The Return of Depression Economics

Paul Krugman during the past week referenced to a book that wrote in the late 90s on financial crises and which he now apparently is republishing with some added data and another chapter. Considering I'll be taking an economics exam in Berlin relatively soon I figured I should read that book in order to try to find out more about this current crisis and its implications for a Bretton Woods II (whatever that may mean in the end and not matter whether that might be a good analogy or not, it drives across a point).

what does this year's Nobel price winner have to say then? Basically, this obviously being a very much condensed version, a stylistic recounting of a stylistic argument if you want, Krugman shows that financial market crises need not be logical or rational. There is an inherent logic to market behaviour that leads to self-fulfilling speculative attacks (if everyone knows everyone else will sell dollars/euros/whatever else, it is rational for you to join the fray as you will lose money otherwise, even if the good/share/currency concerned might actually have a sound economical value). For him this was especially noticeable in the case of the Asian crisis (crises?) in the 90s, when fundamentally sound markets (like South Korea) were abandoned because of a double standard of markets, an irrational (racist? one could totally do a reading from this point of view, not getting into that here though) benefit of doubt for first world countries (leaving Australia with far less problems than say Malaysia). Obviously, this latter argument would have to be updated some in his new version of this book, simply because we now had (have) a first world financial crisis.

Interesting is the fact that Western governments (mainly the US) forced anti-Keynesian policies on Asian as well as South American countries leading to possibly worse results in regard to their currencies (because their one-time devaluation was not deemed sufficient) at the same time that the following recession was deepened (do recession's deepen?) through the implementation of high interest rates and 'fiscal responsibility'. Why is that interesting? Well, considering the US and Britain the stalwarts of the Western liberal system just (semi-)nationalized their banking sector and are now discussing programs intended to assuage economic problems, there seems to have been a certain amount of hypocrisy in this policy.

Summing up then, Krugman basically claims that a feedback loop, a gigantic financial market failure if you want, can lead to financial crises even if economic data is sound, which leaves us with what? Looking to the government for help? Obviously a solution to this (current) crisis requires some kind of government involvement, but how far and in what way seems very much to be open to debate. After all, it is not like governments have been known to run profitable effective operations in the past.

Super interesting book, read it. I am not sure I can claim I really understand everything and I most definitely have a hard time recounting all the arguments concerning the feedback loop or the liquidity trap that Japan was facing, but I find it shocking how many policies Krugman criticizes are being employed again today, notably by the ECB and its Bundesbank-philosophy of regarding low inflation as the most important aspect of monetary policy. As always, one's lack of knowledge, of a deeper understanding in virtually every subject is quite stunning (and depressing at times), but I guess one just has to continue chugging along (keep on reading that is).

weiter leben

Im neuen Literaturmagazin der Zeit war eine Besprechung von Ruth Klügers neustem Buch, dem zweiten Teil ihrer Autobiographie sozusagen, gewesen. Mich interessierte mehr ihr erstes Buch weiter leben in welchem sie (zeitlich sehr spät 1989-1991) ihre Erfahrungen in verschiedenen KZs (unter anderem Auschwitz) zu verarbeiten versuchte. Ein verstörendes Werk. Klüger wächst als jüdisches Kind in Wien auf und hat aufgrund ihres Alters (1945 gerade einmal 15) kaum Erinnerungen an ein Leben, welches nicht vom Nazi-Regime dominiert wird. Sie schreibt in einer unglaublich nüchternen Art (und auf Deutsch, obwohl sie seit 1947 in den USA wohnt), sie klagt nicht an (oder tut dies nur selten), sie fordert kein Mitleid, sie stellt nur dar was sie erlebt hat. Sie befriedigt nicht mal mehr die Geilheit des Beobachters (mir) nach Grausamkeit, nach deutscher Schande, nach einer brutalen Darstellung des KZ-Lebens. Stattdessen greift sie die Diskussion in Deutschland heute auf, beschreibt die Zufälligkeit des Überlebens, des Sterbens und gerade aufgrund dieser banalen Erzählweise, aufgrund dieser fehlenden (anklagenden oder fordernden) Emotion versteht sie es ein Bild der Opfer des Holocaust (der Shoah, der Endlösung, was sagt man?) zu zeichnen, welches mir vollkommen neu war. Ich kann ihr Buch nur weiter empfehlen, es ist keine historisch Ausmalung der Vergangenheit, was die meisten von mir gelesenen Bücher über den Holocaust bisher waren, es ist eine konstante Auseinandersetzung mit derselben. Ein weiteres weites Feld in welchem ich viel lesen sollte hat sich in diesem Sinne geöffnet.

American trade policy / la politique commerciale américaine

So, I just wrote my first paper and had my first oral presentation in France. I wrote the text in English and wanted to do the presentation in the same language but then I got pissed off at myself for chickening out and under consideration of the fact that I don't really care about my grades here decided to do everything in French. Thus, I rewrote the whole thing in French (with friendly assistance of this terroristy kid from some crappy, small town in the South of France somewhere). If you care to read a short summary of American trade policy, check it out. Lots more could be said about this and my footnotes show where one could take this I think. Interesting subject to say the least.

As a side note, Paul Krugman on his blog posted a really easy introduction into trade theory, you should read it if you don't know much about this topic.

Je viens de donner ma première exposé à Sciences Po et j'ai écrit une synthèse sur le même sujet (avec un peu d'aide d'un copain terroriste à moi). Je l'avais écrit en anglais au début, mais je veux apprendre quelque chose ici, alors je me dis que cela servirait à rien à la fin et je l'ai traduit en français. Si la politique commerciale des États-Unis vous intéressez, lisez-le. Je le trouve un sujet fascinant et je crois qu'on peut voir qu'il y a beaucoup des possibilités d'élargir cette synthèse.

Magisterprüfung: Montesquieue, Publius, et al

Ich schreibe am Montag meine dritte Magisterprüfung über die Gewaltenteilung in der amerikanischen Verfassung und wollte als kleine Übung für mich einfach kurz eine Zusammenfassung des Textes, den ich morgen höchstwahrscheinlich (hoffentlich) schreiben werde, hier wiedergeben.

Auf die amerikanische Unabhängigkeitserklärung 1776 folgend wurden die Articles of Confederation 1777 verfasst und 1781 ratifiziert. Die 13 Kolonien waren erst dadurch zu den USA geworden. Die Regierung, welche sie sich selbst gegeben hatten, zeigte in den nun folgenden Jahren ihre Schwäche. Es gab keine föderale Exekutive und der Kongress, als föderales Organ der Legislative hatte kaum Einfluss auf Gesetzgebung, welche bei den Einzelstaaten verblieb. Dies war vor allem in Bezug auf die internationalen Beziehungen der jungen Republik problematisch, so sie konnte ihre Kriegsschulden nicht zahlen, weil der Kongress von freiwilligen Zuwendungen der Einzelstaaten abhängig war, und selbst der Friedensvertrag mit Großbritannien wurde erst Monate später ratifiziert, weil es keine Möglichkeit die Anwesenheit der Kongressmitglieder zu erzwingen. Den Ausschlagspunkt für den Ruf nach Wandel, nach einer stärkeren Zentralisierung, nach der verfassungsgebenden Versammlung von Philadelphia im Jahr 1787, gab aber wohl letzten Endes die Shays Rebellion. Dieser Aufstand verarmter Bauern, welche gegen Steuern und Gefängnisstrafen aufgrund von ausstehenden Schuldzahlungen kämpften, verschreckte die aristokratische Führungsklasse der Republik und brachte sie zu der Überzeugung das eine umfassende Reform nötig war.

Eine der wichtigsten Prämissen der Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia war die sogenannte Gewaltenteilung. Die Aufteilung der Regierungsgewalt in drei Sparten, der Exekutive, der Legislative, sowie der Judikative. Die spezifische amerikanische Ausformung dieser Teilung war stark von Montesquieus Lesart des britischen Systems beeinflusst, unabhängig davon, daß diese Lesart nur bedingt akkurat war bzw mit der Realität übereinstimmte. Vor allem war Montesquieue einer der ersten Theoretiker (und für die Amerikaner der wichtigste und bekannteste, zitiert sowohl von Gegners als auch Befürwortern der Verfassung, welche aus der Philadelphia Convention hervorging), welcher die Judikative explizit als eigenständig darstellte und nicht der Exekutive zu- oder unterordnete. Laut der sogenannten reinen Theorie der Gewaltenteilung, welche unter anderem in den Verfassungen von Virginia und Pennsylvania annähernd zu finden waren, müßten die drei Gewalten in ihren Befugnissen und Funktionen strikt von einander getrennt werden. Dies gilt auch für die jeweiligen Funktionäre, welche alle, auf unterschiedlichen Arten und Weisen und vollkommen unabhängig voneinander, vom Volk gewählt werden sollten. Es dürfte allgemein bekannt sein, daß dies in den USA nicht der Fall ist. Ich werde nun im folgenden versuchen die amerikanischen Geflechte, diese checks and balances, welche aus der Idee der Gewaltenteilung erwuchsen, kurz zu skizzieren. Es muß in dieser Hinsicht betont werden, daß bestimmte Unterschiede bestehen zwischen der Verfassung einerseits, ihrer berühmtesten Interpretation (Publius Federalist Papers) und der heutigen Realität. Abschließend ein kurzes Wort zu den Federalist Papers noch, Publius waren in Wirklichkeit James Madison, Alexander Hamilton und John Jay und damit einflußreiche Teilnehmer der vefassungsgebenden Versammlung in Philadelphia. Die Federalist Papers wurden zur Verteidigung der Verfassung und zur Sicherstellung ihrer Ratifizierung in New York veröffentlicht, erst als Artikel dann in Buchform. Sie symbolisieren nicht nur den basisdemokratischen (Frauen, Sklaven, Indianer sowie Arme ignorierend) Anspruch der Ratifizierung der Verfassung (vom Volk kommend), sondern können auch als einflußreichste Interpretation der Verfassung bezeichnet werden und als Klassiker der modernen politikwissenschaftlichen Theorie.

Die amerikanische Verfassung teilt klar die Exekutivgewalt dem Präsident zu, die Judikativgewalt dem höchsten Verfassungsgericht und alle in der Verfassung genannte Legislativgewalt dem Kongress, welcher aus zwei Häusern besteht. Diese Einschränkung legislativer Macht wurde durch das 10. Amendment noch betont, welches alle Macht, welche in der Verfassung nicht dem Nationalstaat zu- oder den Einzelstaaten abgesprochen wurde, den Einzelstaaten zuschlug. Es wird in der Verfassung selber keine Gewichtung der unterschiedlichen Gewichtung vorgenommen, es wird keiner eine Prävalenz zugeordnet. Stattdessen werden die Überschneidungen und das für die USA so entscheidende System der checks and balances nur durch die Auflistung der einzelnen Befugnisse jeder der drei Gewalten dargestellt.

Publius betont in den Federalist Papers wiederholt die Tatsache, daß die amerikanische Verfassung Montesquieus Gewaltenteilung (dieser wird als Orakel, als metaphysischer Ursprung derselben dargestellt) treu bleibt. Denn, laut Montesquieu müßten die drei Gewalten nicht vollkommen voneinander getrennt werden, vielmehr ist es zur Bewahrung der Freiheit nötig zu verhindern, daß nicht ein Akteur oder Organ, welcher ein Gewalt vollkommen beherrscht, die Kontrolle über eine zweite vollkommen erlangt. Dies ist wie wir bald sehen werden in den USA nicht der Fall, weswegen der Vorwurf der Anti-Federalists (Brutus, Cato, etc...) das Prinzip der Gewaltenteilung sei missachtet nicht zutrifft. Weiterhin erklärt Publius, daß diese reine Gewaltenteilung, die exakte Abtrennung der drei Gewalten auch schlicht unmöglich sei, da es keiner politikwissenschaftlichen Autorität bisher gelungen sei, diese drei sauber voneinander getrennt zu definieren. Dieses Manko der Forschung wiederum läge an der Ungenauigkeit der Definitionen jeder der drei Gewalten, der mangelnd klaren Darstellung in Gesetzestexten sowie der mangelnden Genauigkeit von Sprache diese Definitionen überhaupt genau auszudrücken. Die Aufweichung der Gewaltenteilung ist also nach den großen Denkern erlaubt, unvermeidbar und schließlich auch nötig. Dies liegt an der Machtverteilung in einer repräsentativen Republik, wo die Legislative als die stärkste Gewalt sich auf die Felder der anderen beiden Gewalten ausbreiten würde, um letzten Endes in einer Tyrannei auszuarten (in einer Monarchie oder Demokratie würde diese Gefahr von der Exekutive ausgehen). Um diese Machtübernahme der Legislative, der Vertretung des Volkes, einer Art Tyrannei der Mehrheit zu entgehen, muß also die Legislative also geschwächt, die Exekutive gestärkt werden. Aus diesem Grund sind Überschneidungen, sind gegenseitige Kontrollen notwendig für die Beibehaltung der Freiheit im amerikanischen System. Publius drückt es mit seiner schönen Redewendung aus, daß ambition has to check ambition.

Konkret in der amerikanischen Verfassung gibt es nun einige (viele) Aspekte, welche die Exekutive stärken, die Legislative schwächen, aber auch die Kontrolle der Legislative über die Exekutive betonen. Ich werde später auf den gesonderten Fall der Judikative eingehen auch wenn sie bis dahin schon das eine oder andere mal passiv erwähnt werden wird. Die Legislative wird erstens dadurch geschwächt, daß sich in ihr zwei Kammern finden (the Senate and the House), welche Gesetze nur zusammen beschließen können. Des weiteren unterliegen Parlamentsgesetze (nicht Verfassungsänderungen) der Kontrolle des Supreme Courts in Bezug auf ihre Verfassungsmäßigkeit, hier wird später noch darauf einzugehen sein. Parlamentsgesetze können weiterhin vom Präsidenten per Veto an den Kongress zurückgeschickt werden, dieses Veto kann nur mit einer 2/3 Mehrheit überstimmt werden. Schließlich sitzt der Vize-Präsident dem Senat vor und trifft Stimmgleichheit mit seiner Stimme die Entscheidung.

Gleichzeitig besitzt der Kongress natürlich einige Stärken, so wird ihm die Macht über den Finanzhaushalt eingeräumt (power of the purse), welche auch unter anderem im Haushaltboykott der damals neuen republikanischen Mehrheit im House gegen Präsident Clinton eingesetzt wurde. Internationale Verträge müssen vom Senat mit einer 2/3 Mehrheit abgesegnet werden, desgleichen bedürfen Richter und Regierungsoffizielle einer simplen Mehrheit im Senat vor der Bestallung durch den Präsidenten. Der Kongress ist das einzige Organ welche Kriege erklären sowie Truppen ausrufen und finanzieren kann. Des weiteren kann das Repräsentantenhaus den Präsidenten und andere ernannte Offizielle und Richter impeachen, das Verfahren hierfür wird dann im Senat geführt (wobei im Fall des Präsidenten der Supreme Court Chief Justice dem Verfahren vorsitzt). Diese Zweiteilung soll dieses Verfahren gleichzeitig abschwächen, da ansonsten die Gefahr bestände (laut Publius), daß passions and emotions zu zu raschen und häufigen Abrufungen führen würden. Letztendlich kann der Kongress Zeugen in Gerichtsverfahren Immunität zu sagen um Aufklärung staatsrelevanter Vorgänge zu erlangen.

Die Exekutive, der Präsident de facto (auch hier wird später nochmal darauf eingegangen), wird durch das bereits erwähnte Veto gestärkt (hier wurde von einem absoluten Veto wie es in Großbritannien bestand abgesehen, dies aus zwei Gründen, der Schwäche dieses Vetos und dessen Stärke; dieses gegensätzliche Argumentepaar besteht aus der zu häufigen und stringenten Benutzung in besonderen Fällen, wo die Exekutive jeden Wandel stoppen könnte, sowie des zu selten erfolgenden Vetos in normalen Fällen, wo ein absolutes Veto ein zu grober Klotz für einen kleinen Keil darstellt). Er kann außerdem Richter und Regierungsoffizielle ernennen, bedarf hierfür zwar immer der Zustimmung des Senats, besitzt aber ein alleiniges Vorschlagsrecht. Desweiteren he can make war auch wenn er ihn nicht erklären kann und ist Oberkommandierender der Armee und Flotte. Außenpolitische Verhandlungen werden von ihm geführt. Um seine Unabhängigkeit von der Legislative sicherzustellen kann sein Gehalt nicht verändert werden und um sein konstantes Engagement zu gewährleisten, sollte er immer wieder wählbar sein (was natürlich inzwischen geändert wurde). Der Präsident kann außerdem pardons erteilen. Schließlich ist es wichtig, daß die Verantwortung der Exekutive in einer Hand liegt, welches es ermöglicht diesen leichter zu bestrafen (in Wahlen oder Impeachment-Verhandlungen), da Fehlentscheidungen leichter zuzuordnen sind als in Gruppe.

Geschwächt wird der Präsident einerseits durch die Tatsache, daß es für fast alle Entscheidungen eine Mehrheit im Kongress (Senat) benötigt sowie durch die vollkommene Abhängigkeit vom Kongress in finanziellen Dingen (siehe Paulson-initiative).

Die Judkiative spielt eine gewisse Sonderrolle, da davon ausgegangen wird, daß sie keine Gefahr für die Freiheit und die anderen beiden Institutionen darstellt. Da des weiteren Qualifikationen aufgrund der Komplexität von der Thematik eine größere Rolle spielen würde, wird die Judikative ausgeklammert aus dem Verfahren, welches das Volk die drei Gewalten (in verschiedenen Verfahren um Kongruenzen zu vermeiden) wählen lasst. Der Präsident schlägt Richter vor, der Senat stimmt zu und kann den Prozess verzögern, nie aber eigene Favoriten erwzingen. Durch eine lebenslange Berufung und der Tatsache, daß Gehälter nicht gesenkt werden dürfen (erhöht aus inflationären Gründen schon) wird gehofft, daß trotzdem eine Unabhängigkeit der Judikative gewährleistet ist. Die wichtigste Stärkung des Verfassungsgerichtes, die Einrichtung von judicial review, wird interessanterweise in der Verfassung nicht explizit erwähnt, sondern bereits von Publius aus dem Unterschied zwischen Verfassungsgesetzen und parlamentarischen Gesetzen abgeleitet. In der amerikanischen Geschichte wurde dies erst mit Marbury vs Madison 1803 etabliert ohne, daß eine Festschreibung in der Verfassung je erfolgte.

In Bezug auf die damalige Diskussion bleibt festzuhalten, daß vielerorts eine tyrannische Aristokratie befürchtet wurde, bedingt durch die starke Rolle des Senats sowohl in Bezug auf exekutive wie auch auf legislative Belange (und einem gewissen Grad an judikativer Macht obendrein). Des weiteren ist die starke Betonung auf Korruption interessant, weswegen unter anderm Gehälter festgeschrieben wurden und der Senat internationale Verträge absegnen sollte, da befürchtet wurde fremde Mächte könnten sonst die Regierung bestechen. Genau andersherum gesehen wurde dies aber auch als Gefahr wahrgenommen, so in der niedrigen Sperrminorität im Senat, welche leicht von fremden Mächte zur Blockierung bestimmter Verträge genutzt werde könnte. Schließlich hatten die meisten Kritiker eine andere Auffassung der Gewaltenteilung und bevorzugten anstelle der checks and balances eine stringentere Trennung zwischen den Gewalten (so etwa Thomas Jefferson).

In der heutigen Republik und Praxis haben sich natürlich viele Aspekte vollkommen anders entwickelt als gedacht oder vorausgesagt. Die Exekutive durch Machtdelegation aufseiten des Kongresses hat sich gemausert. Viele Exekutiveinheiten (so der USTR) werden vom Kongress und Präsidenten gleichzeitig geleitet. Die Exekutivbürokratie hat sich durch ihre langfristigen Ausblick zu einer 4. Gewalt im Staat entwickelt. Viele Verhandlungen werden unterhalb der politischen Ebene der Exektuive direkt zwischen Beamten und Committees oder Subcommittees des Kongresses geführt, einfach aus dem Grund, daß diese beiden Strukturen viel länger zusammenarbeiten und tiefer in die Materie eingetaucht sind, als ein kurzfristig ernannter head of department. Gerichtsurteile haben die Macht der Exekutive viel mehr Gestaltungskraft eingeräumt, nicht unbedingt gegen den Kongress, sondern vielmehr in Bezug auf Dinge, wo der Kongress einfach noch keinerlei Entscheidung getroffen hat. Schließlich werden desöfteren executive agreement als Ersatz für internationale Verträge abgehandelt um die Zustimmungsmacht des Senates zu umgehen.

Der Kongress selber hat sich von einem aktiven Gesetzgeber (eine Rolle, welche die Exekutive zum großen Teil übernommen hat), zu einem passiven Kontrolleur entwickelt, der ein legislatives Veto ausübt (welches zwar vom Supreme Court als nicht verfassungsgemäßt beurteilt wurde, aber von beiden (Exekutive und Judikative) inoffiziell anerkannt wird). Dies bedeutet in der Praxis, daß die Exekutive entscheidet, aber dem Kongress ein Veto ausspricht. Der Kongress kann interessanterweise Exekutivorgane anders als den Präsidenten auch direkt Befehle erteilen bzw ihnen Macht delegieren und tut dies auch, was die Macht der 4. Gewalt eher noch erhöht (vor allem die direkte Delegation). Letztlich läßt sich sagen, daß der Kongress weiterhin viel Macht besitzt aber nicht immer klar ist, wie er diese anwendet. Siehe Vietnam, 9/11, invasion of Iraq.

Der Supreme Court letzten endes hat diese Machtverlagerung nicht blockiert, und mischt sich überhaupt selten in Gewaltenteilungsaspekte ein (eine Ausnahme sind die 30er Jahre und Roosevelts Sozialpolitik, dies war aber wohl eher eine Ausnahme und inhaltlich bedingt). Stattdessen kann man ihn als Vertreter der nationale Interessen gegenüber den Einzelstaaten und Individuen bezeichnen, der dadurch zB die Civil Rights Bewegung stark gestärkt hat.

It's over

So, it looks like it's over. Obama will win the question just seems to be by how much and - more importantly - whether the Democrats will have a majority large enough to pass cloture in case of a filibuster. Because of that I decided to donate money for the first time ever in my life (and outside my fatherland or the country in which I currently reside). I really liked the argument made in the article linked to above though and decided to contribute to Jim Martin's race in Georgia. I think after eight years of President Bush, eight years of economic (look at any newspaper) and geo-strategic (Iran, China, Afghanistan, North Korea, Venezuela, Pakistan) mismanagement, the world finally needs some decent leadership again. Europe is not ready for this (and might never be for institutional reasons), neither is China (for different reasons), I believe it is überimportant that an American government (and that includes Congress, forget the President for a second, he is about half as important as usually considered) presides over the decline of American hegemony (the twilight of the unipolar world as Coral Bell put it so beautifully) that actually takes into consideration the rest of the world, that acts more humble and puts more thought into its policies. The Bush administration's mentality of talking loudly while carrying a small stick needs to be reverted into talking quietly (while carrying an even smaller stick).

For these reasons I am (illegally, and through a friend) contributing to the race of a Senator in the South that I don't know anything about. I am not a fervent believer in Democratic policies, but I believe that in relative terms a Democratic super majority would do the world (and the US) good. Why did I donate in the South? I don't know, I like the South and didn't want to donate money to an ex-comedian or to someone from a state where I have never been (Oregon). Why am I telling you all this? Because you should help one of these three guys too. All you democratic people out there that donated money to a symbol who is running for President now, this is where you can actually make a difference. Obama will not change the world, he might not even make a good President and I have my doubts about some of his attitudes and opinions (health care and Pakistan for one), but a filibuster safe majority in the Senate for the next two years at least could really change something.

PS: Benton, I am glad to owe you a six-pack. The Bradley-effect is dead, I was wrong. A black guy can win election in the US. Maybe cynicism is wrong sometimes.

PPS: I know, don't count your chickens before they hatch, don't jinx it, zerteile das Fell des Bären nicht bevor Du ihn erlegt hast, whatever it may be in French. But, I mean, come on. If someone makes a second Bobby Kennedy out of Obama, or if some Islamic terrorist decides he prefers a Republican President and acts on it things could change. If not, it's over.

Georges

Oui, Alexandre Dumas de nouveau. Pardon. cela fait sept livres au moins que j'ai lus de ce monsieur. Quand même j'ai trouvé cette-ci moins fort que - par exemple - Les trois mousquetaire. Dumas dans ce bouquin raconte l'histoire d'un mulâtre qui ayant passé la plupart des ses années d'adolescents en France revient dans son île native. Cet île est gouverné par quelques blancs, les préjuges dominent et notre héros, Georges, est prêt à les conquérir. Georges rapidement devient un Michael Kohlhaas II (ou un deuxième Don Quijote? Au moins ses ennemies existent.) Je voudrais bien dire plein des choses très intelligents sur le livre maintenant, mais il faut admettre que cela fait quelque temps que je l'ai fini et je suis si occupé depuis que je suis venu ici que j'ai du mal à trouver d'autre chose à dire. Lisez-vous Dumas, il est bien sympa. Même s'il ne réussit pas à convaincre le racisme de son temps. Parlant des Africains il parait que ils ont des "instincts d'une race qui aimait mieux l'eau-de-vie que la liberté."

notes on the first debate

• McCain wants to counter the financial crisis by lessening dependence on foreign oil
  
• McCain wants to be bipartisan (doing a reference to Kennedy being in hospital)
  
• Obama's solution sounds super simplistic ('oversight over the whole thing')
  
• McCain is going to end American capitalism as we know it, no word on how that is feasible
  
• Obama seems to be proud to know the difference between Main and Wall Street considering how often he mentions them
  
• McCain: "Main St is paying the price for the greed in Washington and Wall St"; so populistic this campaign business
  
• McCain: US is still the biggest exporter in the world (no, Germany is)
  
• Mccain attacks the appropriations committee again
  
• McCain will change the American political system, increasing presidential power over Congress through vetoeing earmarked bills
  
• McCain just admitted Republicans failed to reign in spending
  
• Obama apparently earmarked a lot (he didn't even counter attack McCain on that)
  
• Obama attacks well on the relative unimportance of earmarks (in absolute financial terms)
  
• McCain: pork barrel, earmarks, appropriations...god...nothing else to talk about?
  
• good attack on McCain on health care, on his belief in market solutions only, lack of regulation
  
• McCain shoots back with tax cuts, simple tax rules and pork barrel spending, weak...I hope people will see this
  
• McCain: We let spending get out of hand (Bush adminstration and mainly Republican Congress, how dare you attack Obama on that?)
  
• McCain is so exemplary in his issues; I guess that is good politically, but it is so unsatisfactory in the sense that any policy content is missing
  
• I do not believe Mccain has a chance in hell to cut down on defense spending; he is perfectly right on the issue of course
  
• McCain: response to financial crisis: spending freeze on everything but defense spending and veteran entitlements (I know, reading my note just above I am a little confused as well)
  
• we are back to appropriations, gawd, John, come on...
  
• McCain: Lesson of Iraq: We cannot have a failed strategy (great in-depth analysis)
  
• McCain: We will win with honour, so 19th century.
  
• McCain: Iran would have won influence if US had lost Iraq. Iran already has obviously, because of the invasion alone.
  
• Obama: Al Qaieda is stronger than anytime since 2001. No, they are not. Not because of Iraq, but they are definitely not as strong. They are just a buzzword nowadays.
  
• Good point McCain, the next President will not have to decide whether the US should have gone to Iraq but when and how to leave.
  
• Hardball on Iraq by Obama, harsh attacks on the 2003 beginning. Good job.
  
• This whole troop support thing is so lame. The upper class discussing who has more solidarity with the working class actually fighting and dying.
  
• McCain wants to have Paetrus run Afghanistan with the same strategy as Iraq (keyword: Awakening Councils). That is such a dumb suggestion. Completely different countries, completely different circumstances.
  
• Obama wants to reinforce troops in Afghanistan, two bataillons in addition. Bad news for Europe, bad news for Germany. They'll have a hard time saying no to a request for military aid of his.
  
• McCain: You don't say out loud you attack Pakistan (like Obama did), you just do it.
  
• The Pakistanis don't want to go into Waziristan, McCain trying to convince them to do so won't change much. Their government is not strong enough.
  
• McCain doesn't believe in Jesus, he believes in General Paetrus.
  
• Why does Obama say John, but McCain Senator Obama? Racial issue of white people having called blacks by their first name only for decades in order to keep them in their place? Afraid of being conceived of doing that?
  
• Obama: Good job on describing the mess in Pakistan and the failed US efforts there.
  
• McCain: So paternalistic towards Obama (doesn't understand this, that (Pakistan, Musharaff, strategy, tactic)
  
• Now we are becoming really corny, McCain is wearing some dead's soldiers name on his wrist. God, guys, please, politics, issues, policy. Anyone trying to pull this off in Germany would be laughed off the stage. So 19th/20th century, come into the 21st century. Pretty, pretty please. Now Obama is wearing a bracelet too. Honour, blood, national pride and so on. So lucky we (Europeans, Germans in particular) got rid of this shit after 1945.
  
• Even an Iran with nuclear weapons would not mean a second Holocaust.
  
• A league of democracies is bullshit, no China, no Russia? This league would be relevant for another 10 years at most.
  
• Funny how Israel is treated like the 51st state or something in these debates.
  
• Not having negotiations worked real well against Cuba John. Nixon went to China, Roosevelt met Stalin, Kissinger negotiated with the Vietnamese. To refuse to talk to people is not a policy, it is arrogance that doesn't really serve any use.
  
• McCain wouldn't want to meet Zapatero? That is ridicolous. Only one of the best prime ministers in Europe.
  
• It is dangerous to meet and talk to Ahmadinejad? Less or more dangerous than bombing the place? Wish McCain would actually expound on that. Don't believe he has a point.
  
• How did Kissinger become the wise advisor that people feel proud to reference to? His German accent? His failure in Vietnam?
  
• Russia's attack on Georgia. What a failure by the Bush administration to not being capable of responding. Good job by Sarkozy, and good for strengthening the EU's foreign policy, but definitely a sign of things to come (increasingly fading American relevance).
  
• McCain attacks well on this foreign policy stuff. Always referencing his lack of understanding.
  
• The KGB doesn't exist anymore. It's called the FSB Senator McCain.
  
• McCain has spent significative amount of time everywhere in the world apparently, but especially Georgia. My personal estimate would be 3 days.
  
• Energy independence is a myth.
  
• McCain working with Joe Lieberman is not working across the aisle.
  
• Interesting that McCain admits the US used to torture. Not quite sure he is doing that on purpose ('have to make sure we never torture again')
  
• Why does everyone want simplistic solutions for complicated problems? So sad how this works. Both just keep hammering away at their strong points.
  
• Missile Defense is an expensive failure, mainly supported by ex-generals sitting on advisory boards of the military-industrial complex. I thought McCain wanted to reign in spending.
  
• McCain: Obama does not have 'enough experience'. At least he finally came out and said it directly, having referenced to it constantly.
  
• McCain loves the veterans. God damn homosexual.
  
• McCain just directly tried to distance himself from the Bush administration. Not very believable I think, but he tried.
  
• The American dream. You can make it if you try. Social mobility. Just another myth, that is not backed up by numbers.
  
• McCain was a POW. He can be President. No really, that is sufficient as a qualification. They always make it sound like Veterans are angels or something. Crazy.
  
• McCain was good on this, I agree more with Obama of course based on content alone (policy suggestions, the few that were actually mentioned), but McCain was good. But then this is his specialty (foreign policy that is).
  
• I cannot believe they did this in Oxford, Mississippi without ever adressing race.
  
• Are they like not allowed to kiss their wives on stage?
  
• How creepy is McCain's wife? I mean, how much younger is she? How fake does she look (her hair especially, barbie doll)? Scary stuff.
  
• Scary post too, in length especially. If you made it all the way down here I recommend you for it and thanks. Need to do some actual work now.
  

Nationalism once more

Stephen Smith on ESPN goes a long way towards proving that sports journalists are not the brightest, that Americans are nationalistic and that free speech has been replaced by self-censorship in the United States. Thanks for showing the negative image we Americophiles have been trying to dispel for years.

Josh Howard, a far better than average basketball player on the Dallas Mavericks, was filmed at a charity event 'disrespecting' the American national anthem. In his own words: "The Star-Spangled Banner' is going on. I don't celebrate this shit. I'm black." Now, I am not quite clear why this is such a big deal. It is a free country I thought, free speech and stuff, right? Instead, 'it has to stop now' according to Smith and Mark Cuban (the owner of the Mavericks) said 'that the team dealt with Howard at the time of the incident.' 'Howard has the audacity to publicly challenge America's affinity to its own anthem.' I mean how dare he? Don't we all know you are supposed to stare at the red, white and blue teary-eyed through the singing of the anthem? What a sorry state of affairs, if a semi-celebrity is condemned for voicing his personal, political opinion.

Smith continues his rambling by mixing in some references to Howard admitting to smoking weed and its widespread use among NBA-players. I am not quite sure how this invalidates his reasoning on anything else. I assume if he drank Bud Light and watched Monday Night Football he would be considered an upright citizen though. Smith actually has the audacity to call Howard an idiot. I guess that is what not being patriotic makes you.

The funny thing about all that is of course that greater thinkers as Josh Howard would agree (Frederick Douglass' The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro is just one prominent example, WEB DuBois actually moved to Ghana in the last years of his life).

Even J. A. Adande managing a far more level-headed commentary on Howard opens up with talking about America as 'the best country on the planet.' Who are these people? When will they arrive in the 21st century? When will they finally abandon these nationalistic terms that are meaningless in the first place.

I don't think I am doing a good job of expressing myself in this post, but I haven't felt as exasperated with American society in a really long time. I cannot believe this piece of bullshit was published on the front page of espn.com.

State-haters

This trend of nationalizing financial entities in the Unites States (Fanny, Freddie, AIG) really makes me wonder what happened to all those people afraid of the state. Weren't markets supposed to be taken care of themselves on their own? I do realize that the radical argument could be that there still has been too much state-interference and that this is the reason for the current shit hole (excuse my French, am moving to Paris soon, should be allowed to use it) that we seem to be stuck in. Yet, we will most likely (und das ist auch gut so) never have a perfect market (even if that might be an economist's wet dream), we have to adapt to reality then and that means oversight, government regulation and not letting markets completely off the leach. Otherwise, we have crashing financial markets with no one truly knowing who owns or owes what to whom. Truly libertarian markets are as much of an utopia as communism was.

The German government has decided that a likely recession in the US coupled with falling stock indexes and a financial market whom describing as in turmoil sounds like a euphemism will not affect Germany. Gee, thanks Angela and Peer, I'll take y'all's word for it. (taz, Zeit)

Al Gore might have invented the internet (yes, I know, just a misunderstanding, he did contribute valuable political support and never really claimed more, it's pretty funny nonetheless), but McCain was responsible for people who think they are important being able to show it to everyone, he created the _blank">BlackBerry. Thank you Mr McCain.

Finally, I feel like he exaggerates at times (the 'under god' reference for example really has nothing to do with race), but he makes a couple of really valid points on race and racism in American politics. I am growing increasingly worried about Obama's chances for election by the way, the United States' electorate really disappointed me (us, Europeans, the world) in 2004 and I am wary of actually getting my hopes up once more. Furthermore, as I've said again and again, race does matter and it could just tip the scales in favor of McCain/Palin (worst VP-candidate I've ever read/heard about in my life btw, substantially speaking, not in political terms sadly enough). I guess the upside of that would be that the Austin-boy owes me a six-pack if Obama doesn't win.

Schmidts Beweihräucherung

Ich habe diesen Artikel nicht einmal mehr gelesen und werde dies auch nicht tun. Ich finde diese Beweihräucherung Helmut Schmidts einfach furchtbar. Die Zeit benimmt sich ihm gegenüber als ob er der sprichwörtliche Dukaten-scheißende Esel sei. Seine politischen Kommentare sind nichts mehr als persönliche Ansichten, welche ohne argumentativen Hintergrund vorgebracht werden, stattdessen durch Referenzen auf persönliche Kontakte (Kissinger, Carter usw usf) aus einer gottgleichen Perspektive zu stammen scheinen. Einfach furchtbar.

Jiddisch im Berliner Jargon

Seit Ewigkeiten hier nichts mehr geschrieben, hatte meine ersten zweiten Magisterprüfungen die letzten Tage. Heute morgen aber habe ich auf dem Weg zum Flughafen zum ersten Mal seit längerem wieder einfach nur für mich selber gelesen. War schön.

Ich hatte mir Jiddisch im Berliner Jargon oder Hebräische Sprachelemente im deutschen Wortschatz von dem Mitbewohner eines Kumpels letztens ausgeliehen und es dann heute schnell gelesen. Ich finde es nicht besonders schön geschrieben und es ist wirklich sehr kurz, aber die Ansammlung von jiddischen Worten im Deutschen ist beeindruckend und ich möchte einfach nur kurz meine Lieblinge auflisten:

- Mischpoke

- zocken (was ich andauernd benutze)

- malochen

- Schlamassel

- Ische (nicht schön, aber witzig)

- Moos (im Sinne von Geld)

- Zoff

- Ausbaldowern

- Bammel haben

- blauer Montag (der in seinem Ursprung nichts mit der Farbe Blau zu tun hat)

- Chuzpe

- dufte

- Gauner, Ganove

- sich kabbeln

- ein Kaff

- kess

- mauscheln

- Miesepeter

- ein feiner Pinkel

- Reibach machen

- jemanden einseifen

Ich hatte mit einer Freundin in Boston schon eine Liste schöner Worte erstellt gehabt, viele von diesen müßten dort aufgenommen werden.

Zwölf Jahre

I am writing about a book I read in German today (only had the translated version), but I cannot get myself to write in German for some reason. Maybe a way to distance myself, maybe just showing off, maybe I just feel more comfortable writing in English nowadays. I have spent most of the last five-six years doing just that after all. I haven't been very busy on this thing here (the word blog seems so...limiting?), mostly because I spend my life studying for two of the most important exams I've ever taken, and when I say life I mean it.

Anyway, today I again went to the library early in the morning and read a book about the German legislative system. I just couldn't do it anymore after a while though, so I went home instead and finished my subway reading material, Joel Agee's Twelve Years - An American Boyhood in Eastern Germany. Now, this book is special in the sense that I actually know the author. He and his wife are friends of my parents, I have spent time with them in New York and will actually be seeing them this Saturday (the knowledge of which inspired me to finally pick up his book in the first place). So what does this mean? I am not quite sure, maybe that I was positively disproposed towards the book, maybe that I wouldn't have been as critical as necessary if I wouldn't have liked it? I have no idea.

Good news first, I really liked this book. I finished it today in 3-4 hour reading session and spent 30 minutes on the internet afterwards trying to find out more about some of the (real-life) characters. Joel is the son of James Agee (quite the famous writer to have as a father, not very relevant for the rest of his story though) and Alma Mailman/Agee/Uhse. His mom went to Mexico with him where she married a German communist and writer, Bodo Uhse (who himself has an interesting life-story, being a left-wing Nazi in the 1920s only to become a communist in the 30s). The Uhse family (sorry all you label-centered feminists) then moved to the Soviet-occupied zone in 1948. In his novel, Joel, more or less liberally, recounts his years in Germany, the German Democratic Republic actually. Some of it is very personal and in that sense not related neither to the time-period nor the geographic location, his first sexual experiences and his difficulties with them, but also his driftlessness, his lack of direction, of application. Other parts are more directly connected to his unique position an American Jew growing up in Germany in the 1950s, the rigid party rule, the blind obedience for which Germans then (and now) are famous for.

I really liked this book, I can only recommend it to all of you. Especially maybe people that know Germany but don't come from here or at least have managed to gain some kind of an outsider's perspective on it.

Coming of Age in Mississippi

A friend of mine lend this to me (forced upon would be another possibility of describing this transaction) in North Carolina. So, now I've read it and I see why she would have thought I should read it. Anne Moody's Coming of Age in Mississippi is The Classic Autobiography of Growing Up Poor and Black in the Rural South. It definitely sounds like a book someone like me (fanatic of the South, race relations, the Civil Rights Movement, Mississippi in particular) should read. All of this is very true too, the only problem is that I didn't find Moody to be such a great writer, which diminished the pleasure of reading her book significantly.

I do have to admit that it was super interesting to have the perspective of someone who grew up in her stature of life. Yet, sadly Moody dwells too long on passages outlining her achievemens in her home-town (how well she worked, studied, how she became prom-queen) which started to bore me relatively fast. Maybe I just spent too much time reading people who cannot stop overboarding their phrases with meaning (which has made it a problem for a while now for me to write coherently and not convoluted), but her writing seemed too straight-forward for me. So, enough complaining. I read this in one session, sitting on the train and I enjoyed myself while doing that. Think I had just been hoping for a deeper more general analysis through an autobiography (the way Franklin does it), what I got instead was the life of a woman. A remarkable woman, fighting against racism, Jim Crow, her own family, her poverty. I would recommend the book more to people that haven't read that much about the South and its recent history yet, than to someone slightly obsessive like me.

Hank Williams - The Biography

I don't think I am sharing anykind of personal insight if I make you (the worthy reader of this publication) aware of the fact that Hank Williams is one of my favorite singers and heroes (whatever that big word may mean) in general. Colin Escott has written an autobiography of the man behind the legend now (such a standard-phrase, had to use it, sorry) together with George Merritt and William Mac Ewen. I feel torn on what the work that they produced. On the one hand it is exhausting to read with a great number of name references that even someone of my knowledge of country/hilbilly of folk (as Hank apparently called it a lot) music simply does not understand. Nashville sidemen, or regional stars and one-hit wonders there are too many. The short introduction that some of these get (because the authors clearly are aware of this knowledge gap) become tiresome after a while and blur together. On the positive side they do a great job of bringing the reader closer to Hank Williams himself, his miserable life before and during fame, his excessive drug consumption, the he doled out and was on the receiving end of. What a character, what a poor man. The music industry in Nashville, which was still being built back then, and its deplorable business aspects receives some spotlight. And finally the unsavory persons circulating around Hank are shown in their sad light. His mother, his first Wife (Audrey) both of whom before and after his death tried to make as much money as possible of him, while especially the latter had stopped caring about or giving him anything years earlier. The lies that they told to make themselves seem closer to the legend. Finally, and a bit more technical, the origin of some of Hank's songs (the non self-composed ones obviously) are focused on, some more material to peruse for me in the future.

So, the Lovesick Blues-boy biography definitely deserves a look at if you understand the beauty that is a Hank Williams song (and as Kris Kristofferson said: If you don't like Hank you can kiss my ass). It'll make oyu have pity on the man that died a wreck at 29 after having given us an immense amount of beautiful music.

La mort dans l'âme

La troisième partie de Les chemins de la liberté, Sartre m'a de nouveau fait beaucoup de plaisir avec son oeuvre La mort dans l'âme. Je trouve bizarre qu'il est retourné sur le style du premier bouquin et qu'il fait semblant d'ignorer la façon dont il raconte l'histoire au deuxième livre. La mort dans l'âme est beaucoup plus facile à lire, il y en a moins de personnage et toute l'histoire est plus compacte, plus dense, plus logique si on veut. Sartre dans cet oeuvre montre comment (principalement) trois français (et tous environs ces trois) agissent quand les allemands conquièrent la France après (et un peu avant) que l'armistice soit signé. Mathieu, l'ancien prof de lettres se trouve au front; Brunet, fonctionnaire Communiste devient prisonnier des allemands et essaie d'organiser ses compatriotes; Daniel, marié mais homosexuel se promène dans un Paris presque vide voyant les allemands venir. Ivich (qui se déteste) et Jacques (qui s'enfouit) et sa femme (qui aime Matthieu, le frère de son mari) jouent des rôles aussi, mais les personnages principals sont Matthieu et Brunet.

Quoi dire? J'ai appris plusieurs mots pérjoratives pour les allemands gâce à ce livre (frisé, fritz, chleuh). J'ai en plus avoir eu le plaisir de comprendre plus les sentiments des français sur la défaite de 1940 (à l'époque en tout cas). Le livre m'as fasciné, Brunet et ses positions ultra-orthodox sur le communisme, Mathieu qui devient un idéaliste soudainement. Je ne peux que vous recommander de lire Sartre, ou ce trilogie. Il m'a donné beaucoup de renseignment historiques (plus des émotions que des faits bien etendu) et j'avais toujours du mal de l'abandonner quand j'ai été en train de le lire.

Un dernier mot, le livre m'as fait revenir des autres bouquin sur la guerre de Hemingway ou Norman Mailer. Faut que je relise quelques d'eux aussi.

Winesburg, Ohio

Well, one of the early classics of American regional writing. Sherwood Anderson's Winesburg, Ohio. I had been hearing about this in literary classes a few times, so when I saw it in a book store here for a mere few bucks I couldn't resist. Anderson recounts the story of a town (Winesburg) and a boy (George Willard) through a dozen short stories each focusing on the life of one of the townfolks. What emerges is a complex, woven net of interacting characters, of life in a small mid-western town. As the author himself explains in the beginning it is a book of the grotesque, all of his characters are suffering from some kind of an affliction. I really enjoyed this short read (150 pages). The only aspect that bothered (or better annoyed) me at times was that Anderson in detailing the coming of age of George Willard deals with issues of masculinity and growing into it that just do not seem valid to the 21st century anymore (or at least not to my understanding of it). Female-male relations especially in regard to sexuality are reduced to a level that is based on clear male dominance, an aspect which takes away from the otherwise existing universality of his characters. He does, beautifully, show the futility of life, the sheer resignation to which people give in (and in this resembles my personal favorite to some extent (or Faulkner actually resembles him considering chronology here)), yet they keep on living, they keep on trying, they keep on being there.

As a merchant Ebenezer was not happily placed in life and he had not been happily placed as a farmer. Still he existed.

San Diego and other random things

So, I flew out to San Diego for the weekend (yeah, I know the jet-set life is real tough), so here I am catching up on a couple of things that I noticed/read along the way. I wish I could pass some kind of judgement on California but three days really is just too short. San Diego was fun, I can see how living there is highly appealing, but I need to go again, for longer to really judge it. Last time I tried judging a city/country after a short vacation, I got torched by a friend even when most of my observations were only meant sarcastically, thus I will simply refrain from doing so here.

• I flew into Denver Thursday evening from the North, sitting on the left of the plane and looking out onto the Eastern plains of Colorado. That place is empty. I mean like empty. There were virtually no houses, few roads, just space. Wide open space. I really need to go out West at some point in my life in order to experience this part of the country.


• Only in the United States: TVs installed above the pumps at a gas station in San Diego.


• I was amazed that on leaving San Diego one can be in the solitude of the desert after an easy 30-40 minutes drive. Again, the West is different, I totally need to check this out at some point.


• Nicholas Carr is putting forth an interesting thesis that the internet is making us stupid. I don't necessarily agree with every point he makes. I still read literature for example, something which he argues he has unlearned because of internet-overusage, and I found the change cited below horrible and never even glance at it. But, I do believe that the skimming of articles, the reading of headlines only has made knowledge more superficial. At the same time people only have to blame themselves for this I believe (just pick up a paper, and no, I don't believe you when you say you don't have the time to read one) and additionaly the shear amount of news has of course increased significantly (I doubt even avid newspaper readers in 1960s had as much of a global vision as we today do) making it virtually impossible to keep up to date on every development in much detail.
  
  When, in March of this year, The New York Times decided to devote the second and third pages of every edition to article abstracts, its design director, Tom Bodkin, explained that the “shortcuts” would give harried readers a quick “taste” of the day’s news, sparing them the “less efficient” method of actually turning the pages and reading the articles. Old media have little choice but to play by the new-media rules.
  

Copperhead Road

One of the cultural/political aspects of the United States I find absolutely fascinating is the us-against-them mentality, of independence from the government, a certain rebellious streak against any kind of strong government. The title to this post is from a Steve Earle song epitomizing this attitude very well (check out the video & lyrics). It is furthermore a sentiment that can be traced through time as well as space in the American history: Thoreau's Duty of Civil Disobedience, the (in)famous right to bear arms, states' rights, Faulkner's Gavin Stevens who in Intruder in the Dust argues for the South to resolve its race issue on its own without Northern (federal) interference.

I thought of this when I had my coffee/newspaper session this morning and the New York Times had an interesting article on a state that was never formed, Absaroka, in the South Dakota/Wyoming border region. So much still unexplored (for me in any case) in regard to American history (and everything else, I know), it's crazy.

Basketball outside the US

Josh Childress a sixth man with Atlanta last season signed with Olympiacos (Tue Hoop & ESPN). Brandon Jennings is also going to play in Europe (True Hoop & ESPN). As a European baller having spent a lot of time in the United States this feels really good. No matter how long the US has not won gold at either the Olympics nor the World Championship (10 years by now?), American arrogance on US basketball prowess has never diminished. Even my educated basketball friends that have been to Europe claim before every Olympics that the US will destroy its competition, pointing to the superior American roster (on a name recognition basis). Of course they are right, LeBron, Carmelo, Kobe, Dwight Howard, Chris Paul (and the list goes on), this will be a collection of great player. That just doesn't mean that they will win. Last time around the Greeks killed the US in the fourth quarter by playing a high pick-and-roll for what seemed like 10 consecutive posessions. Argentina destroyed (and I mean destroyed, I believe they were up by 18 at some point) the US a few years earlier on this advanced and innovative play called back-door screens.

Basketball is not solely an American sport anymore. Period. It might have never been, but that's a different argument. Americans have started going to Europe to make money. Europeans (+ Argentina) have started to beat the US regularly. I am walking on a court in the US and people have more respect once they realize that I am European because they know it'll mean I can shoot.

I just hope at some point people will start to realize that once you step on a court, it's 5 people on each side, and your name don't mean nuttin'. It's how you play (international in this case) basketball. Carmelo Anthony for example will possibly be the best player on the US team again. Kobe or LeBron might be more suited for isolation plays with no one calling traveling on fast break dunks (hi there LeBron), but Anthony adapts better to a (more effective imho) passing game. So, the Americans can lose against Greece, against Russia, against Argentina, against Spain, fuck, against Germany (well, maybe not, but then Dirk and the new German hick Mr Kaman might go off in the same game, you never know). Are they still favorites when it comes down to it? Of course, but so they were the last 10 years. As much as I like American basketball, as much as I follow the NBA (and UNC since last year), as much as I prefer playing in the US over most games in Germany or France, I hope y'all lose, just so you finally begin to realize that the game is not dominated by the US anymore. That's over.

Intellectuals

So, Foreign Policy published a list of the 100 top intellectuals in the world today. People were allowed to vote on this, here are the results now. Funny thing is that I know one of the top 10 (Orhan Parmuk, two I remembered once I had read the descriptions) a few more in the top 20 and only have read something by one (Orhan Parmuk) in the top 20. Embarassing for me to some extent (should have read some Chomsky or Umberto Ecco). The list is also apparently a typical case of regio-centrism, a massive influx of Middle Eastern and Turkish voters assured that 9 of the top 10 are Muslims. Kind of funny how a western publication, usually one to twist lists such as these extremely towards the US and Europe gets played at its own game here.

Lesson to be drawn? Be less Western-centric, read more and more wide-spread.

One point of criticism I should add, a popular vote such as this leads to famous people perceived as intelligent to be featured disproportionately on this list. Al Gore for example, or the highest write-in candidate Stephen Colbert, should not be on there or not as high in any case.

Le sursis

Jean-Paul Sartre de nouveau. Je n'avais aucune idée que son livre, que je m'avais acheté à l'occasion, l'Âge de raison est le premier d'un trilogie. Le sursis appartient à Les chemins de la liberté (et je vais commencer le troisième La mort dans l'ame ce soir). De plus, je n'avais pas d'image de Sartre vraiment. J'en ai connu son nom, sa femme (de laquelle je dois lire quelque chose aussi d'ailleurs) et sa visite à Baader à Stammheim et la façon dont il les (le RAF) a cru leur propaganda. Respect entre un intellectuel célèbre alors, mais rien de plus.

Le sursis a beaucoup fait pour changer de cet avis. Sans exageré, je n'ai pas encore lu trop de livres aussi fort. Putain, si je n'étais pas croyant, je le comparerais à Faulkner. Sartre décrit, utilisant le même personnage qu'au premier bouquin en plus que quelques caractère nouveaux, sept jours en septembre 1938. IL écrit dans une façon très difficile à suivre, échangeant les points de vues des characters au même paragraphes ou même phrases parfois. De plus il y a plusieurs fil de récit, et caractères, beaucoup d'entre eux n'ont pas la moindre relation. Lire ce bouquin, n'est pas alors une tâche facile toujours, mais se concentrant et lisant pendant quelques temps sans pause mérite l'effort.

Sartre réussit à décrire la France, ses caractères dans un temps très difficile, dès 23 jusqu'au 30 septembre 1938, pendant que les accords de Munich ont été négocié. Ses caractères ont peur d'être mobilisé, de la guerre, d'être seul, d'être obligé à partir (de la Tchécoslovaquie), des Allemands. Quelque-uns attendent la guerre plein d'espoir (pour soi-même, pour les juifs allemands, pour les républicains en Espagne), des autres essaient de lutter contre la mobilisation. Tous sont humain, et Sartre a un talent incroyable parfois à décrire ce que ses caractères ressent. Le lecteur ne comprend pas seulement pourquoi les gens réagissent d'une certaine façon, il ressent ses décisions, ses doutes. Surtout la pensée de Mathieu (le caractère principal de la première livre) sur la guerre sont d'une force incomparable. Sartre réussit à faire comprendre le lecteur ce qui s'est passé vraiment dans ces jours où la peur d'Hitler, la peur de la guerre, la mémoire de la première guerre mondiale ont dominé la politique.

Je ne peux pas seulement recommander ce bouquin, il faut que vous le lisiez.

News Update

• Gut für die Umwelt, schlecht für den allgemeinen persönlichen Komfort. Die Flugpreise in Europa gehen wohl wieder hoch. Ich hatte aber irgendwie auch immer ein schlechtes Gewissen mit dem ganzen hin- und herfliegen. (Zeit)


• La récession européenne vient. (LeMonde) Cool, que moi je chercherai un boulot bientôt.


• The cost of going to Heaven hasn’t gone up. Advertisement on a church in Ohio. (Krugman)


• Paul Krugman claims that federal politicans having no idea about Social Security is something that would not surprise him. I find it absolutely scandalous and shocking if true. In this case, John McCain wants to end present-day retirees being paid through the taxes paid by today's workers as he considers this a disgrace (and apparently thinks it is something new). I guess the only possible deduction from this statement is that McCain has no idea what he is talking about. How sad is that?(Krugman)


• The White House issued a truthful press statement, but don't worry, they retracted it right away: Mr. Berlusconi is one of the most controversial leaders in the history of a country known for government corruption and vice. (NYT)

Bad Lands

Tony Wheeler, author of Bad Lands - A tourist on the Axis of Evil, is the originator of Lonely Planet who in this book describes his travels to a variety of supposedly evil states (Lybia, Saudi-Arabia, North Corea, Cuba, Albania, Iran, Iraq (the Kurdistan part), Afghanistan and Burma). The book is not a pretty read in the sense that Wheeler is simply not such a great author, but it is interesting where it is a guide book, where he describes what he finds as tourist infrastructure in these countries. Wheeler is at his weakest when he tries to give political analysis of a country in two paragraphs, he also preaches to the choir too much when he derides American hostility against some of these countries. Yet, for the countries I was less informed about (Albania for example, or Lybia) his background information, if very short, was helpful and interesting. Furthermore, some of his observations were simply fascinating and made me go to these countries quite badly (Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Albania mainly). The only bad thing I guess then is that I have no money or time to do any of this anytime soon. But, who knows maybe I'll find a job that gets me to these places one day.

News Update

• Ce que la France veut faire sur la PESD pendant sa presidence de l'UE. En bref c'est une version très, très court et simple de mon mémoire. Ils adressent tous les problèmes majeures au tout cas.


• Highly interesting article on the emerging political and economical power Brasil (a little too comparative with Venezuela maybe)


• Herr Gusenbauer wird in der Zeit runtergeputzt. Ich hatte irgendwie immer ein sympathisches Bild von ihm einfach, weil es auf absehbare Zeit der einzige Regierungschef war mit dem ich mich je unterhalten hatte.


• The on-going racism watch. Today, if you sound 'black', you make less money.


• Sarko, more show than substance.

Boston II

• So, after having been here for nearly three weeks I finally found a bad-ass basketball court. It is right next to my work too and in case anyone is looking for me within the next few weeks anywhere from six to nine, you'll know where to find me. Why is it bad-ass? Because there are not so many Asian and white kids playing there as on the other playground that I went to before. It is pure racial stereotyping I realize that, but it strikes me over and over again how much of a difference there exists in this country between black and white (omitting Asians here for a second) ballers. The game is much more serious, everybody plays harder, talks more trash, is faster, more athletic and hits their shots at a higher percentage. Especially in Boston where the black population (downtown in any case) is a small minority, it is noticeable how much of black man's game this is. Maybe places like Indiana are different, but it has definitely been my experience so far wherever I went in the United States.


• Also, if you ever come to Boston. Check out Monday's blues night at Wally's Café. Great show, good musicians (especially one of the sax players and the female(!) Japanese(!!) drummer), nice crowd. A little too modern and funky for me at times, but they covered Junior Wells' Messin' with the Kid, so who am I to nit-pick.

News Update

• The peculiar American obsession with patriotism is really nothing new, whether it be the constant singing of the national anthem at any sporting event, the fervent display of flags by everyone from car dealerships to veterans-turned-homeless-guys. The gigantic flags in fashion now, really are just an expression of this superficial brand of nationalism. That's what it is though, superficial, I ran around Boston yesterday (the 4th of July) asking people how many of the luminaries that signed the Declaration of Independence they knew. Most replied with one only (John Hancock). Shouldn't you at least know about something before you are proud of it?


• The new American embassy in Berlin was unveiled officially yesterday. It is in a very prestigious spot, right next to the Brandenburger Tor. John Kornblum, the old American ambassador to Germany, is quoted in the article as saying: "For some reason, when we asked for our increased security enhancements a lot of people in this city went crazy. We endured all kinds of taunts and demands. ‘What do you Americans think you’re doing?’"
  
  Well, with all due respect, Mr Kornblum your early requests if I remember correctly involve having a security area around the building that would have virtually closed the biggest tourist attraction of Berlin to any visitors. So, yeah, sorry, but I thought that was pretty cheeky as far as security concerns go as well. Definitely, not just an anti-America attitude the way the article portrays it.


• Ever since this Jayhawker I know complained of my too optimistic portrayal of race in the United States, the New York Times has decided to show me that he is right. Seems like I have to rescind this post of mine and become more of my cynic old self in that regard.


• The impact of rising gas prices on the USA is quite incredible. It affects virtually every part of life here. Having read the New York Times daily ever since I came here again it is striking how this country will have to change in the mid- and long-term if these oil prices don't change anytime soon. (1, 2, 3)

Obama moving right

Not to be a Besserwessi (great word, learn German or look it up if you don't know it), but Obama is moving to the political center (aka right, since he was further left before) in order to appeal to the broader masses. His many young disciples that I encoutered during my UNC days (been like what, two months? feels longer) hopefully will come to the realization that he is just another politician in the end, a good one, a relatively left-wing one, but not more than that (and not less than that either).

Case in point 1, Obama like the incumbent supports welfare programs run by churches continuing the dubious seperation between church and state in the United States. While at the same time undermining any kind of universal welfare approach that is needed (as far as I am concerned in any case) in the US in order to end socio-economic deprivation occuring here (and create a true meritocracy, I could get carried away here, but will control myself).

Case in point 2, Obama is supporting "legal protection to the telecommunication companies that worked with the National Security Agency’s domestic wiretapping program after the Sept. 11 attacks." Do I even need to add anything? Spying on Americans? I'd call it unpatriotic just to mess with the conservative crowd, but then most of them tend to not even realize that that is what their revolutionary ancestors fought against.

Case in point 3, Obama supports the death penalty for the crime of child rape. While I obiovusly agree that this crime is "heinous" I do not support the death penalty. Never. And in this case it means that Obama is more conservative than a Supreme Court dominated by conservatives.

Case in point 4, Obama supports the Supreme Court's strike down of Washington DC's ban on handguns.

I like him, I'd vote for him, but they honeymoon period with the liberals and young ones is over it seems.

UPDATE: The New York Times editorial of today argues pretty much the same point.

UPDATE 2: The Economist weighs in on this too now.

News Update

I am super busy at work (yeah right), so here goes from my daily NYT consumption

• If you want to kill someone and get away with it, better be white, guess someone was trying to show me that my post the other day was too optimistic.


• Great story. Some dude decided to present himself in a small town as a federal officer and start busting drug dealers and consumers. No search warrants, no justification, working only based on his convincing manners and badge from a previous job as a security guard. Funny how easy stuff like this even today (internet, telephone?) still is. Hauptmann von Köpenick II sozusagen (and with no apparent evil or selfish intent).


• Finally, Obama will be trying to contest the South (or so it seems), Thomas F. Schaller says that is dumb. I tend to agree with Mr Schaller, it seems to be a waste of resources to even try to compete in states such as Mississippi (check the numbers that he offers up for proof). Most interesting I found that Afro-Americans in the South apparently (and surprisingly as far as I was concerned) vote on par with their white (regional) compatriotes. I had thought blacks participate in far lower numbers in the electoral process.


• Letztlich bin ich zum Glück nicht der einzige, der sich diesem seltsamen en vogue geratenen Patriotismus verschließt, diesen stattdessen sogar als Gefahr wahrnimmt.

L'Âge de raison

Sartre alors, drôle comment un nom fait une impression, rencontrant des gens en le lisant, ils sont tous impressionné. Moi, je suis sûr que les ouvrages philosophes de Jean-Peaul Sartre sont difficile et complex, L'Âge de raison n'a pas été trop dur à comprendre. Je ne comprends toujours pas tous (au niveau des mots), mais je me débrouille quand même et j'espère que en lisant plus j'arriverai sur un niveau de français plus acceptable.

Le bouquin soi-même a été très agréable. C'est l'histoire d'un professeur de moyen âge (35 je crois), qui s'appuie sur sa indépendance, sa liberté, même s'il l'imagine plus qu'elle existe. Il apprend que sa mâitresse est enceinte au même temps qu'il se rend compte qu'il n'aime plus. Mathieu (son nom) est foutu, il ne réussit pas à faire rien de ce qu'il voudrait (dès draguer quelqu'un d'autre jusqu'à trouver de l'argent pour un avortement).

Pourquoi je l'ai bien aimé alors? Je ne sais pas trop, je trouve sympa les histoires sans espoir comme celle-là. Je peux sympathiser avec un mec qui souffre sous ses anciens décisions, qui n'est pas tout à fait heureux avec sa vie, sa façon d'être. Bien sûr que (j'espère au tout cas) je tire des autres conséquences, mais j'aime bien ce Mathieu quand même. Un peu froid, un peu trop intéressé à ses études parfois, un peu du mal à ce que les gens ils pensent grâce à un cynisme profond, c'est une décription de moi aussi à un certain degré.

À la fin, la vision de Satre des gens, de la communication inter-humaine me plaît. Elle est aussi negative que la mienne (ou aussi réaliste?), les gens, ils se malcomprennent, ils se font du mal et ils ne le réalisent pas ou ils sont en fou. Et non, je ne me suiciderai pas maintenant, mais il faut admettre, que cette vision a plus de raison qu'on ne le voudrait.

Jubelpatriotismus

Ach bin ich froh, daß die Deutschen gestern verloren haben, diesen Partypatrotismus, der sich in Deutschlandfarben auf der Wange und hawaiianisch anmutenden Girlanden in der gleichen Farbkombination niederschlägt, finde ich einfach nur furchtbar. Da setzen sich in eine Bar (oder auf stehen auf einer Fanmeile, einem Public Viewing Event (whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean, about as intelligent as Handy)) eine Gruppe von Leuten, die sich nicht für Fußball interessieren, keine Ahnung haben mit welchem Verein Michael Ballack zum ersten Mal Deutscher Meister wurde (um nur ein relativ simples Beispiel zu nehmen), stehen zusammen, stöhnen zusammen, schreien zusammen, jubeln zusammen, brüllen zusammen. Das Gehirn schaltet sich ab (Alkoholkonsum ist hierbei natürlich hilfreich, aber eine alkohollose Grundsubstanz ist leider meistens gegeben), jede negative Entscheidung des Schiedsrichters ist grundsätzlich falsch, jede vergurkte Defensivaktion ein Riesenapplaus wert, jeder schöne Übersteiger des Gegners wird kommentarlos übergangen.

Ich habe ja schon prinzipiell eine Abneigung gegenüber jeglichen Ausdruck von Massenekstase, dem überbordenden Ausdruck von Gefühlen in Gruppen, aber gerade in Bezug auf die deutsche Fußballnationalmannschaft kann ich diese nicht nur nicht teilen, sondern finde sie sogar abstoßend. Habt Ihr denn nichts aus der Geschichte gelernt? Seid Ihr Euch denn nicht darüber im Klaren, daß das schöne, das lobenswerte, was sich andere Länder ruhig abschauen könnten, eben dieser mangelnde Patriotismus ist, diese leidvolle Lehre der Vergangenheit, daß jede Form von Patriotismus eine Art von Nationalismus und damit eine Ausgrenzung der (oder des) Anderen ist? Nein, ich stehe hier nicht mit dem Moralhammer und sage: "Ihr Deutschen dürft nicht, weil Ihr den Holocaust verursacht habt." Aber warum muß man dies tun? Die anderen doch auch sagt Ihr. Natürlich, aber macht es das besser?

Das, was ich aus der Geschichte gelernt habe ist eindeutig, ich brauche keine Identifikation mit einem Staat, mit einer Nationalität, ich will sie auch gar nicht erst. Ich bin zuallerst ein Individum, ich denke, ich entscheide für mich selber und renne nicht blind wie ein Huhn vom Sommer- zu Winter- und wieder zurück zu Sommermärchen. Meine deutsche Kultur prägt mich, klar, aber gerade deswegen will ich ja dieses Nationalitätsgefühl nicht haben. Schließlich stellt sich die Frage, welcher Natur diese deutsche Kultur ist, Goethe, Schiller, wer hat die schon gelesen in meiner Generation? Was verbindet mich mehr mit einem Stoiber, als mit französischen Freunden von mir, welche ähnliche kulturellen oder sozio-ökonomischen Interessen besitzen?

Jedwede Selbstidentifikation ist nichts anderes als eine Exklusion der anderen. Das will ich nicht. Ich will keine Trennlinie zwischen mir und einem Polen, zwischen mir und einem Österreicher ziehen. Das ist (oder soll ich sagen war?) das schöne, das bestaunenswerte am Deutschland der Nachkriegsjahre (wohl erst ab 68, aber das ist ein anderes Thema), es brauchte diesen dumpfen (und niederen Gefühle weckenden) Patriotismus nicht. darauf bin ich stolz nicht auf eine Rumpeltruppe die glücklich gegen die Türkei gewinnt um im Finale unterzugehen.

Packt Eure Flaggen weg, fangt an zu philosophieren!

New York Times Ramblings

• Most of you will know that I leaned towards Clinton in the Democratic primary mainly because the Obama craze made me feel uncomfortable (not that this matters since I will never be able to vote in the US anyway). Now I am of course mentally supporting the Democratic candidate against McCain (as much as I prefered this guy over his Republican competitors). Anyway, what always intrigued me was the kind of ground-support that Obama received. Here is another wonderful example of it.


• I always knew that Dylan was the most influential musician of the 20th century. Here is some proof.


• Finally, for all of you UNC students not in North Carolina or not follwing the news. An update on the Eve Carson trial made it into the New York Times.

USA

So, I've been in Boston for two weeks, I've had my ups and downs (socially and professionally). I like the town. Too expensive, too fancy for my taste, but very chill anyway. Highly international, I was sitting in a coffee place yesterday with some Syrians (speaking Arabic) on one side, some Bulgarians on the other and me talking French with a Haitian girl on my phone. I like these things, this conglomerations of people from all over the place. Today, I played ball with three Iranians (who were pretty good, but some skinny white motherfucker from Germany killed everyone on that court) and some Spanish-talking guy. Sitting in a park yesterday, I noticed the amount of Americans walking by who most obviously have somekind of an ethnic background. While none of this really is anything new I just figured I should point it out again.

The United States is easily (becoming in any case) the only non-ethnic society of the world.

I saw a little league game yesterday, with both teams being Hispanic, black and white. I had a conversation with nice black British gentleman the other day who has been living here for 20 years is married to a white American and in a very evident manner has been accepted by his white step-son as the surrogate father. Please don't get me wrong, I realize that the US has a long way to go, that blacks and hispanics earn less, are less educated, less represented in power positions. But at the same time, the irrelevance of race has moved further here than any other place in the world that I know of, especially among children and with an eye towards the future isn't that all that really matters?

Just to piss of this Texan dirt farmer I know, the United States from my point of view is a post-modern society based on modern sentiments (Europe I would argue is the opposite, a modern society based on post-modern sentiments). As a disclaimer I should say that the definitions of post-modern and modern I use here are really personal, I am not up to date on the discussion of the concepts, I make up my own meanings so to speak. Anyway, what I mean is that the in the United States race is not as relevant as in Europe (Germany in any case, but with some exceptions in regard to France I think this is very generally applicable), making it a post-modern society not dominated by one homogenous people. The ironic thing about all this is that this society is based on concepts of nationalism of a pride in one's country that is far less existent in Europe (because of reasons of size, history, whatever), a very modern concept in the end that really should have left any validity with the Second World War.

But maybe the American society is schizophrenic in general, making this combination less bizarre than it seems at first glance (and one could of course argue that these two interact supporting one another (again, look at France)). Look at this country after all, I have never seen a place where truly gigantic (fat) people at least outwardly portray less shame at their weight (and why would they, I like that they do), yet at the same time I know no other place where more guys clearly take drugs to bulk up. A country where certain events are broadcast on TV with a three second delay in order to prohibit another nipplegate, but where girls going out might as well wear no top at all considering their cleavage. A country that has produced Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Franklin, Twain, Faulkner, Hemingway, Auster to name just a few, but where intellectualism is seemingly frowned upon. A country where the beer is light in order to preserve one's looks but one whose traditional food sources are greasy as fuck. Amazing the contrasts one can find here really.

Again, please don't misunderstand me. There a massive problems to deal with here, just bike along E Berkley anytime in the evening, go to the basketball courts of Dorchester, check out the bums on Newbury (and anywhere else), yet this racial post-modernity I find intriuiging, that's all I'm saying really.

Plateforme

Une copine m'avait donné Plateforme de Michel Houellebecq et je le dois avouer je l'ai trouvé fascinant. Je ne veux pas dire, que je l'ai trouvé très fort, mais fascinant, plutôt dans une façon negative que positive parfois, mais intéressant en tout cas. Seulement la dernière partie du bouquin m'a fatigué un peu, parce qu'il devient trop répétitif à la fin.

La première moitié du livre est très fort, un fonctionnaire d'une quarante d'année, qui n'a aucune intérèt à rien, ni dans sa vie, ni dans son travail, il n'a même pas d'ami. Ayant reçu un héritage considérable il se met en voyage en Thaïlande. Ses obsérvations sur la vie occidentale, sur la société moderne en général sont super cynique et d'un humour sec que j'aime très bien. Quand même (en vue de son cynisme et manque d'intérèt) il tombe amoureux d'une fille et ils sont heureux dans la deuxième partie du livre. Je ne veux pas raconter trop de l'histoire parce qu'elle n'est pas trop surprenant où même intelligent.

Ce que m'intéresse sont les observations sur la société de Michel qui, je crois, est plus ou moins représentatif de l'écrivain soi-même. Lui, - ou les deux à mon avis, parce que même si Michel n'est pas Michel, il, l'écrivain, donne l'impression de s'identifier avec son caractère - il montre des convictions complètements repoussants et hypocrites. Les decriptions de Michel baiser quelqu'un ici, être soufflé là et lécher sa copine dans une troisième endroit devient très ennuyant. Sa accentuation sur l'importance du sexe est ridicule à mon avis. Oui, c'est important, oui je l'aime bien aussi moi, c'est quelque chose très spécial entre deux gens, mais premièrement je ne dois pas parler du sujet toujours et en plus même si je baise comme un fou je peux bien être malheureux. Michel se moque des films pornos, mais ses descriptions sont exactement la même chose (avec des gens qui voient lui et sa copine en train de baiser quelque part et décide de les joigner tout de suite). En plus je trouve l'importance qu'il donne sur la fellation ridicule. Oui, je l'aime bien aussi moi, je ne vais pas mentir, mais son obsession avec ça me fait mal, surtout parce que il parle toujours de donner plaisir et que ça aurait été tué dans la société moderne parce tous se concentre sur soi-même aujourd-hui, mais cette plaisir est toujours par des femmes, alors que lui montre beaucoup moins d'enthusiasme enthousiasme. Sale hypocrite.

Son défense du sexe tourisme aussi est déplorable (pour manque d'un mot plus fort), il donne l'impression que les filles dans tous ces pays attendent seulement pour que il se peuvent prostituer. L'argent contre le sexe, comme si cettes filles ne feraient d'autre chose s'il le pouvaient.Il cite un arabe pour pouvoir dire que il n'aime pas (de nouveau, manque d'un mot mieux) l'islam, je trouve ça lâche. Les Ivoiriennes sentent le sexe à son avis, alors il est rassiste aussi, sympa. Et à la fin, il trouve rien quand un mec d'une quarantaine d'année commence une relation sexuelle avec une fille de quinze ans. En fait, sa description de cette fille est comme si elle a 20 ans au moins, dans sa façon de se donner et tous, peut-être ce mensonge (ou cas peu représentatif) lui fait se sentir mieux.

À la fin, écœurant, complètement. Oui, c'est bien écrit. Mais les raisons pourque je l'ai trouvé intéressant à lire ont été presque tous lier à ma aversion de ce qu'il dit.

Boston

I have been here less than 48 hours so just a few notes on my first impressions:

• My first conversation with a Bostonian showcased ... nothing really, but it was pretty funny. I was sitting on the bus going downtown with my bags, when this guy sitting across the aisle from me asks what the ZRH on my bags stood for. Response: Zurich, where I had come from. Bostonian: "Where is that? Africa?" And no, I don't think he was kidding.


• Boston makes a very clean, very European city. Lots of white people with suits on the buses, little parks, community gardens, the houses not too big. Me being me (aka dumb) I decided to walk home from work yesterday though and, having had no map, got completely lost somewhere in the project area of South Boston. Basketball courts, toothless black men that greet you when you walk past, hispanic women sitting on the porch yelling to each other across the street. Some cops stopped me at some point figuring a white dude with a nice shirt and pants was in the wrong area, but I never felt threatened or anything. As far as my experience is concerned Americans tend to exaggerate the danger of these parts anyway.


• As a side-note, this phenomena of older (especially but not exclusively), poor black men greeting you with a 'how's it goin' or something similar without prompt nor any desire on their part to bum anything off you is something I have never quite figured out. I kind of like it actually, I figure it is a respect thing of some sort, but it is very much restricted to a certain socio-economic group.

España

Having spent 10 days in Spain now (I got back to Berlin yesterday evening only) I believe I can consider myself an expert on the Spanish mentality per se and thought I should share my insight on this. Yeah, ... right. Well, I wanted to get a few things of my chest in any case.

I had never been to Spain before (geographically and culturally that is, I had spent some time in secluded German areas of Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife as a teen), did have some preformed opinions (mostly negative) based on the overwhelmingly (and lame) positive perception of everything Spanish (party, sun, beach, party (including 'exotic' music and latino dansers/lovers/whatever, nothing else really) by my compatriotes. So, I went to Madrid and Barcelona staying with friends in both places (Spanish in the former, American in the latter, my experiences logically having been tainted by these different circumstances).

In comparing these two cities I like to invoke the similar distinction between New York and Chicago. One is better known, more popular, on first sight more attractive maybe, and more touristy, the other more low-key, less well-known, more quiet and less beautiful on first sight. In the end then I cannot really pass judgements on two cities as different, Madrid was fun (thanks to my knowledgable tour guide (Q: Who is Alonso XIII? A: The Son of Alonso XII!), I liked its tranquility while being alive at the same time. Barcelona is a completely different story, overrun by tourists (French and German mainly it seems), strikingly beautiful with a historic center right at the beach and with its streets (in that part of town anyway) crowded at all times (I personally feel like one could call it Kreuzberg with older houses, a beach, and a massive amount of tourists (profound comparison, I know)). Honestly, as much as I liked being in Barcelona, the touristy aspect is painful at times, also because my lack of any (active as opposed to passive) Spanish knowledge made me feel this even more so. I also feel that Madrid's beauty is undervalued, in its central district it showcases an impressive array of beautiful apartment and governmental buildings. Thus, go to both, not just one of them, if you can and get yourself some Spanish friends before you do.

The latter mainly because the Spanish (in general, there are no exceptions, no, really) for some reason that I couldn't quite discern are enviably proud of not speaking any other language. Asking someone in Spanish whether they spoke any of my three languages just produced a proud: 'No! Espanol!' The fact that I was aware of a) us being in Spain and b) of him/her being Spanish and included both aspects in my decision to start asking in Spanish in the first place seemed to make no difference here.

What else? Spanish women wear no tops at the beach (and are accordingly and continously assailed by men twice their age when sun-bathing). People don't go swimming in the ocean (and I always felt kind of dumb for actually doing so when everyone else obviously was only working on their respective tans). Spain is a lot cleaner than I had though, less Italian so to speak. Starting conversations with 50 year old men who speak no foreign languages is surprisingly fun and easy. Stereotypes about Southern European effectiveness are true (I missed my plane back home because the trains didn't run (a fire in some station), there were no buses (well, like one every 20 minutes with a queue of maybe 300 metres) and the cab drivers were striking). No one thought an anouncement on any of this (even in Spanish) would be necessary of course. There is bad-ass, super comfortable and fast train connection between Madrid and Barcelona, just a tad too expensive though. For some inexplicable reason Spanish males think that mullets constitute an attractive hair cut.

Yeah, Spain. Good fun I have to admit, just don't give me those dumb stereotypes as a reason please.

On a last note (and this is nothing new, I know), I hate not being able to speak a country's language. I abhor it in fact. No possibility of properly conversing with locals, always staying at this sad tourist level. It makes me feel really uncomfortable honestly. Think I am made to live in other countries, even to visit friends there, to learn languages (I need to finally start a fourth one), but not to be a tourist only.

Le rouge et le noir

En préparent mon séjour en France je essaie de découvrir la litterature francais maintenant. Mon coloc (pas vraiment, mais oauis...) m'a donné son exemplaire de Stendhal Le rouge et le noir. Après Dumas mon deuxième oeuvre ancien en francais. Honnêtement j'ai du mal à m'exprimer sur les bouquins comme ca, je les aime bien (celle-là aussi), mais les discussions ne sont pas les miennes, il y a plus de difficulté à s'identifier avec les charactères.

Stendhal parle d'un homme qui essaie de se lever de sa position basse dans la vie à l'aide de intélligence et en travaillant dûr (une thème americaine si on veut, sauf que...non, je ne le dis pas, mais peut-être vous pouvez déviner la diffèrence quand même). En tout cas, ce monsieur (Julien Sorel) et décrit profondement, ses amours, et ses tentatives de se lever. Il y en a une mélange de la politique, la mobilité sociale, l'amours. Quoi d'autre peux-je dire? Beaucoup, mais je suis trop fatigué honnêtement, il reste trop de chose à faire avant que je parte demain. Alors, lisez-le, il vaut la paine, vraiment.

La Peste

Je suis à Barcelona pour l'instant et je crois que je ferai une poste sur l'Espagne avant que je sois parti d'ici, mais jusqu'à maintenant il faut attendre.

Je viens de finir mon deuxième livre de Camus La Peste il y a quelques jours. Mon français n'est toujours pas assez bien pour être capable de juger les œuvres litteraires comme celle-ci je trouve, alors je vais me garder de dire grande chose là-dessus. J'ai bien aimé Camus, il est capable d'ouvrir des sujets très complexe dans une façon facile à accéder. La seule chose que j'ai trouvé bizarre dans La Peste est que j'ai eu l'impression qu'il (Camus) ouvre une pléthore de sujets sans y rester ni les résoudre. Il parlent de l'amour et les effets de la séperation là-dessus (un sujet que moi je connaîs plus que je n'ai jamais voulu, croyez-le-mois), la désintegration sociale au cas d'une situation critique, des gens qui cherchent une dédications pour leurs vies... On le pourrait continuer, je ne critique pas que Camus l'essaie, j'ai trouvé bizarre seulement qu'il reste avec tous sujets pendant quelques pages seulement avant qu'il se concentre sur quelque chose d'autre.

En fin pour tous entre vous, qui réalisent pas encore la génie d'un certain écrivian. Savez-vous que Camus a traduit Requiem pour une nonne d'anglais. Je le vous dis seulement :)