at various educational institutions, and teachers and students as well. Then there is all kinds of social contacts, random and not-so-random encounters of various kinds, and others. Of course, this motley network poses interesting questions about what the meaning of the word “friends” is in this context. Some have argued that there is a natural limit to the number of meaningful friends one can have [Dunbar’s number]. To me these are very silly notions drawing on conceptions of friendship that are antiquated. Clear is, to me, that there is absolute no reason to lose friends as you age, as was claimed in one recent study (see for write-ups about this study here and here).

Of course that takes some serious curating of your set of friends but it is often worth it. Once you have more than a couple of hundreds of friends, Facebook’s default setting deals with the resulting information flow and overload on its own mysterious terms and its algorithms often lead to “friends” drifting out of the feed. So Facey’s birthday reminder – worth the price of admission alone if you are as forgetful about these things as I am — is a good trigger to catch up quickly with someone’s recent activities. Being pro-active in this respect, and using several of the customization functions and prompts, is a way to defeat the Facebook algorithms that run in the background.

Second, Facey can be a fabulous content aggregator. Many – literally hundreds – of my Facebook friends are academics. At any point in time, and on any topic (replication crisis in the social sciences anyone? academics cutting corners? politics in Straya?) –,  I can count on them posting comments, or links to articles, that I would most likely not come across otherwise. All moderated by the credibility that they have with me based on often long histories of postings. In addition, if I try to recall something or need some pointers, typically s brief post suffices to get me quickly all the information that I need. And then some.

Third, Facey it is an excellent platform to explore ideas, to test-drive ideas that might just be of interest (e.g., this post essentially aggregates ruminations of myself and others on and about Facebook), even to test-drive ideas that might lead to publishable products. But it goes beyond content aggregation. It is the nature of Facebook that you can throw out even outrageous ideas for commentary.

How to maximize the value added for self?

First, stay away every day for about half a day completely. This is a strategy to avoid the neural- addiction problem and a rather useful way to go about digital de-toxing. It is not the only strategy of course – others have chosen other ways such as writing cocoons (see here and here) but mine works quite well for me.

Second, when you are online – whether every day for half a day or between writing cocoons, try to use it as reward mechanism. I.e., don’t leave it one because you make yourself susceptible to the kind of neural addiction discussed above. Set yourself a goal – like finishing a draft, or reviewing a paper  – and then reward yourself with some Facebooking. Then repeat. It might take some serious convincing yourself that the latest Kanye West update can really wait but once you manage to do it, you should have tamed the neural-addiction beast. Note that this way you also deconstruct the intermittent-variable-reward mechanism problem. While the strategy is simple and straightforward, its implementation is less so: Facebook’s data scientists estimate people check the platform about 14 times a day.

Third, be proactive. That is the way to counteract Facebook’s deviousness; it is also a way of keeping your site useful for your friends. Don’t just post stuff; at the minimum — lest it is obvious — rationalize your posts by offering a summary or commentary, or at least some excerpts from the article that you post. Facebooking is an indefinitely repeated game with multiple players and gift exchange is a major driver of its usefulness. Do not hesitate to delete out-of-bound or irrelevant comments or their perpetrators. Too many will post and repost over and over again what they think is interesting, often even without bothering to explain why, and thus most likely will end up cluttering your site. Plus, there are many that specialize in proselytizing on sites that are better curated and where their posts might reach more readers. While digital assets of the Facebook kind are not exactly commons, they tempt many to treat them that way.

In sum then, Facey has important costs — from outright opportunity costs over various annoyance and attention costs to added privacy, security, and addiction risks as well as health costs — but it also can be customized to bring about considerable benefits. By revealed preference, I obviously believe that the benefits outweigh the costs. It takes some effort though to get there.

 

I already left Australia because of continual idiotic debates like parallel imports

Magda Szubanksi said she would consider leaving Australia if the Productivity Commission’s recommendations regarding parallel importing of books were to come into place. Leaving aside the notion that leaving Australia would make absolutely no positive difference to her income with or without Australia’s current laws — her core market is still Australians — this is just one in a continual douching of verbage that comes from Australian authors ever single time the parallel importing laws come up. This time around the most ridiculous bit of self-interested dribble came from Richard Flanagan.

His argument is that he is a writer, the things he and other writers are good. Actually not just good so bloody good that the government should pay for them because they can’t convince readers to shell out. Flanagan argues that look other interest groups get money so we should too. That last bit is not a bad argument — if ship is sinking let’s get more people lifeboats — but I am not in the multiple wrongs make a right mood.

The Productivity Commission’s crime is to suggest that Australians should not pay more for books than people overseas. That includes the fraction of those books that are authored by Australians. So the Flanagan argument is that all books in history should cost much much more so that the fraction of current Australian writers can get a little bit more. This is basically the same argument as big coal uses to stop climate change policy — we shouldn’t have to pay more even if it is going to help save every living thing on the planet.

I hate these continual interest group based arguments. Their on-going nature and my personal failure to do anything about it was defnitely on the ‘reasons to go’ side of the ledger when I left Australia six years ago.

But on this issue I have more moral authority. I am an author. Several of my books cannot be bought digitally by Australians because we have parallel import laws and their like. I can’t even give them away! But more critically, I am a co-author on Australia’s leading textbook on economics. That is one of the books that earns a shit-ton of money (mostly for publishers but also for its authors) by charging Australians ridiculous prices — sometimes a couple of hundred dollars. Parallel import laws may well crush those prices. And that is just fine by me. Why? Because it will lower the prices of all books.

My strong wish is that finally this time around the Government actually follows the Prouctivity Commission and stands up for Australian readers and Australian students and the culture of the world.

Why Boehmermann and Merkel have already won, and Erdogan is set to lose: Some backward induction

The players and their alleged actions

Lest you have lived under a huge rock for the last couple of weeks, you will have heard about that German comedian (Boehmermann) who in his tv show dared to insult Turkish president Erdogan with a rather (c)rude poem in which assertions were made (involving, for example,  goats,  shriveled balls, a tiny penis, paedophilia, SM, gang-rape, etc.) that we can only indicate in this fine family outlet.

Erdogan, already enraged by a short and rather brilliant song video that colleagues of Boehmermann at another tv program had produced earlier,

not only demanded the poem also to be taken down, but demanded that the German government – represented by Merkel –  allow an obscure paragraph in Germany’s Criminal Code (“Strafgesetzbuch”) be invoked that makes insulting a foreign leader punishable with up to 5 years of prison. That obscure paragraph, 103, goes back to 1871 and has been invoked only a few times previously. Equally obscure, and absurd, is paragraph 104a which stipulates that the government must decide whether it allows for the complaint to go forward under 103.

After a few days of consultation and reflection, Merkel allowed the complaint to go forward, copping plenty of criticism for her decision from the usual bunch of Libertarian simpletons (but the freedom of artistic expression ! and the  freedom of speech !), politicians that oppose Merkel on all issues as a matter of principle (Die Linke), or at least saw an opportunity to score cheap public-opinion points (the Social Democrats, her coalition partner, that continues to slide towards oblivion in the polls), and of course the usual slew of (social-)media dimwits and ignoramusses.

The New York Times editors, for example, chipped in, demonstrating for the most part their lack of knowledge about the situation and their lack of understanding of the context. Erdogan silencing all of satire in Germany? Really? Boris Johnson also took it upon himself to lecture the world about the unprincipled decision that Merkel had allegedly taken. Creditable and evidence-based opinion right there. Of course, on top of being mostly spectacularly ill-informed about important details, all these arm-chair commentators had their own motives which we can safely assume had to do with the advancement of their own profile.

The (legal) facts

One fact is of particular importance and it has all but gotten lost in the media storm that has ensued. In his tv show Boehmermann started with a comment on Erdogan’s failed attempt to have that earlier biting song video about him taken down. Pretending to lecture Erdogan directly, and heaping in passing plenty of subtle ridicule on him, Boehmermann first expounded why Erdogan failed in his earlier bid to have the song video taken down. He then explained why some such song video – and any fact-based song video of that make – would be covered by freedom of artistic expression and freedom of speech (“Kunst – und Meinungsfreiheit”) in every civilized country in Europe, or at least the European Union (of which Erdogan would like Turkey to be a member of).

Boehmermann then proceeded and explained where the limit of such satire was, seemingly giving up at some point his attempt to explain legal fine points and instead illustrating with his poem the limits of what can be said. Throughout he stressed – dialoguing with a sidekick — that this was an illustration of what one could not say under paragraph 103. It was all quite brilliant, as these things go. Very funny, too. And it rhymed.

Looking at the context in which Boehmemann recited his poem, it seems to me that it cannot possibly construed as violating paragraph 103. I predict, and I predict confidently, that the judges will agree, dismiss Erdogan’s complaint (or, at worst, slap Boehmermann with a small token fine), and in passing shower Erogan with more ridicule.

(The young Augstein, thinking of himself – once again falsely — as being the legitimate successor of his father, argued that a violation of that paragraph for illustrative purposes is still a violation, in the same way as the illustration of an assault on someone is an assault. This attempted analogy seems pretty obviously flawed but I let the legal experts sort that out.)

The players and their actions

To understand why Merkel’s move was a savvy, and ultimately the only rational one, let us do some backward induction. It is a reasoning procedure that assumes rational (and typically self-regarding) behavior and starts from the outer reaches, or terminal nodes, of the sequential game tree that one wants to analyze. For the sake of simplicity, let us assume it will be the media circus in which Boehmermann, and his lawyers, will get the chance to explain why the 103 does not apply.

(Reasonable people can disagree whether this spectacle is indeed the end of the game. One could, for example, argue that this spectacle is embedded in a larger sequential game whose terminal nodes involve the repeal of the paragraph, something that all parties at this point seem to have agreed on for 2018 already. But let us focus on the more narrowly defined game. The extension just complicates the analysis but does not undermine the key points that need understanding.)

Merkel surely made her decision not by herself but based on legal advice and plenty of consultation and reflection on the payoffs of the actions she had available. I have little doubt that Merkel has been advised that Boehmermann is not likely to face serious consequences under 103 although he may still face consequences when Erdogan fans – of which there are many dimwitted ones even in Germany – will try to go after him (but they will of course do that anyways). It is indicative that Boehmermann is currently under police protection and had to cancel the next instalment of his show. But it was him and the producers, and not the government, that decided on this precaution, contrary to what some uninformed sources have argued or intimated.

Had Merkel decided not to allow the complaint to go ahead, she would have unnecessarily  – especially given that she needs Erdogan to sort the refugees mess out – gone confrontational with the dude at predictably very high cost to her and the country. She also would have to continue to deal with the issue (rather than let the court and Boehmermann deal with it) and would have pre-empted what I anticipate to be a lesson for Erdogan about the freedom of artistic expression, the freedom of speech, and for that matter the separation of power – surely it will be spectacular lesson. Hand over the popcorn.

Allowing the complaint to go forward under that silly paragraph was, in game theory lingo, a dominant strategy and it was the clever thing to do. Merkel lobbed the whole affair out of her court, seemingly conceding to Erdogan that he might have a case but at the same time making sure that dude will get yet another fundamental lesson in what satire is allowed to do in Europe. As a matter of fact, her own framing of the situation mentioned – not co-incidentally – Rechts-staatlichkeit (roughly due process and separation of power) and the presumption of innocence as motivators for her decision.

In sum,

for all I can see Merkel did everything right in this situation. Boehmermann will get the glory for having triggered the repeal of the 103 and 104a paragraphs and has become a household name in Germany and beyond (I never heard about the guy before): It was a brilliant performance by any measure, as others have also observed. Merkel can lean back and enjoy the show – possibly tete-a-tete with Boehmermann — that is certain to follow and meanwhile deal with way more consequential issues, such as the threatened Brexit, the continued Greek crisis, the refugees crisis, and the rise of a very vocal right-wing movement in Germany.

Erdogan will soon notice that his ways of silencing critics – while it seems to work in Turkey for the time being —  does just the opposite in Germany and for that matter in most of Europe: While both the Erdogan song video  and the poem would have been heard / seen by maybe hundreds of thousands and would soon, without his interventions, have been forgotten like those Greek and Polish magazine covers showing Merkel as Hitler, or dominatrix, and what not, the song video has now amassed at one source alone more than 8 million hits.

 

You should make sure to watch it because satire does not get much better.

Erdogan’s curiously ill-advised actions have led to millions hearing and seeing the artifacts that he tried to incriminate and thus brought to the attention of those millions what a dim-witted and delusional wannabe dictator Erdogan is. And that’s before his complaint has been dealt with in court.

 

Update October 5, 2016. The German court has decided to dismiss the complaint, as predicted.