Ruther, Dick et al

I know this is a little bit like kicking a dead mule (did I just make that up, or is that a proverb that actually exists?), but just to point out again (after CIA-material pointed out that the world has become unsafer due to the Iraq War) that the invasion of Iraq was one of the most stupid decisions of the last century (and I still uphold my claim, that Bush is the worst President since Ruther B Hayes, Nixon not counting because he was a criminal and thus played in a different ballpark), check out what Michael Scheuer an Ex-CIA-operative had to say:

Iraq is in the Arab heartland and, far more than Afghanistan, is a magnet for mujahideen. You can see this in the large number of people crossing the border to fight us. It wasn't a lot at the start, but there's been a steady growth as the war continues. The war has validated everything bin Laden said: that the United States will destroy any strong government in the Arab world, that it will seek to destroy Israel's enemies, that it will occupy Muslim holy places, that it will seize Arab oil, and that it will replace God's law with man's law. We see Iraq as a honey pot that attracts jihadists whom we can kill there instead of fighting them here. We are ignoring that Iraq is not just a place to kill Americans; Al Qaeda has always said that it requires safe havens. It has said it couldn't get involved with large numbers in the Balkans war because it had no safe haven in the region. Now they have a safe haven in Iraq, which is so big and is going to be so unsettled for so long. For the first time, it gives Al Qaeda contiguous access to the Arabian Peninsula, to Turkey, and to the Levant. We may have written the death warrant for Jordan. If we pull out of Iraq, we have a problem in that we may have to leave a large contingent of troops in Jordan. All of this is a tremendous advantage for Al Qaeda. We've moved the center of jihad a thousand miles west from Afghanistan to the Middle East.

Will The Real ... Please Stand Up?

Ulrich Speck raises an interesting point in his blog (German). After Chavez ludicrous speech before the UN assembly followed (or precedented?) by Ahmadinejad's rant prompted Speck to wonder where in the world there is a serious antipole to George W. Considering the ridicolousness of Chavez and his lunatic side-kick (actually Chavez probably should be Doc Holiday to Ahmadinejad's posing as a gun-craving Wyatt Earp) one really has to be amazed that there is no national leader that would stand up to W at least every once in a while. Chirac is a lame duck already, Schröder cannot blindly follow his electorate anymore, Blair never was more than an American satrap anyway, now he is a lame duck too, while Merkel does dare to mention certain - before - unspeakable aspects (Guantanamo) she apparently does not have the will to try to form some kind of European front against the Bush's follies. The Chinese only care about their economy growth and the oil they need to fuel it, Lula has too many inner-state problems to worry about anything else, the smaller European nations (Zapatero, Prodi -- Kaczynski) are diametrically too opposed to ensure any kind of common European stand (making Solana as irrelevant as ever).

There seriously is no one who could be taken seriously and would present any kind of opposition to the current US-administration. A very sad state of affair this is.

Spin

I find it completely outreagous how the Bush administration is capable of spinning even something as clear-cut as this intelligence assesment in regard to the - negative - effects of the Iraq War on the War On Terror. It is just incredible.

NY Times & WP

Finally

Parts of the American institutional setting seem to have finally realized that what they are doing in Iraq is mainly create a rallying-ground for everyone with a grudge towards the West (WP / NY). Now, if I could only believe that someone responsible in the White House would act on this I'd be happy.

Plus, a really interesting article on a grand design the US supposedly follows in Asia. Am not sure I believe it whole-heartedly, interesting theory though.

Le Petit Nicolas

Le dernier livre, ce que j'ai lu, était Le Petit Nicolas de Jean-Jacques Sempé et René Goscinny. Sans vraiment connaît son nom Goscinny peut-être était l'écrivain le plus important de mon enfance. Il a écris Lucky Luke, Asterix & Obelix et aussi Le Petit Nicolas. Bien sur, je lisait tous en allemand. Mais, pour mon anniversaire quelqu'un a me donné le premier et le deuxième Petit Nicolas en francais (merci Franziska, merci Camille).

Je dois admettre que j'ai aimé le livre de noveau. La langue est pas trop difficile pour moi et les blagues sont génials quand même. Je ne vais pas vraiment décrire l'histoire ici, je suis sur que presque tous entre vous le connaissent. Le petit Nicolas est un garcon qui raconte ses aventures à l'école et chez lui, avec ses amis et tout seul. En résumé, moi j'ai l'aimé, achetez-vous ca!

Encore, si vous voulez, tous les rectification ont la bienvenue.

Stammheim

As much as people bitch about the Polish government - understandably so I might add - you have to give them credit for stepping up when the rest of Europe chickens out. How is the world supposed to ever take us seriously as a global player if we never dare to send any sufficient number of soldiers anywhere?

Und ein weiteres Buch,
Stammheim - Die Geschichte des Vollzugsbeamten Horst Bubeck von Kurt Oesterle. Das Buch ist irgendwann letztes Jahr rausgekommen und hatte in der Zeit eine ziemlich gute Besprechung bekommen, außerdem fand ich Stefan Austs Standardwerk über die RAF (Der Baader-Meinhof Komplex oder so ähnlich) sehr faszinierend, deswegen war die Geschichte des örtlich Verantwortlichen im siebten Stock Stammheims interessant für mich.
Ich fand das Ganze letzten Endes auch amüsant und zeitweise auch lehrreich, muß aber aus zwei Gründen vor dem Kauf abraten. Erstens ist die Diskussion zu einem ganz großen Teil eine der Vergangenheit, welche keinen Bezug zur Gegenwart mehr besitzt. Während Austs Werk mehr eine allgemeine Geschichte der RAF war, deren Ausläufer bis in die 90er aktiv waren, und gerade in Bezug auf den modernen Terrorismus interessante Parallelen aufzubieten hatte - sowohl auf Seiten der Terroristen wie auf Seiten des Staates, behandelt Oesterle doch nur einen sehr konkreten Aspekt in Bezug auf die RAF. Das Buch dreht sich im Prinzip nur um die Haftbedingungen in Stammheim, über welche damals von rechts und links aus sehr unterschiedlichen Gründen und mit sehr verschiedenen Resultaten spekuliert wurde. Mir, als Mensch der damals noch keine Zeitung las, hauptsächlich, weil ich noch nicht geboren war, ist diese Diskussion natürlich nicht sonderlich nahe gegangen und somit fehlt mir ein - für diese Buch glaube ich notwendiger - emotionaler Zugang. Zweitens schreibt Kurt Oesterle zwar kein schlechtes Deutsch, aber man merkt ihm an, daß er halt ein Journalist und kein Autor ist. Ich war nicht so begeistert von der Art wie das Buch geschrieben war.
Deswegen, ich fand es nett, habe es relativ schnell durchgelesen, würde es aber weder in meinen Sachbuch- noch in meinen Literaturkanon aufnehmen - nicht, daß es den bisher geben würde, aber was nicht ist, kann ja noch kommen.

Brave New World

There was a piece in today's New York Times that dealt with interrogation methods employed by the CIA. Shocking, that's all I can say. I cannot believe any person in his right state of mind can stand there and defend these techniques. A democracy just don't work that way.

I also re-read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, a book I can endorse whole-heartedly. I do have to admit that I liked it better the last time I had read it though - when I was 16 maybe - why I am not quite sure. What I know I disliked this time around - which might have completely escaped my notice last time - was the presentation of free-spirited sex as something degenerative. This complete moral condemnation of a non-monogamous society contained a little too much of certain conservative strains for me.

Monsieur Ibrahim et les fleurs du Coran

J'ai commencé à essayer de lire en francais et pour cette raison je vais décrire les livres francais dans cet langue ici. Ca va être un peu embarrassant, quand même, si on essaye pas, on peux pas réussir. Tous les perfectionnement ont la bienvenue.

Éric-Emmanuel Schmitt a écrit Monsieur Ibrahim et les fleurs du Coran, il y a un film sur le roman, qui j'ai pas encore vu. L'édition laquelle j'ai lu a les mots difficile en bas, mais j'ai pas trouvé le livre vraiment difficile. Il s'agit de l'amitié entre un homme d'origine turc et un garcon juif, qui grandit de fait sans parents. Franchement, j'ai aimé bien le livre, mais je pense que dans un autre langue j'aurais une opinion differente. En francais j'était heureux que j'ai réussi à finir et comprendre le livre. Dans une langue que je parle mieux, je suis presque sûr que je le trouverais trop doux et un peu superficiel avec un sujet lequel on pourrait discuter vraiment profond. En même temps, je dois admettre que peut-être j'ai pas compri les éléments profond parfois, parce que mon francais est pas suffisant fort.

The Old Man and the Sea

I've been quite busy here, what, with my french courses during the day, working the week-end and at the same time having to read all my papers online. Yet, last week, before this all started in a way, I did manage to fit in a couple more books, which I now have to catch up on.
One of these was Ernest Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea, I hadn't read this before, just knew that it was considered a classic and part of the (in?)famous literal canon. I really like Hemingway, he is not on the same level as people like Faulkner or Twain but he always provides a good read and did not disappoint this time around either. The story in itself is quite surprising as neither women nor booze play any kind of relevant role. An old fisher-man has not caught anything for more than 80 days, yet does not give up trying and is ultimately - in a way - rewarded or punished, however might one view the end. I am not going into anything else here as I don't want to destroy it for anyone wanting to read the novel. Let it suffice to say that it is a really recommendable book. I really enjoyed it. A word of warning though, due to its length - barely more than 100 pages in my version - and Hemingway's contracted writing stlye it took my not even half a day to finish it.

Der Tod In Venedig

Frei nach dem Motto 'Pack schlägt sich, Pack verträgt sich' (wenns ums
Geld geht)

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/medien/archiv/02.09.2006/2736166.asp

Ich muß mal wieder ein paar Bücher nachholen, werde aber auch bald mal kurz was über Paris schreiben, wo ich inzwischen schon fast seit einer Woche bin. Habe mein erstes Buch von Thomas Mann gelesen. Der Tod in Venedig. Mann war immer eine meiner Bildungslücken - die in Bezug auf deutsche Literatur aber irgendwie trotzdem immer noch sehr groß sind - deswegen hatte ich mir vor einiger Zeit diese Novellensammlung gekauft. Ich aber ganz ehrlich sagen, daß ich nicht vollends begeistert was. Die Geschichten sind natürlich handwerklich genial geschrieben, seine Sätze sind zeitweise einfach nur bewundernswert - und zwingen dem Leser desöfteren auch eine Wiederholung auf - trotzdem habe ich keinen rechten Zugang zu ihnen gefunden. Die Themen sind oft sehr klassisch - Eros wir unter anderem einmal aufgearbeitet, Tristan und Isolde, Moses - und ich muß zugeben, daß meine Vorkenntnisse wahrscheinlich zeitweise einfach nicht ausreichend sind, um diese Variationen vollkommen nachzuvollziehen. Nichtsdestotrotz gefielen mir drei der sechs Erzählungen gut - ein indisches Märchen, die Geschichte des Auszuges aus Ägypten, sowie der scheiternde, unbelehrbare, religiöse Fanatiker. Was mich glaube ich am meisten störte ist die Tatsache, daß Mann die Schreibkunst als solche offensichtlich als wichtiger erachtet als seine Geschichte - womit er ja im 20. Jahrhundert bei weitem nicht alleine ist - was aber leider dem Spannungsbogen abträglich ist.

Empfehle ich das Buch also weiter? Jein. Kaufen sollte man es sich vielleicht nicht unbedingt, aber wenn Ihr die folgenden Geschichten irgendwo sehen solltet holt sie Euch, bzw lest sie:
Die Vertauschten Köpfe, Das Gesetz, Gladius Dei.

Iraq, Vietnam and Nazi Germany

According to Donald Rumsfeld we all (each and every war critics that is) have not learned the lessons of history and are deemed guilty of appeasement towards terrorism by opposing (or having opposed maybe) the 3rd Gulf War. Now this would be quite ludicrous if it wasn't so sad. I wonder whether Rumsfeld forgot that he visited Iraq and Saddam personally in the 80s to ensure him of Reagan's support in his war against Iran (the 1st Gulf War), does that make good old Donald the über-appeaser or what? The Secretary of Defense even though he already served in the Nixon administration also conveniently forgets another lesson of history, namely the quagmire called Vietnam. In Indo-China of course the situation was quite different than how the one in Iraq looks like, yet more can and has to be learned from it than from the Accord of Munich and the ensuing 2nd World War.

Faithful to his pitbull the President has entered the fray now and given us his input and I am going to be quite honest about this, he is a liar:

"withdrawing now from Iraq would leave Americans at risk of terrorist attacks 'in the streets of our own cities'"

Yeah, right, how is that not distorting the truth? And I did not have sex with that woman deserved impeachment?

He also "cautioned Americans against concluding that five years after the Sept. 11 attacks the threat had receded" and thus he at least admits that his politics have been a complete failure.

So sad that people still fall for this folly.

Lastly, my name is Sensemania or sometimes LKwesiJ or even JDub and I endorse this message:
www.oneseat.eu