German-Americans & Ohio

It is estimated that 50 percent of Americans have some degree of German heritage. In Ohio, people of German heritage continue to play a large role in the cultural landscape. Germans were among the earliest settlers in the state, a large amount migrating from Pennsylvania in the 1700’s through the early 1900’s. These immigrants even founded their own town in Lancaster, Ohio by 1800. Signs were printed in both English and German, and the town’s newspaper followed suit.

While the centrally German culture of this town has since waned considerably, other areas of Ohio continue to preserve much German culture. Communities of Germans can still be seen in Columbiana, Hamilton, Stark, Portage, Jefferson, Auglaize, Perry, Fairfield, and Mercer counties. More specifically, the greater Cincinnati and Cleveland areas are filled with German cultural tributes.

Photo from otrchamber.com

Cincinnati Germans live most densely in an area known as Over-the-Rhine. During the community’s founding in the mid 1800’s, it was a cultural mecca of German culture. The neighborhood had its own churches, clubs, and German-language newspapers. OTR has had its ups and down throughout the last few centuries, but today the area has a prosperous and popular art scene. Not unexpectedly, it is one of the most German-populated parts of the city.

Immigrants to Cleveland made the area the second largest German populated area in Ohio during the same time frame. Many of these people settled in Newburgh, Independence, and Parma to become successful public servants, merchants, bankers, businessmen, and craftsmen. Clevelander’s even produced their own German language magazine, Germania, in 1846. Additionally, German architects also designed buildings that speckled the towns, many of which can still be found today.

While it is likely that the German heritage that is promulgated in these areas has deviated from its origins because of assimilation into American culture, that does not stop people from identifying strongly with the culture. With this in mind, it is no surprise that there are a vast number of German-American organizations throughout the state.

Today, Cincinnati is home to over 30 German-American associations. German-American Citizens League of Greater Cincinnati (or Deutsch-Amerikanische Bürger-Liga von Gross-Cincinnati) is the largest organization in the area, serving as an umbrella organization for its 32 individual group members. The organization serves as a resource for all its members and strives to promote a bond of German-American heritage and culture. The association also plays a role in maintaining the German Heritage Museum in Cincinnati.

As I said, Cleveland is the second most densely German populated area of Ohio. The 2000 U.S. Census in the area indicated that approximately 10% of the population is German-American, making them one of the biggest ethnic groups in Greater Cleveland. With such a population, there are many G-A associations in the area. The Federation of German American Societies is a non-profit organization that serves as a forum for 16 German-speaking groups. One of the major purposes of this group is to put on a German-American Festival, which features authentic German music, dancers, food, and beverages for everyone to enjoy, as well as activities for the kids.

Because so many Germans live in these areas, it is almost natural that groups would put on these types of cultural celebrations. But arguably the largest G-A festival in the state of Ohio can be found in Toledo. This August, the city will hold the 47th annual German-American Festival. The sponsors expect over 35,000 attendees to experience great German food, beer and entertainment this year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIZB_hyWeDQ

Ohio has a huge population of Germans, something reflected in our state’s history, organizations and festivals. Ohio, though, isn’t alone; German heritage is celebrated nationwide. The question is, though, with the integration of American culture into traditional German culture, how "accurately" are people celebrating it? Do these celebrations identify more with classic or modern Germany? Do those that participate in these organizations and festivals have a strong connection to their heritage or is it more of a "my great-grandparents were from Germany so I think I should go to this festival" type deal? Do any of these variables make the celebration of German culture less authentic or valuable?

The answers to these questions are likely to vary from individual to individual. But personally, I believe that celebrating a culture is worthwhile in the majority of cases. German heritage's historical preservation, organizations and festivals in Ohio are definitely one of these. The people sponsoring organizations and festivals intend to keep the culture alive from what they remember and believe to be authentically German. So what if every nuance of an organization or festival deviates from modern Germany? They are celebrating what they know to be true, something I believe is immensely valuable.

The Future of NATO

In my last post I examined the NATO alliance, its charter, its history, and also looked at some issues that the alliance faces as it moves forward. NATO has quite a few critics and according to some, insurmountable obstacles that make the alliance irrelevant to modern security.  While some have argued for the dissolution of NATO I would argue the opposite. NATO is still an effective alliance meeting both its main charter of providing security for its member nations as well as acting as a humanitarian organization when it needs to.

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union 2 of the 3 military operations NATO has undertaken have been humanitarian missions. Some argue that by doing this NATO is operating outside of its charter, which is to protect its member nations. While they might have an argument, it is within reason for NATO to undertake humanitarian missions as it did in Kosovo and more recently in Libya. Some might ask, if nations need humanitarian assistance, why not just let the U.N. handle it? Isn't that what the U.N. was established for? Yes, but the U.N. has some major limitations. For example, let's look at Syria.

Syria is by all accounts a humanitarian disaster for anyone not on the side of President Asad, however the U.N. hasn't done anything. Why? Well the UN Security Council has to approve any military action for humanitarian missions.  Who is permanently on the Security Council?  China, Russia, France, the U.K. and the U.S.  A veto from any one of these nations means no U.N. action. China and Russia have blocked every attempt to help Syria through the U.N.  While NATO has stayed out of Syria thus far for a number of reasons, it is still a way to undertake a humanitarian mission as a part of a broad coalition while China and Russia block any U.N. action.  NATO's actions in Kosovo and Libya saved countless numbers from certain slaughter. These missions weren't without their drawbacks but NATO will learn and update its tactics for future engagements. Now all of this is not to say that NATO has to be the world's police force. It does mean that if NATO members feel strongly enough about a security situation and the U.N. can't or won't act then NATO has the means to.

These humanitarian missions alone make NATO more than relevant for the modern world; however, they are not the only reason to maintain the alliance. Some other major benefits of the alliance include: 

- Allowing member nations to act as part of a broad alliance instead of unilaterally or bi-laterally.

- Allowing member nations to counter Russian and Chinese influence. Russia, is still hostile to Western interests and influences. A strong alliance helps to maintain a stable Europe and a stable Europe is good for all economies involved.

- New global low-key dangers are emerging as threats. While they don't threaten all member nations equally it's beneficial to have all member nations involved in thinking about and finding ways to counter these threats as opposed to just the U.S., the EU or any other nation doing so on its own.

- While NATO might not be overwhelmingly preventing new, smaller threats, the alliance is still a deterrent to any large-scale threats from Russia, Iran, or other rogue states.

As I discussed in my original post, NATO has a lot of questions surrounding it and issues that its member nations will need to resolve. Nonetheless, these issues are no reason for the U.S., Germany or any other member to call for the alliance’s dissolution.

There are a few major arguments against the continuation of the alliance that I'd like to address.

In a WSJ article Patrick Keller and Gary Schmitt state that "It will be impossible to continue to say that NATO has been the most successful military alliance in history if its most prominent effort to date [Afghanistan] falls short for lack of political will."

While no one wants Afghanistan to go back to how it was pre-9/11, reality has to be faced. Afghanistan has been a hostile place for as long as foreigners have tried to invade. Just because it might end up unstable again is not necessarily a reflection of NATO's ability as a military alliance.

In spite of a potential black eye from the Afghanistan mission, NATO spent the better part of the 20th century deterring Soviet aggression and deterring a Soviet attack on any of its member nations. That alone puts NATO in the running for the most successful military alliance in history.

Moving forward, if NATO wants to be successful it needs to put Afghanistan in the rear-view mirror and learn from its involvement there. As with Libya, both operations had good intentions but lacked foresight. Learning lessons from Libya and Afghanistan could ensure that future missions avoid the problems that plagued NATO in both of these countries and go a long way to ensuring that NATO remains one of the most successful military alliances in history.

There is a lot of concern right now about member nations contributing unequally to the alliance, especially nations such as Germany and the U.K. Former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was quoted as saying that "NATO has become a two-tier alliance." The core of these critiques is that NATO lacks the resources and will to undertake major operations, as was evident when Germany stayed out of the Libya campaign. While this is true it does not signal a death toll for NATO. In the short-term NATO might have some reduced capabilities but this simply means that it will have to be more cautious about any plans to intervene around the world. This is not a bad thing.

Undeniably, the lack of a clear-cut threat to the alliance makes it hard for some member nations to find the resources or will to contribute equally. However, if a new (or old) major threat was to emerge, the alliance is already in place and member nations would likely have no problem coming up with resources or the will to counter it. This alone should be reason enough for the alliance to continue into the foreseeable future.

References:



http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/05/14/expert_survey_the_future_of_nato

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-6501C3C2-BDA2A11B/natolive/what_is_nato.htm

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/think-tank-criticizes-germany-s-role-in-nato-a-833797.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303448404577409670792417782.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/criticism-of-germany-s-military-role-in-the-nato-alliance-a-833503.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0521-leadershipnato-20120521,0,3868940.story

http://www.economist.com/node/21551491

http://www.economist.com/node/21551464

http://www.acus.org/about

http://townhall.com/columnists/charlesdjou/2012/05/18/the_future_of_nato/page/full/

Houla Massacare Prompts the Withdrawl of Foreign Ambassadors

After the recent massacre in the town of Houla, the U.S. as well as other allies such as France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Canada and Spain have decided to dismiss their top diplomats from Syria out of concern for their safety (ABC News, 2012). On May 25, the Houla Massacre, as it is known, was carried out by Assad's regime, claiming the lives of over 108 civilians (Reuters, 2012).  According to the UN human rights office which carried out an investigation of the massacre "entire families were shot in their homes". So far the UN observers in their visit have "confirmed the deaths of more than 90 people" which included "at least 30 children under the age of 10" (ABC News, 2012). The photo to the left shows the bodies of victims from Friday's massacre lined up into rows (From BBC, 2012).

These horrific events have provoked reactions from leaders across the Western world. The Obama administration has stated that the U.S. will not take a role in supplying arms to Syrian rebels despite pressure domestically from politicians such as Senator John McCain (Yahoo News, 2012). The administration fears that if we were to ship arms to Syria for the opposition it could "escalate the bloody conflict there". The State Departments official spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said this past week that "We hold the Syrian government responsible for

                                                                                (Photo From YourMiddleEast, 2012)

this  slaughter of innocent loves" and has publicity announced that "We (the U.S.) encourage all countries to condemn the actions of the Assad regime through similar action" but for now, the U.S. will remain hands off  militarily (ABC News, 2012). The U.S. closed it's embassy last February in Damascus. 

The UN Security Council has also condemned the actions taken in Syria by Assad. The video above is special report on the UN's response to the Houla massacre.

The recent events in Syria has caused its two biggest supporters, Russia and China, to reconsider their backing for the Assad Regime. In a recent statement from the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, "The government (of Syria) bears the main responsibility for what is going on" and that "any government in any country bears responsibility for the security of its citizens". In addition China, this past Monday, said it "condemns in the strongest terms the cruel killings of ordinary citizens, especially women and children" (Der Spiegel, 2012). China and Russia's shift in support could help the UN Security Council establish a consensus on a plan to deal with the Syrian conflict.

Despite Germany's past disagreements with the U.S. on the subject of military intervention in the region such as the Iraq War, both countries are in agreement on the Syrian conflict. Neither Germany nor the U.S. would like to become involved militarily. The spokesperson fro the German government, Martin Schaefer, in a recent news conference, stated that Germany will remain hands off on the matter to prevent the conflict from "spreading like wildfire in the region" (Al Arabiya News, 2012). In addition, Schaefer expressed that since Germany did not feel military intervention was the best solution, the country has instead put it's support for the UN.-Arab League peace plan. Schaefer stated that the peace plan was the "best of all possible options" but he emphasized his concern of maintaining stability in the region. If violence were to continue to intensify, Germany warned that they "have no ruled out" implementing "further sanctions on the regime" (Al Arabiya, 2012). Later this week Chancellor Merkel will be meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Berlin and the Syrian conflict is an projected topic of discussion between the two leaders.

There are some however that believe recent photos being released are propaganda to slander the Assad regime. Here is a video that attacks certain information being shared about the massacre in Houla.

Will China and Russia's disapproval of Assad's actions allow the Security Council to form some agreement on the matter? Will the U.S. remain hesitant to become involved militarily? How will Obama respond to Syria's increasingly violent situation as the president continues to campaign for a second term in the November elections? It will be interesting to see how countries will decide to respond to developing events in Syria.

Sources:
 ABC News, 2012: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/us-allies-expel-top-syrian-diplomats-houla-massacre/story?id=16450460#.T8V3FNVfHwO
Al Arabiya, 2012: http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/05/30/217531.html
Reuters, 2012: http://news.yahoo.com/fewer-20-houla-victims-died-shelling-u-n-092341262.html;_ylt=A2KJjbyE5MRP3X0AGJvQtDMD
Der Spiegel 2012: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/media-commentators-say-its-time-for-un-action-on-syria-a-835724.html
Christian Science Monitor, 2012: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2012/0529/After-Houla-massacre-Russia-cools-toward-Syria-video
Yahoo News, 2012: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-administration-denies-role-arming-syrian-rebels-232112058.html

Is suing universities for your dream major acceptable?

In Germany the places at universities are limited. The competition keeps growing and that is why many students sue universities to be accepted these days.High school diploma grades (similar to GPA) play an important role, and only those that are ranked best will be accepted to their favored major. Especially medicine, pharmacy, psychology and social work are highly admired by beginning students, and are very hard to be accepted to. Furthermore the universities have to deal with a higher number of high school students, because high schools in Germany recently changed from 13 years to 12 years. So a lot more students (500.000 freshman’s = new record) graduate at the same time. Additionally, military and civilian service are no longer compulsory. All these are reasons why the numerus clausus and the restriction of admission becomes higher and that is why many students do not see another chance to be accepted without suing the school. For winning the case their main argumentation is that the capacities are unexhausted. Normally the schools have to recalculate their capacities every semester but in the general case that does not always happen. Many times Universities lower their capacities to safe money, because each student costs them a lot. And that is how students can win the case and study their favored major even tough that way is longer, not easy and sometimes very expensive. Other students have to have a Plan B or Plan C.  In Germany it is helpful to have alternatives. To check different cities and similar programs, and that might help almost everyone to find a place to study. At least if you don't want to study medicine or one of the other popular majors mentioned above, then only studying even harder in high school to get a better high school diploma grade, waiting, or suing might help.

If a student in Germany has sued a school and got accepted, it is better not to mention it. It has somehow a negative connotation among society. And I even heard of cases where those students were discriminated from their professors and other students and really had a hard time in college because of that, even though they were really good students. But there are some people who understand the students. Because there are simply not enough college places in Germany. And Germany has an shortage of physicians, especially in the rural areas. So why not accepting more students who are willing to study hard to become for example good doctors? I think it is sometimes very hard to know in high school what you want to study and especially how to pursue that goal. High school does not always prepare you for that, and then you are punished and can not study e.g. medicine just because there is not enough capacity. I think people who sue colleges must really have a strong will and passion to take on the burden to sue a school. 

Is it common in the states to sue universities? Do you know people who did that? How does it work here? Would people be discriminated? I heard that most of the colleges would almost accept everyone because it brings more money into the school. But there are schools such as Harvard or Yale who definitely have higher expectations, right? So would people try to sue them at all?

Freedom of expression vs. jail time: Flag desecration in the U.S. and Germany

“Congress must defend the right of all Americans to express their views about their government, however hateful or spiteful or disrespectful those views may be.”

Wisconsin Congressman Russell Feingold was quoted saying that in a 2006 Washington Post article after an amendment to ban flag burning in the United States was voted down 66 to 34. A Gallup poll cited in the article showed that “most American wanted flag desecration outlawed because it is a reprehensible insult to the nation’s founders and a dishonor to the Americans who died fighting tyranny.”

However, flag burning has been legal in the United States since 1989 when the Supreme Court decided it is protected by the first amendment as freedom of expression.

Protesters burn an flag during an Occupy Oakland Protest (SFGate)

Germany, on the hand, has criminal laws against it for publicly displayed flags. Anyone who destroys or commits damage to the German flag can be sentenced to three years in prison. The prison can be increased to five years if the action is seen as a direct offense to existence of the Federal Republic of Germany, according to the German law code.

 German flags are burned during a protest in 

Nuremberg in 2006 (Wikipedia)

Though no criminal charges can be brought against Americans for harming their flag, the U.S. does have a lengthy flag code, with ten sections; including one about respecting the flag that has 11 subsections. There are two subsections that prohibit the flag from being used as “apparel” or “a costume.”

If the flag code is strictly followed everything from flag cakes to t-shirts is prohibited. So is using the flag in advertisements. But, the Flag Code is just a code of ethics and has no penalties attached to it so nothing can be done.  

Germany does not have a flag code and wearing the German flag, for something like a cape at a soccer game, is common and allowed.   

Before the 1989 decision Americans could face criminal charges for flag desecration. One documented event involved the Nazi flag and American soldiers in 1941. Two navy sailors torn down and slashed the Nazi flag that was flying at the German consult in San Francisco. The two were arrested and convicted of malicious mischief, according to a Time Magazine article.  

Today, laws in Germany and the United States different regarding the Nazi flag just as much as the laws for any other flag. Use of the flag is illegal in Germany, according to their law code. Flying the flag is allowed in the United States because it is protected by the first amendment.

Neo-Nazis display a Nazi flag at a rally in Orlando, Fla. (Wikpedia)

The American flag is seen is a symbol of nationalism for many Americans. Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye was quoted in the Washington Post article calling flag burning “obscene, painful and unpatriotic.” However, another nationalistic idea — the first amendment — is what allows flags to be burned.

Though flag burning events are not as very common anymore, they are still met with outrage when they do occur. On May 27, an American flag was burned in the front yard of Oklahoma Senator Al McAffrey.

He was quoted by multiple media outlets saying, “I don’t understand why they did this. Freedom, that’s what the flag stands for, you know, when serving in the service, in the navy and also the marines. It’s about freedom and that’s what our flag stands for.”

What are your thoughts on a ban on flag burning in the United States? Whose laws do you think are better — Germany or the United States?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062701056.html

http://www.khou.com/news/Flag-burned-in-senators-front-yard--154866805.html

http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/90a.html

http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagcode.htm

http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/faq.htm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,801203,00.html

Wake Up U.S. and Germany, Our Soldiers Need Us

Living with a marine veteran, who served two active combat duties in Iraq, has allowed me to gain a better understanding of the lives of veterans once they come back home. Having structured tasks such as going out on patrol to look for Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), locating terrorists and other possible threats and waking up and going to bed when you are told are all things that soldiers become accustomed to. These duties that soldiers do on a daily basis makes coming home and becoming a citizen again prove to be very difficult, let alone the things they saw while oversees that many of us cannot even fathom. So how do doctors or the government overall retrain soldiers and help them to re-acclimate themselves into the general population? My veteran roommate has told me that he never wanted help at first; he did not want the label PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) because then he would carry that label with him wherever he goes in life. However, through joining the Combat Veterans Club at Ohio University and talking with fellow veterans that served in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, and a few in WWII, he learned that talking to someone about his flashbacks, his experiences, and how life is outside of the Marine Corp. is beneficial and helps him deal with his experiences. Clubs and organizations that help veterans cope with their PTSD seem to be overlooked by many of us and are not receiving the aid to help our veterans out.

America has new generation of veterans.  With more than 1.6 million soldiers back from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we are seeing a completely new wave of veterans that the U.S. has never experienced before (Washington Post). We are seeing more veterans from the Army Reserves, National Guard and more women veterans. The Associated Press found that "54% are getting health care through the Veterans Affairs (VA); only 40% did after Vietnam and World War II. About 12% of recent veterans seeking VA care are women; 8% of veterans overall are women," (Washington Post). Providing them with the care they need, in my eyes, is the least that we can do with everything they have gone through four our country. My roommate has told me numerous stories of his experiences in Iraq and the daily challenges he now faces as a college student. He has flashbacks constantly; if he sees a pothole in the road he swerves away from it because in Iraq a pothole usually meant that there could be an IED in it. I share this because it is little things that we would never think about, but to a veteran, it is a huge reminder of their experiences. I believe that there needs to be more focus on what we can do to help these veterans re-acclimate, because I feel that they are not getting the help they deserve right now. With an estimate of 10%-30% of soldiers being affected with PTSD, and who knows how much it would increase if PTSD was not seen as a weakness among soldiers, government programs need to be enacted more (PBS News). There needs to be more aid in the transition of being a soldier to a civilian who is seeking to graduate college. Yes, the GI bill helps with the expenses of college but 80% of veterans drop out while only 3% percent graduate (PBS News). Along with this, those who have served since September 11, 2011, the unemployment for soldiers is 29%, which is much higher than the 17% unemployment for non-veterans. 

In this video, the University of Colorado introduced the program 'Boots to Suits' which hopes to be a helpful outlet for those veterans who are returning to civilian life, those who want to graduate college, and those looking for employment following graduation.

In Germany, soldiers coming back from Afghanistan are not only facing the difficulty of becoming a citizen again but also to a country who may not necessarily want to aid and celebrate their military. From a country that "sparked two world wars," Germans have historically shied away from commemorating their military (Seattle Times). Like soldiers in the U.S., German soldiers also need the medical care, the support from their country and hometowns in order to help them with their healing process. Germany does not have a Veterans Day, a day that the U.S. highly recognizes. If Germany were to have a day for their veterans, it could then create possibility of their veterans getting the care they need. Germany's society is unprepared with the homecoming of soldiers from Afghanistan because there is no tradition of welcoming them home in the past and they do not know how to provide the support these soldiers need. 

If soldiers care goes unnoticed, are ignored by both countries, what societal repercussions might be in the near future? With Germany going to an all-voluntary military, will they have enough volunteers to protect them? If programs like Combat Veterans Club or 'Boots to Suits, do not receive the funding needed to provide support to our veterans, will the unemployment rates for veterans continue to increase? These are all questions that not only our government needs to pay attention to, but also what universities and local organizations that support veterans need to look at. Maybe we don't all agree with the war in Iraq or Afghanistan and that we should not of sent troops over in the first place, but that is coming from a higher level of authority and those who serve the U.S. military wanted to serve our country and protect us. Soldiers in Germany were in a draft until last year, they did not have complete control on where they may of been stationed. I am a strong supporter of our troops (if this could not already be seen in my writings) and living with a veteran has shed light on the gaps and faults that we, as a society, fail in when giving support to our troops. 

The U.S. does seem to be more advanced in supporting our troops compared to Germany, with more organizations and programs available to U.S. soldiers. With that being said, perhaps Germany could take from what we know works or doesn't work and implement programs to assist their returning soldiers to find the right school for them and find employment whether a college grad or not. The U.S. is much better off it seems but we still have room for improvement. Within this link, Ohio Universities Combat Veterans, provides an example of what a Veterans Committee looks to achieving and is something that Germany may look at implementing.

Seattle Times

Boots to Suits

PBS News-Program on Dealing with PTSD

Washington Post

Body Donations Across the Atlantic

            Recently, I stumbled across an attention-grabbing article entitled “Ten Things to Do With Your Body When You Die.” As I don’t often give much thought on the topic, I was especially surprised as I further researched the range of options in terms of body donations. Body donations consist of donating a body, tissues, or organs for the purpose of medical use and research. Often, these bodies are donated to a university for use by medical students, but this is not the only option. Bodies can also be donated to a body broker, which works to distribute body parts to various universities and medical institutions for research purposes, or by filling out a body bequest form, the body can be used as a crash test cadaver, essentially a “real-life” crash dummy.

            The most common place for body donations however is to universities for use by medical students. In fact, body donations in Germany have increased to the point of exceeding the available space for use of the cadavers in universities clinics. Typically, medical universities and institutions are eagerly accepting most all donations, which makes the overwhelming number of donations at Essen University Hospital’s Institute of Anatomy particularly interesting. In the German based institution professor Hans-Peter Hohn explained that each month 20 people have been expressed interest in body donations, where the university typically only requires 35-40 cadavers each year, forcing them to turn away many body applicants. Similarly, the University of Frankfurt’s hospital, requiring only about 50 bodies each year, received over 200 applications.

            A possible explanation for this increase can be accredited to the increasing cost of funeral expenses, rather than a dedication to donating to aid in medical research. Many universities cover burial costs after the bodies are used, which anatomy departments have been increasing the fees to cover the expenses. In addition, limitations have been set on who is allowed to donate bodies. A university in Mainz has begun limiting donations to only those residents within a 6-mile radius of the university. At the University of Cologne, body count increased to a point where three bodies even had misplaced identification due to the chahos of increased body donations.

            Similarly, in the U.S. when the recession hit in Forest Lawn Memorial Park in Los Angeles, California , bodies were simply left unclaimed. The county’s chief investigator stated the families were unable to claim bodies due to the economic downturn.The high costs of funeral expenses seem to affect both nations as the business of death is expected to increase. Even the cost of cremation can run close to $500 even without the additional costs of funeral services.

            Still though, if one would truly like to avoid the costs of funerals, there are still more options for body donations in the field of science. One of these options are Body Farms, of which there are five located in the U.S. primarily. These farms provide research for the purpose of viewing decomposing bodies in the field of forensic anthropology studies.

            Another more controversial option for body donations can be accredited to the German start of the Body Worlds exhibition. These exhibits display real human bodies in lifelike positions preserved using the technique of plastination. German anatomist Gunther von Hagens developed this form of preservation in 1977. In 1995, the first Body World exhibit opened in Japan. Since 1993, when von Hagens founded the Institute for Plastination more than 13,300 registered donors are listed to be used in the plastination exhibit. The institute has accumulated so many requests for donations (similarly to the medical universities) that they currently are no longer accepting new donations.

           

Body World display

            There has been much controversy surrounding the Body Worlds exhibit. Some argue that is morally and ethically inhumane to display human bodies in this way. The bodies are not simply displayed in the scientifically anatomical position as they are used in cadaver labs, rather these bodies are positioned to appear in motion; running, dancing, playing instruments, etc. The counterargument by the body world’s exhibit is the purpose is to  provide an accurate anatomical picture of the human body strictly for educational purposes. However, in many ways these exhibits appear much more of an art form.

            In 2009, von Hagens stirred more controversy within the exhibit by bringing in “The Cycle of Life” exhibition to Berlin. This exhibit displayed a plasinated man and women mid-copulation according to an article on Spiegel-Online. As von Hagens states "Death and sex are both taboo topics. I'm bringing them together. Death belongs to life….And without sex no life would exist!" Further, von Hagens added "the display is strictly for educational purposes and “isn’t intended to be sexually stimulating!” 

While it may be true the intention is strictly for education, it is still unsettling how much this exhibition mimics artwork, given there is even a categorty on their website in their "products" section called "Anatomy Art." While most of the "art" in this section displays cross-sections of  detailed images such as a fish bone or an elephant brain, it is still available for sale by a company that claims a strict "education-only" purpose. The anatomy art doesn't appear to quite fit under these educational guidelines. 

Dr. Gunther van Hagens with chess player plastination

Then again, every single body displayed in the Body Worlds exhibits had the consent of the each individual to donate their body precisely for this purpose. Despite this fact, religious groups in both the U.S. and Germany have equally expressed their concern over the preservation of human life. As one bishop in Kansas City exclaimed "It represents a kind of ‘human taxidermy’ that degrades the actual people who, through their bodies, once lived, loved, prayed and died." Many legal accusations surrounding Gunther van Hagens have perhaps kept those opposing the exhibition skeptical of his intentions. Such accusations include selling human remains online, receiving bodies of executed Chinese prisoners, and performing a public autopsy on a British television channel.

Dr. Angelina Whalley, von Hagens wife, who recently worked on a new feature of displays in the Science Museum of Virginia, states that she hopes the exhibit would touch people emotionally and display the "beauty of bodily material." From this, it is not surprising to conclude the exhibit defiantly rides a fine line between art, entertainment, and education. 

Sources:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/university-hospitals-in-germany-inundated-with-body-donation-requests-a-827198.html

http://berlin.angloinfo.com/countries/germany/death.asp

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/10/28/body.after.you.die/index.html

http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/plastination/method_plastination.html

http://www.bodyworlds.com/en.html

http://digitaljournal.com/article/279101

http://www.alternet.org/rss/1/74600/bodies_stack_up_as_california_counts_cost_of_funeral/

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,623025,00.html

http://rvanews.com/entertainment/dead-bodies-in-the-basement-of-the-science-museum/61084

http://ncronline.org/node/1260

The Demise of NATO

This past weekend in Chicago, the heads of state of the member nations of NATO gathered to discuss the future of the organization. The general consensus is that the long-standing alliance is facing an uncertain future.

NATO was originally formed post WWII as a military alliance to stop the spread of Soviet communism. Containment, a component of the Cold War, was a main strategy developed through the Truman Doctrine. The objective of NATO has always been to support and protect the affiliated nations. The 28 member countries agreed that an attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be an attack against them all. While NATO successfully stopped the spread of communism, the organization is now faced with whether or not it wants to develop a more robust global presence and collaboratively combat increasing security threats. It has been 20 years since the Soviet Union was dissolved and the overarching goal has remained the same- protection against potential threats against any member. This post will examine whether the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is still accomplishing what it had originally been created to do.

So, what exactly is NATO’s role in this ever-changing security environment? Up until 1991, there was one overarching threat to NATO and all of its member nations- communism. Today’s threats are less clear and lack a unifying villain such as the USSR that equally threatens all NATO members.

Should NATO cease to exist or is it possible for NATO to adapt to a changing geopolitical and military landscape? 

Pro’s of the continuation of NATO would include the possible countering of threats such as: 

• Russia’s military modernization/lack of  wanting warmer relations with the West
• Volatile North Africa
• Counter spread of terrorism
•  Nuclear proliferation
• Cyber warfare

 Con’s of NATO's existence include:

• Uneven budget disbursement
• Unclear threats
• Weaker militarily and economically
•  Europe’s economic austerity

                                                                                   
Have the NATO members actually stuck to their original agreement? Or have they begun picking and choosing when to provide aid based on whether or not there is a perceived threat on their own country? Take Germany’s lack of involvement in NATO’s intervention in Libya for example. Libya was not perceived as a threat to Germany, therefore Germany sided with Russia and China, weakening its position in NATO.                                                                          

 Germany's role in NATO has been a topic of widespread debate. There is no doubt that Europe's economic debt crisis is one of the most pressing issues facing NATO. In a recent article released by Spiegel, The Atlantic Council, a popular think tank, accused Germany of shrinking their defense duties and threatening the alliance as a whole.  Not only did Germany not participate in the Libya intervention but the country also does not contribute the required 2% of the GDP to the defense budget, creating an uneven budget disbursement amongst the members of NATO. In a different article called Anchoring the Alliance, Nick Burns declares that, "A weak Germany that lacks a capacity to act globally will inevitably weaken NATO. Europe cannot remain a major force within the NATO Alliance if a country of Germany’s size, geography, and prosperity makes the kind of deep reductions in defense spending announced by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government in 2011." (acus.org)

If member countries are no longer abiding by the rules of the treaty, is there really a point to it? Can NATO still bring formidable military power to bear on complex and difficult missions?



References:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/05/14/expert_survey_the_future_of_nato

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-6501C3C2-BDA2A11B/natolive/what_is_nato.htm

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/think-tank-criticizes-germany-s-role-in-nato-a-833797.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303448404577409670792417782.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/criticism-of-germany-s-military-role-in-the-nato-alliance-a-833503.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0521-leadershipnato-20120521,0,3868940.story

http://www.economist.com/node/21551491

http://www.economist.com/node/21551464

http://www.acus.org/about

http://townhall.com/columnists/charlesdjou/2012/05/18/the_future_of_nato/page/full/

*Pictures retrieved from
foreignpolicy.com
economist.com
chicagotribune.com

Bionade meet Coca- Cola: A beautiful partnership?

The popular German drink, Bionade, has caught the attention of one of the largest American multinational corporations, Coca-Cola, due to its rapid success in Germany.

Bionade is a German-based privately-owned beverage company that produces and distributes organically manufactured non-alcoholic refreshment drinks (Euromonitor, 2009). The drink is manufactured in the Bavarian town Ostheim and was invented by Dieter Leipol who used a completely organic fermentation process to create it. Bionade, "the world's first non-alcoholic organically produced refreshment drink", is a product that has been marketed as an alternative to alcoholic or soft drinks (Euromonitor, 2009).  According to Euromonitor, Bionade has experiences an approximate annual turnover of 70 million EUR. The company, established in 1995, is owned by Rhön Sprudel and after "years of erratic business development", Bionade is operating across all of Germany "enjoying widespread distribution in both the on-trade and off-trade". Between 2002-2003, Bionade experienced a boom but after an "influx of imitations" arising in the market, the company has been forced to compete with "off-brands" with significantly lower prices. As a result, according to Alice Diepenbrock, the Euromonitior Internaional Research Manager (who specializes in the German market), Bionade is "losing it's 'exclusivity'". Along with recent trouble with knock off brands, Bionade has been experiencing difficulty in expanding. Bionade was introduced in France with little success because "consumers preferred the locally produced organic drink instead of foreign versions" (Euromonitor, 2009).

Bionade Commercial

In recent years, Coca-Cola has been dabbling in "minority equity investment in premium soft drink such as the UK's Innocent" which has proven to be profitable (Euro Monitor, 2009). In 2005, Coca-Cola extended an offer to Bionade for acquisition which was later turned down. More recently however, the company has been looking to introduce the drink across the Atlantic. According to the Euromonitior, Bionade has invested 50 million USD to develop a project that would create a production facility in Amana, Iowa and the company has planned to introduce flavors such as cranberry to compliment American taste buds. The location is expected be favorable for the company as the area is concentrated by European descendant. According to Brian Morgan, a senior analyst at Euromonitor International, Bionade could find it beneficial to "link up" with Coca-Cola, as it will "help sales in key regions such as New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles". In addition,given the success of Coca-Cola in the U.S., the company could assist Bionade with "striking distribution deals with individual regional distributors" so that drink ends up on retail shelves. Having a partner such as Coca-Cola could allow Bionade to demonstrate it's "long-term commitment to the U.S. market". Bionade has already been launched in Germany through large American chains such as McDonald's and Starbucks, which could prove to be favorable for them as they bridge into new American market.   As a consequence of Bionade's current circumstance, the two companies have revived talks whether Bionade would be willing to give 15-20% of their share to Coca-Cola. If Bionade were to accept, Coca-Cola would then have one executive member sitting on the board.

Past Coca-Cola commercial campaigns

So why is Coca-Cola so interested in Bionade?

"Coca-Cola currently has no mega brand in the other non-cola carbonates category globally. In the US, for example, the category is dominated by PepsiCo's Mountain Dew and Dr Pepper. Bionade will provide Coca-Cola with a good opportunity to further develop an alternative niche drink and build its credentials as a healthy drinks producer" (Euromonitor, 2009).

 If Bionade should accept these terms then this deal would be "Coca-Cola's first small-scale investment for several years in Europe's largest soft drinks market" (Euromonitor, 2009). The last  small-scale acquisition by Coca-Cola in Germany was in 2006 with the  Apollinaris mineral water brand from Cadbury Schweppes.

Are there other sectors where we can see American companies looking to invest through purchasing minority stakes in foreign based company? Will more German brands like Bionade, seek to diversify their consumer base across the Atlantic?

Sources:

Passport GMD, 2012. http://www.portal.euromonitor.com.proxy.library.ohiou.edu/Portal/Pages/Search/SearchResultsList.aspx

Euromonitor, 2009.

"Coca-Cola sets its sights on German organic drink Bionade" :http://www.portal.euromonitor.com.proxy.library.ohiou.edu/Portal/Handlers/accessPDF.ashx?c=63\PDF\&f=F-126203-16285663.pdf&code=%2fJr6wf0IxLOwHzDj%2b3wQXc65NDQ%3d

Foreskin on the Loose!

 From Sciencephoto.com

Foreskin on the loose? Well, yes. Foreskins along with many other of our bodily tissues are floating around in biobanks, laboratories and hospitals. More specifically, “biobanks store appendixes, ovaries, skin, sphincters, testicles, fat, even foreskin from most circumcisions. They also house blood samples taken from most infants born in the United States since the late sixties” (p. 316).

Most disturbing of all, they’re there most often without our knowledge or permission. How? The answer is quite simple, actually. Have you ever wondered what exactly happens to the rest of your biopsied mole, those tonsils you had removed or the blood you had drawn for a test? Just think they get thrown away? Not exactly. In fact the majority of the tissues people “voluntarily discard” during medical treatment are preserved and stored in banks across the country (and world). Often times, these tissues are used for medical research that helps in scientific breakthroughs- ranging from finding the treatment for diabetes to uncovering the ways nuclear weapons affect our bodies.

When we die, our tissues cannot be legally donated for transplant or medical science without consent from the deceased (like signing up to be an organ donor on your drivers license) or his/her family. But when we are living, these rights are rather blurred. There has been a brewing debate on the ethics of modern medicine and laws since 1976 when a man named John Moore sued for property rights over his tissue cells that were used without his knowledge to create a multi-million dollar industry. Moore lost his case in the Supreme Court’s ruling that once we “discard” bodily tissue, we no longer have any sort of ownership over it.

Overall, there are a host of reasons for and against the ethical legality of tissue rights. Proponents to revamped laws question the ethics behind the lack of informed consent most “donors” experience. Over a decade ago, The RAND Corporation released a report that listing a “conservative” estimate that over 307 million tissue samples from 178 million people are stored in the US alone, the vast majority of which are there without their donor’s knowledge. This number was projected to increase by 20 million samples each year, resulting in the storage of (conservatively) 567 million human tissue samples to date.

On the other hand are those in favor of giving medical institutions the autonomy to other’s tissues and cells. These people can largely be found in the medical and scientific spheres. With their advocacy, the current laws have been maintained for decades through the fear that protecting individual tissue rights would ostensibly put a halt to scientific progress and medical advancement. Perhaps surprisingly, this something with which countless US courts have agreed.

With the “discovery” of HeLa cells, the US became the first nation to begin collecting, storing  and distributing cells in large volume worldwide without donor consent. Understanding this led me to wonder what the system of tissue research and rights is like in other countries. Are they experiencing the same sort of ideological disputes we are?

I'm not sure what these debates look like wordwide, but Germany is a nation that has faced these same ethical issues. However, German policies have gone in a vastly different direction in addressing the problem. They have concluded that donation of otherwise discarded tissue is connected to the ethics of patient care. Thus, officials found it necessary to draft a “personal and independent written enlightenment of the patient and a declaration of informed consent” for each patient whose tissues have the potential to be donated to biobanks.

Realizing that the process of creating a tissue donation set of ethics was not a simple task, these policies were meticulously developed by a team of theologists, lawyers, scientists and physicians. Their final product was a reflection of their practical experiences researching in the field. To address the ethical and legal implications of tissue donation, Germany established the Human Tissue and Cell Research (HTCR), a charitable state-run foundation.

However, Germany’s relatively progressive stance on addressing the ideological concerns of tissue donation does not mean that everyone is on board. In 2006, a proposed German law that would have regulated the storage of any donated tissue was protested by doctors who claimed that such regulations would be detrimental to patients. What they were really getting at is similar to the American argument: by putting a system in place to protect people and their tissue, medical science would be effected negatively and by extension citizens would suffer.

As is obvious, there are many theoretical difficulties in identifying (and most importnantly agreeing ipon) the exact role of ethical and legal principles in the field of biomedical research on human tissues. Because of this, policy decisions are not easily made and ideological debates are rarely resolved. Nations worldwide, including both the USA and Germany, will thus need to continually work toward uncovering the right set of values and legislation that is suitable for their citizens.