law-abiding

Admittedly, there is a certain irony to a German writing this entry, considering Germany's well-documented history with horrendous law-abiding but also more modern stereotypes about Germans waiting at a red trafic light with no one else around at three in the morning, but I consider it ridicolous how Americans adher to rules and regulations sometimes, and how preposterous they are in doing so.

The obvious example of this are the way bouncers handle IDs at bars. A vast amount of places simply don't take foreign ones based on the fact that they could more easily be faked, even obvious proof (the existence of approximately 2 million other cards with the same name and birth date) does not make these people change their mind about a supposed fake ID.

This is not all there is though, Americans in official positions are surprisingly (considering national stereotypes) inflexible when it comes to rules and regulations even when faced with obvious extraordinary circumstances. I am currently trying to apply for a teaching assistant position for a German-language recitation of a course entitled Society and Culture in Postwar Germany. Without being too arrogant I cannot really see anyone being more qualified for this position. Yet, because I am officially considered an undergraduate at the university here (despite of the fact that I will write my master's thesis next semester and graduate in the fall), it is 'unlikely' that I will get the position.

Examples like these abound, most of them involving drinking laws, but also course requirements or university regulations. I would argue that contrary to popular stereotypes Americans (at least those working in a public institution such as UNC) are as inflexible as most Germans.

L'avalée des avalés

Je viens à apprendre quelque chose sur la littérature francophone. Je ne suis pas encore capable de faire des remarques généralisés, et peut-être que je ne le serai jamais, mais découvrir une nouvelle litterature, s'ouvrir un nouveau monde est une expérience très agréable. Je lis encore aussi lentement qu'un un enfant, et je ne comprends pas tous les mots, même pas tous les phrases avouons-le. Mais, j'y arrive toujours et j'espère que le temps et l'expérience m'aideront à résoudre ces deux problèmes aussi (c'est comme ça, en lisant, que j'ai appris la plupart de mon vocabulaire en anglais après tout).

Concernant le livre L'avalée des avalés de Réjean Ducharme il faut admettre, qu'il m'a posé des problèmes. L'histoire avance très lentement, et parfois on a l'impression que rien ne se passe durant tout un chapitre. On m'avait beaucoup recommandé ce bouquin, et je ne l'ai pas trouvé mauvais, ni aussi génial comme on m'avait dit à son propos. Il y a beaucoup de similarité entre Bérénice Einberg, la protagoniste, et Holden Caulfield, le héros de The Catcher in the Rye, mais les insécurités, les agressions de Holden sont compréhensible. Il regarde le monde et il le trouve faux. Bérénice est explicable par la jalousie seulement. Il y a une scène où Bérénice raconte ses sentiments quand elle a vu sa mère et son frère interagir, mais sauf ça, les explications n'étaient pas clairs et j'avais l'impression qu'il n'y a pas d'autres. Elle déteste sa mère, mais elle l'aime, elle aime son frère, elle déteste son père, elle déteste sa vie, mais à la fin elle profite d'une façon incroyablement immorale d'une amie pour se sauver.

Enfin, le livre parle d'une fille qui a des grands problèmes psychologiques, mais à mon avis, Ducharme n'explique jamais pourquoi elles les a. En plus, ce qui m'énerve le plus peut-être, est que Bérénice n'évolue pas. Au moins cinq ans passent dans sa vie pendant le livre, et elle ne change jamais ni dans ses pensés ni ses activités. Alors, le livre n'a pas été mauvais, mais il serait non plus pas dans mon panthéon personnel.

Mid-Term Essay

Honestly, I shelled this essay out in very little time (I think I wrote it in like 7 to 10 hours), it has no footnotes, and really is just an argumentative essay. I kind of like it for what it is though. So, enjoy.

Task:
Was the development of the Bush Doctrine a proper response to the attacks of 9/11/01? Has implementation of the Bush Doctrine over the past five years been effective, ineffective or counterproductive in reducing the threat of international terrorism against the United States?

Memo 2

My second memo for the 9/11 and its aftermath class. See below for the topic:

You are staff for a member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services. The Committee is holding a hearing entitled "The National Security Strategy of the United States: A Review of the Post-9/11 Security Posture" in the fall of 2002. Write a short briefing memo (of no more than 750 words) for the Chairman of the Committee. The memo should 1) summarize the key points of the national security strategy, 2) analyze the strategy and note its strengths (if any) and weaknesses (if any). The memo should conclude with a recommendation stating whether the Chairman should support or criticize the strategy and concise statement explaining the reasoning for the recommended position.

Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House

My PhD class again made me read a 200-page scientific book in a day and I know this sounds kind of sadomasochistic but I enjoyed it. Somehow this intense pressure of doing things, leaves one satisfied. David W. Rohde in this book - Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House - talks about ... well, read the title. Basically, Democrats - who were the majority party in the House for about 50 years before 1994 - changed the rules in the House during the early 70s, resulting in a more parliamentarian system not based on consensus building but majority dominance. Rohde argues that this was due to - or possible in the first place because - increases in homogeneity in the Democratic caucus - which in turn was brought about through racial legislation during the 60s, which eliminated Dixiecrats to some extent - and the willingness by leaders to take advantage of these new measures. The result of all this was an increase in polarization (party-unity voting, distinctiveness...).

All in all a highly interesting book, even if some of his chapters are a little on the long side and become too detailed. Yet it gives an interesting recount of the committee governance of the House which was implemented in 1910 to counter the Speaker's dominant position of power. Then with Southern Democrats blocking liberal legislation due to their dominance of committee chairmanships which they obtained through seniority due mainly to a less than democratic South, the Democrats decided to abolish the power of these committees and instead empower the Speaker (as an expression of the whole caucus this time though) and the subcommittees.

Again, highly interesting, if you care about institutional politics and have some time to spare, read it.

The Corrections

Jonathan Franzen's The Corrections is the story of a three-generational family that originated in the Midwest, but where the middle part of the family has migrated to Philadelphia and New York. The main characters are the grand-parents (Enid & Alfred) and their three adult children. Alfred is slowly losing his mind and this serves as the string along with the lives of these people are told. None of them is really happy with what they have achieved, none of them is all that successful in his everyday life, in that sense I guess this book is surprisingly dealing with completely normal people. They could live next to you right now.

This book highly confused me. There is no stringent action, no climax, no denouement. The story is carried solely by the inner monologues and problems of the characters. These protagonists furthermore are in no sense extraordinary, they are the kind of people - and stereotypes - you would not care for a minute longer than you would have to if you met them there. But in reality, when forced upon you, or introduced through a book such as this. Their everyday problems, their attempts at grappling with life provide a highly interesting story. It is all pointless in the end, there is no lesson to be learned, nothing to be gained, no moral or political standard upheld or destroyed. Yet, it is a great book, it makes the reader think about himself and his problems, worries and failed interhuman relations. Read it, it is good.

The Effects of Income Inequality

I have - finally - finished my last paper for the last semester in Berlin. It is an essay about the effects of income inequality on other economical and societal factors. Honestly, it is a disappointment. I did a lot of empirical work for this essay and out of twenty correlations only three are relevant. Just a load of crap the whole thing. I put so much work into it and got nothing out of it. Check it out only if you are extremely bored.

This means that with the courses that I am taking here right now, I only need one more class next semester to start writing my thesis and graduate. Hasn't really sunk in yet that.

Race and Congress

This might be one of the craziest papers I have ever written. It is for my PhD course on Legislative Politics. This course is a very humbling experience as it is full of well future professors who have been specializing in American politics for the last 3 years already and then I sit in there, with my European point of view and most importantly with a background that is a lot broader and more abstract (or useless) than theirs. Anyway, the point is that I wanted to turn in something good, it is not like most of my other courses where I can just get by on making up crap a little.

So, I got up Sunday morning at seven, had a nice breakfast on Franklin Street with some random, 50-year-old Republican woman (good conversation partner though) and then pretty much read eight books and wrote four pages about those. Tonight I only checked grammar and spelling and will now send it off to my professor (my schedule today was too busy to really change anything anymore). Do I actually think it is good? I don't know, I liked the subject, I feel like I have something to say even if I only scratch the surface of it. Let's see what the professor will have to say about it. I can only repeat that I enjoy the challenge of working a lot and under pressure though.

Check it out here.

Memo I

Well, I've actually written my first essay for the university here. I don't like it all that much personally, we'll see what he thinks. I feel like I don't know enough about the subject yet personally, but I don't have the time to really get into it. In any case, here it is. Below you can read what he asked us to do, I have to say that I really like the general principle of the task:


You are a counterterrorism analyst at the CIA and an expert in Islamic fundamentalist groups. It is September 21, 2001 and the Director of the CIA has just read President Bush's speech to Congress the previous evening.

He says to you: "Last night the President said: 'They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other ...They stand against us because we stand in their way.'

Write a short memo to me (of no more than 750 words) telling me whether the President was right about al-Qaeda's motivation or not."

Portrait d'un officier

Un de mes livres que j'ai trouvé dans la librarie de ma fac à Berlin. J'en ai acheté cinq pour sept Euro. Mais il faut admettre, que j'avais aucune idée sur quoi ils seraient ou si les auteurs sont connus. Apparement Pierre-Henri Simon, qui a éecrit Portrait d'un officier ne l'est pas. Quand même je trouvais son livre pas mal. L'histoire s'agit d'un officier de l'armée française, qui a démissioné et qui pendant une voyage au train, raconte à un ancien camarade de la deuxième guerre mondiale ses raison pour cette démission trouvable dans ces expériences en Vietnam et Algerie.

Le bouquin était assez intéressant, même s'il n'y avait presque pas d'histoire, mais que une conversation. Mais je ai trouvé les sujets de conversation stimulant. La guerre, la religion, les colonies, la rôle d'ouest dans le monde. Ma seule problème était avec l'age du bouquin, parce qu'il était écrit dans les années 58 à 59, certains des idées et discussion sont un peu trop conservateur et ridicule même d'un point de vue d'aujourd'hui. La colonalisation par exemple est rarement defendue encore, ou que par les gens d'extrême droit. Même pour la religion, que - en Europe - est presque disparue et a perdu - pour moi en tout cas - la credibilité, qu'elle avait dans ces annés. Quand même, un bouquin intéressant. Mon but originel était d'apprendre plus sur les guerres en Algerie et Vietnam, pour ça le livre était plutôt inutile, mais je suis sûr que je trouverai un autre plus détaillé et moins philosophique une autre fois.

A Tramp Abroad I

As an avid fan of Crevecoeur as well as Mark Twain I figured I had to write at least some commentary on life in the US while being here - and no, this does not mean that I am comparing myself in any way possible with those two, that would be blasphemy. Thus, today my first such entry. Others will (in a more or less structured manner) follow.

Most Europeans don't seem to realize how racially diverse the United States really is. Even while living in the South, in Chapel Hill and thus not even an urban center (even if a university town) it is surprises me over and over again, how many people either have an obvious immigration background (meaning they look as if they came from the Indian subcontinent or South East Asia) or claim one from less exotic places (such as the Netherlands). Now, as a German one will quite often hear the ridiculous statement that one's conversation partner is German too, because his ancestors came from there 100 years ago. This is usually is followed by a comment on how that person is only able to say scheiße (or Autobahn, Guten Tag...). This peculiar fashion of self-identification is not what I mean though.

Contrarily an incredible amount of people grew up mostly in the US, but due to their parents' relatively recent immigration, they still have more or less close ties to their 'homeland' and (importantly) usually speak the language. In the few days I have been here I have already met people with a Bengali, Indian, Chinese, Egyptian, Iranian background (and these are just some of the more exotic sounding ones). While UNC is dominated by white American-American students, the number of these more international ones should not be underestimated and are incomparable to a society as homogenic as Germany.

Yet, what I really wanted to address today was the question of race. I am after all living in the South and quite close to Greensboro and accordingly one of the hot-spots of the Civil Rights Movement. As already pointed out, most students are white (and come from North Carolina), but there is a sizable black contingent on campus. Admittedly, I was surprised at how few there actually are, but then my high school experience probably had prepared me for different percentages.

Race relations in the USA are notoriously difficult, due mainly to historical reasons. I am simply astounded by how segregated American society still is though, I have not lived here in a while and had seemingly forgotten how sharply distinguished these groups are. Arguably, the separation lies not so much with the actual skin color, but is more due to a cultural expression (clothing, language, music...). Thus, there are white black guys as well as black white guys. Yet, to surprisingly large extent people do not mix. A simple look around in the dining hall makes clear that each group stays mostly to itself (and this does include Asian students btw, who I will kind of ignore for the time being though).

Of course, this is not as simple as I am making it out to be right now. Firstly, there is a lot of interaction between all groups, it is not like people don't talk to or don't know each other at all. Secondly, the groups (as already stressed) are not completely homogenic, just to a large extent. Yet, this de facto separation clearly exists and I am still having a hard time trying to grapple with it.

An important aspect of this racial divide I find is the image of black masculinity. For a lot of black guys at this school it is quite blatant how much they define themselves through their masculinity. Most of them are more or less athletic, most of them are cool - in the sense that they perceive themselves as much as they are actually are, but that latter point really isn't what I am trying to discuss here - and they give off an unapproachable vibe to some extent.

I personally believe that this is still prevalent because of black men's' historical emasculation as the financial provider and protector of the family. Yet, I would be very interested to find out more about this and hope that I will get to do so in my year here.

I want to add that most of the guys I have gotten to know mainly through basketball have been really nice after some initial arrogance phase (white guy + long hair = can't play ball, deserves no respect) and that for others this whole argument is not true in the first place. But I believe it is a fact and would be interested in anyone's comments on this subject matter.

Strategy And Choice in Congressional Elections

American college professors require their students to read quite a lot, if then you are stupid (or vain) enough to actually take a PhD course on Legislative Politics in the USA, you will be positively overwhelmed with literature. That is why I spend my Labour Day Monday ploughing through Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections by Gary C. Jacobson and Samuel Kernell. The book itself was interesting enough, I just sometimes wish I was reading everything a little slower than I am forced to right now, at the same time I don't want to pretend that I am really complaining, I like the pace, it suits my current mood, and also makes one feel as if one really accomplishes something.

Jacobson and Kernell in their book (even when they call it essay in the introduction, over 100 pages are too much for an essay for me) try to refute the notion that national politics, national sentiments greatly influence congressional elections. Thus, the 1974 landslide victory of Democrats throughout the country was not due to Nixon's - well-deserved - unpopularity or his lack of economic success, nor the 1980 Republican victories to Carter's failures as a president. They claim, that empirical evidence does not support the argument, that national issues (such as Presidential popularity or economic progress) are decisive for either party's electoral success. This simply, because most voters do not vote based on national issues, but rather decide on local or regional factors such as name-recognition of the candidate.

Their argument then is, that the correlation between national issues and these local results is due to elite decisions made on both sides of the political spectrum. If a party will conceive its chances in elections to be low due to its implication as the President's party or a less than stellar economic record, less high-profile candidates (meaning mostly office experience) will run with less financial background (because of party and private resources concentrating on candidates with higher chances of winning) in open elections (meaning no incumbent has to be beat). Instead the money will concentrate on incumbents whose chances of staying in office are higher already and thus actually heightened (if only marginally because of a sinking rate of return on campaign money). On the other side of the spectrum, the party that has favorable ratings in spring of an election year, will have more high-profile candidates with more financial resources simply because of the perceived higher chances of success.

Thus, two main elements determine the results of congressional elections. Firstly, quality candidates need to be willing to put themselves up for elections which they will not do in a climate which disfavors their party. Secondly, private sources will be less willing to finance campaigns of politicians whose chance of winning they consider to be nil. It is thus not the national issue that is the decisive factor in elections, it is not the general public sentiment, but more so the elite perception of that sentiment about six months before those elections.

This is a very, very dense summary of a relatively complicated book (and argument (it is actually not that complicated but summing it up in three paragraphs is), so if I fail at explaining the reasoning please ask me and I will try to clear up any misunderstanding. Oh yeah, do I recommend this book for pleasurable reading? Only if you have nothing better to do in your life or are a complete nutcase for legislative politics. I found it interesting as an idea, as a concept, but not interesting enough to reread it at the beach or with more time next weekend.

Finally, what bothers me about the argument is that the question arises why politicians believe that their chances sink with national party politics failing, when Jacobson and Kernell show they don't. Surely there must be some relation of national policy to local voting behaviour.

Das Urteil

Kafka. Ehrlich gesagt (oder vielleicht eher peinlicherweise) hatte ich bisher noch nicht so viel von Kafka gelesen. Vor 10 Jahren mal Die Verwandlung an meiner damaligen High School in den USA und deswegen perfiderweise in Englisch. Jetzt also nochmal. Das Urteil besteht aus verschiedenen Kurzgeschichten, unter anderem Die Verwandlung, In der Strafkolonie und Ein Hungerkünstler.

Ich finde es im Allgemeinen schwierig Kurzgeschichten zu besprechen, aber Kafkas Geschichten sind irgendwie noch ungreifbarer. Die Geschichten sind sprachlich eindrucksvoll, man ist ihrer Wucht ausgesetzt, kann das Leid der Protagonisten fühlen. Aber gleichzeitig, lassen einen die Geschichten irgendwie sprachlos zurück. Jede Analogie zur Realität, zu meinem Leben, zum Leben von Anderen, scheint unmöglich oder sehr schwierig. Vielleicht reicht mein Intellekt nicht aus um die Parallelen zu sehen, vielleicht müßte ich alles doppelt oder sehr viel langsamer lesen, vielleicht ist es genau das was Kafka nicht will (einen offenkundigen Bezug zur Realität).

Es gefiel mir die Geschichten zu lesen (auch wenn ich seit der Verwandlung eine leichte Kakerlakenphobie entwickelt habe (die sieht man aber halt auch hier im Süden desöfteren)), aber ich fand es schwierig einen Zugang zu ihnen zu finden, der über das Lesen als solches hinausging. Ich habe nicht groß über sie nachdenken müssen, nachdem ich sie gelesen hatte.

Eine schwache Rezension, ich weiß, würde Kafka trotzdem auf jeden Fall empfehlen, einfach weil man ihn als Deutscher (oder deutschsprechender Mensch) mal gelesen haben sollte.

De la guerre à la liberation

Oui, une de mes meilleures trouvailles. Non, je rigole. Je ai acheté De la guerre à la liberation - La France de 1939 à 1945 de Willard, Joannès, Hincker et Elleinstein seulement parce que j'ai voulu savoir plus sur la France de la guerre, sur Vichy, sur la résistance. Le problème avec ce bouquin ce qu'il est écrit d'une perspective dérisoire communiste. Je n'ai pas de problème avec le communiste (à cette temps en tout cas) et j'ai su déjà que dans tous les pays occupés par les allemands ils étaient très important dans la résistance, mais les auteurs font illusion (ou essaient de faire illusion) comme si ils étaient les historiens quand en fait ils ont les militants communistes incapable de quitter une pointe de vue partisan. Surtout les description de la politique anglo-saxon (à mon avis il y avait même pas quelque chose comme ca) et soviet-union sont complètement ridicule.

En plus, et plus grave pour moi, il n'y a pas d'information dans le livre. Ils racontent les petites histoires sur la résistance ou la politique en général, ils citent quelques journaux ou autres historiens parfois, mais il n'y a pas de rendu connexe, logique ou même détaillé sur un niveau rudimentaire. Alors, il ne faut pas que vous inquiètiez.

To Hate Like This Is to Be Happy Forever

I read Will Blythe's To Hate Like This Is to Be Happy Forever - A Thoroughly Obsessive, Intermittently Uplifting, and Occasionally Unbiased Account of the Duke-North Carolina Basketball Rivalry on my train ride up to North Carolina. Again one of those books that I just kind of raced through, I think it took me like eight hours (on the train, in a row that means). Anyway, I liked it as an introduction to UNC (where I am now sitting in the graduate library trying to write a paper for one of my classes back home), but I did not find the book all that hot other than that.

I care a lot about basketball, I play as often as I can (my feet look so bad as of right now, just because I have been playing so much the last few days that I think I might have to take a break), I read about the NBA quite regularly (or even religiously if you want), but I am not one to go into these obsessions. I can relate to that to some extent with regard to German football, but even there I simply don't care that much. I don't even really watch anymore because there are seemingly a million things that are more important than sitting in front of the TV at anykind of fixed time. My point is, this book was written by a die-hard UNC-fan and Duke hater, someone who actually comes from Chapel Hill, his father already went to UNC here and it is fun and amusing to read about the antics involving the Duke-UNC rivalry, but Blythe does it over 300 pages and I believe he could have done it as well on 100.

Quite simple, the topic exhausts itself after a while and Blythe still keeps on going on about it for another 200 pages (or 6 hours, whatever you prefer). Thus, do I recommend this book? If you are a basketball fanatic, yes, if you will go to UNC (or Duke) anytime soon, yes. Otherwise? No.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

I am not going to write long about this. Either you like Harry Potter or you don't. I doubt anyone does not already have a preformed opinion on this. I enjoyed this last installement of the series as much as I did the earlier six. Maybe the hype surrounding it has hurt the enjoyment of reading it a little bit, just because the way expectations were hyped up is basically impssible to live up to. Nonetheless a very nice read and deserving end for a good children/fantasy book series.

I am Charlotte Simmons

I've been wanting to post this for a while, but hadn't gotten it done because of my busy schedule here (beach, pool, going out, doing nothing, you know busy vacation schedule...). I read Tom Wolfe's I am Charlotte Simmons in pretty much one sitting while flying to Miami (I literally got out of my seat like twice and only stopped shortly during meals). As a seven-hour read like that implies it is well-written book and an enjoyable read. Yet, I was not all that excited about it in the end, especially the denouement really was a drag and disappointment.

Tom Wolfe, whom I really don't know much about it, is apparently one of the American reporter/writer legends - like Norman Mailer for example. He is old, about 80 if I remember this correctly from one of the reviews of the book I read and for this novel he tried to totally immerse himself in modern American college culture. I will soon be able to pass better judgment on this, but I felt as if his portrayal of this binge-drinking culture centered around sex was greatly exaggerated, excessive and limited in its scope. For some reason Wolfe seemed incapable of developing well-rounded characters, they all stayed on a stock character level. The frat boy with bad grades and only sex and alcohol on his mind. The nerd. The athlete, who actually is the only one that at least limited breaks out of his role type by developing an interest in Socrates.

The main character, Charlotte Simmons, is completely overdrawn as a country girl that comes to the big, bad college world and is corrupted by the appeal of the frat boy upon which her world crumbles around her. All this is fine and dandy but not only is the naivety of Charlotte of a level seemingly impossible after the advent of television, Internet or even radio. Furthermore, the destruction of her world is not understandable. She has sex with the frat boy who does not care about her after having gotten some booty and this turns her world upside down. Now, I understand that a country girl with a religious mom (even if her own beliefs are never discussed, another weak point) might have problem with having gotten drunk for the first time and then wasted her virginity on an undeserving guy with no further interest in her. Yet, her reaction in the end is too strong, she gets relatively bad grades for her first semester because of the depression she gets in after that event, but it is completely inconceivable to describe how she basically stops talking to everyone and keeps on having crying attacks months after her first time took place.

Additionally, it is not clear what she wants or is depressed about. Is the problem that she lost her virginity, lied to her parents and received bad grades? Or is the problem that no 'cool' sorority will now take her because she got laid by some frat boy? Wolfe just does not a good job of describing the problem, of explaining Charlotte.

Lastly, the ridiculous obsession with sex and bodies that dominates the novel was too much for me. Wolfe describes every guy's muscles specifically, uses medical terms for each one most of which I had never even heard (nor bothered to look up I have to admit). Finally, sex. Every one in the book is to some extent obsessed with it. It never becomes quite clear why. Maybe this is an American thing, but I honestly believe that Wolfe in his old age dwelled on that which he misses most of his youth, sex and an athletic body. Thus, I feel like the book is more about what an old man sees in young people than about actual youngsters.


PS: This also will be an age thing but it annoyed me a lot. Wolfe's third-person narrator has super traditional or conservative view of men and women:
"the power that woman can hold over that creature who is as monomaniacally hormonocentric as the beasts of the field, Man" is just one example for this.

Le Crime de Sylvestre Bonnard

Ah oui, la Floride. La plage, le soleil. Pas mal. Croyez-moi.

J'ai fini Le Crime de Sylvestre Bonnard - Membre de l'Institut d'Anatole France dans l'avion avant que je l'eusse lu pendant quelques jours à Berlin. Je dois admettre que je n'ai pas été trop impressionné. Je l'ai acheté par hasard dans une librairie à prix modéré et oui, il le ne faut pas lire. Le bouquin est séparé en deux partie, la première n'a rien avoir avec la deuxième, sauf que le protagoniste ne change pas. Dans la première Bonnard essaie de trouver un texte historique important. Dans la deuxième, il explique comment l'amour de sa vie était une fille qu'il a vu quelques fois quand il avait eu 18 ans (il a presque 80 ans quand il ranconte tous ca). Complètement ridicule que pendant 60 ans il n'a pas rencontré des autres personnes. Je pourrais décrire plusieurs activités ou pensées de lui qui ont aucune logique mais ca serait une perte de temps pour moi et vous. Il faut dire seulement, que l'histoire n'est pas cohérente, il n'y a pas de fil conducteur (la ficelle rouge je trouve plus joli, mais apparemment ca c'est impossible en francais) et parfois on a l'impression que le bouquin est seulement un dénombrement des activities. Il n'y a pas de dé développement de caractère, il n'y pas d'histoire captivante. Lis-le pas!

La seul chose que m'intéresse encore un peu ce que si ca c'est un roman ou pas. Le bouquin est écrit comme un journal et si c'était fictif ca serait nul. En contraire, si c'était la vie de quelqu'un dans la réalité, ca serait différent. Parce que enfin c'est ca la vie, une énumération des activités sans abouchement, sans sens, sans logique, sans cohèrence.

The Art of War

One of the classics of military education, I figured I had to read Sun Tzu's The Art of War as a self-respecting political scientiest. It is definitely one of the oldest books I have ever read (the old testament and Homer come to mind as being older). I was disappointed though in the sense that I had expected a real book, in something like an extended essay form. In reality, The Art of War is basically a collection of aphorisms. That means more patience is required by the reader than I usually show and a lot more thought has to be put in every sentence or even word.

After I had read all of them, I discovered that the second part of the edition I had was exactley the same text interspersed by various commentators (from early Chinese ones to early 20th century American ones (General Crook is quoted once)). That second version I found a lot better, it placed Sun Tzu into context somehow, before some of his aphorism seemed a little too obvious ('never attack downhill; use spies'), but the aphorisms made clear how military leaders in all of history had heeded Tzu's advice and fared well on it (even though I am sure that a patient researcher could show as many examples of people who suceeded even though they had counteracted to Tzu's advice). Shocking was how many proverbs still ring true today:

The consumate leader cultivates the moral law, and strictly adheres to method and discipline, thus it is in his power to control sucess.

The comment on this read:
There is a very strong temptation ... for government forces to act outside the law, the excuses being that the processes of law are too cumbersome, that the normal safeguards in the law for the individual are not designed for an insurgency and that a terrorist deserves to be treated as an outlaw anyway. Not only is this morally wrong, but, over a period, it will create more practical difficiculties for a government than it solves. A government which does not act in accordance with the law forfeits the right to be called a government and cannot expect its poeple to obey the law. Funcontionning in accordance with the law is a very small price to pay in return for the advantage of being the government.
Sir Robert Grainger Ker Thompson, Defeating Communist INsurgency: Experiences from Malaya and Vietnam (1966)

The OMC

This is definitely one of the more weaker papers I've written (it is kind of crappy actually, but I had to write it in three days and stil hope I'll get a decent grade for it). It deals with the Open Method of Coordination which is a relatively new mode of governance in the European Union, very technical.

Mein Deutsches Dschungelbuch

Ich habe Mein Deutsches Dschungelbuch von Wladimir Kaminer als Geschenk nach meinem Praktikum in Frankfurt vor ein paar Monaten bekommen. Hatte es bisher irgendwie nicht geschafft das Buch zu lesen, das aber jetzt nachgeholt. Ich fand es persönlich gut, Kaminers trockener Humor, die Art und Weise wie er sich über einige (deutsche oder auch nicht) Gegegebenheiten lustig macht ist einfach genial. Aber, ich hatte vorher mindestens schon 3 andere Bücher von ihm gelesen und muß deswegen zugeben, daß mir viele seiner Geschichten etwas repetitiv vorkamen. Wie bei so vielen dieser witzig-sarkastischen Autoren (Bill Simmons, Bill Bryson, Terry Pratchett) werden die Witze durch ständige Wiederholungen (nicht der Witze als solcher, aber die Struktur bleibt bestehen) irgendwann ausgelaugt und deswegen kann ich das Buch nur teilweise anpreisen - an Leute nämlich, die noch nicht so viel Kaminer gelesen haben.

Reasons for the Exceptional Nature of the American Welfare State

This is the first of my three (the next one is due sunday, and no, I have not started writing yet) long essays this semester and, nomen est omen, it deals with the reasons for American exceptionalism in public policy. Why does the US spend so much less on welfare than most European states (15% of GDP compared to around 25%), why is it less universalistic, why did it arrive so late? The paper is about 12 pages long and I do not like the end, think it sucks actually, but I do not have the time to rewrite it, so there you go.

Le Vicomte de Bragelonne III

Alors, j'ai fini Le Vicomte de Bragelonne de Alexandre Dumas. La troisième partie était facilement la meilleur, même si peut-être aussi parce que je n'étais pas encore habitué à la langage de Dumas dans le premier bouquin, en tout cas, j'aimais bien lire la troisième partie. Il y a plus d'aventure, et moins des intrigues d'amour. Mais, il faut dire que il y ait quelque partie de la trilogie, qui sont plutôt faible ou parfois ridicule d'une perspective moderne

Premièrement, le dévouement que les anciens servants montrent pour leurs maîtres est même pas ridicule, mais ridicule seulement. Le servant de Porthos par example meurt après entendre la nouvelle de la mort de son maître sur ses vêtements comme un 'chien' (citer de Dumas) par tritesse. Il n'y a pas d'émancipation d'eux, ils agissent comment ils l'ont fait dans Les Trois Mousquetuaire, plus de trente ans plus tôt.

Deuxièment, on n'est pas capable de prendre le suicide de Raoul serieux. Il le fait pour sa fiancée qui lui a déserté pour le roi. Désolé, mais je suis trop cynique pour que je croie que les gens sont aussi romantique pour se tuer un ans après qu'ils soient trompé.

Troisièment, Dumas a quelques contradictions dans ses déscriptions ou caractérisations. Monsieur Fouquet par exemple au début est montré comme un homme plein des intrigés contre le roi, cependant pendant le deuxième bouquin il change et devient une victime des circonstances. En général, il y a quelques instants où on a l'impréssion que Dumas ait perdue le vue d'ensemble un peu. Le fin du deuxième bouquin est dominé par une croissante amour entre Raoul et une anglaise par exemple, seulement pour faire Raoul rentrer en France et elle est jamais même évoquer plus. Mais peut-être les fautes loqique comme ca sont inévitable si on écrit un trilogie sur plus de 2400 mots.

En résumé, lisez ce bouquin! Si vous voulez apprendre francais, si vous avez aimez les trois mousquetaire pendant vos enfances, si vous aimez les libres ancien et historique, si vous aimez le livre en général, allez-y. C'est bien la peine.

Inequality and growth

Another one of my attempts at economics, this is a short (4 pages) essay on the effect on inequality. I tried to prove that inequality hinders growth, and accordingly economically is counterproductive. That was not possible sadly enough, there really seems to be a correlation between inequality and growth, one can only redistribute wealth and try to limit the negative side-effects.

20, July 1944

Tom Cruise will star as Stauffenberg in a movie on Operation Walküre, the biggest coup attempt ever attempted against the Hitler government (check Wikipedia if you never heard of it). Over 200 people sentenced to death, 5,000 arrested after it failed (one of which ironically - to all those familiar with the Revolution 1918/1919 was Gustav Noske, the bloodhound). Admittedly the Gestapo used the coup attempt as a way to settle some scores, yet, considering its scope, a military takeover with the SS being usurped as well as the NSDAP and a civilian government had been prepared as well as a new military leadership, the 20, July 1944 was unparalleled in the history of the Third Reich.

Even though I usually like to watch historical movies and even more so about aspects of history that interest me (I watched the Good German for God's sake, it, well, wasn't that great), I am not going to watch this movie.

Why? A couple of reasons are decisive here:

Tom Cruise sucks. I don't have a problem with him being a member of scientology(I just think he is a moron for being a member of an authoritarian or even totalitarian religious society), but I don't think I have ever seen a movie with him where I came away impressed by his acting.

I don't trust Hollywood to not turn this into a melodramatic movie, with Stauffenberg's love interest riding off into the horizon to classical music in the end.

Finally, I am sick and tired (j'en ai marre! - le francais est vraiment plus fort là) of the overemphasis on the conspirators of the 20th July 1944 and even more so the way are portrayed nowadays. Let's not forget that these same guys supported the Hitler regime until military victory became a virtual impossibility, which is when they decided to act. Their opposition was directed in no sense whatsoever against the extermination of Jews, homosexuals and others. The only reason for their coup-attempt was to enable Germany to escape the shit hole (sorry, but it's true, ain't it?) that the Nazi-government had guided it in (and into which the Germans had proved to be more than willing to be lead).

Their glorification is completely ridiculous in the end. There were so many other people that acted, and for better reasons, and earlier, and braver (meaning alone or in smaller groups with lesser chances of success). My favorite will always remain Georg Elser.

Ah, wirklich also? Ein wenig spät, ihr Herren, die ihr diesen Erzzerstörer Deutschlands gemacht habt, die ihr ihm nachliefet, solange alles gutzugehen schien, die ihr, alle Offiziere der Monarchie, unbedenklich jeden von euch verlangten Treueid schwort, die ihr euch zu armseligen Mamelucken des mit hunderttausend Morden, mit dem Jammer und dem Fluch der Welt belasteten Verbrecher erniedrigt habt und ihn jetzt verratet, wie ihr vorgestern die Monarchie und gestern die Republik verraten habt.
Friedrich P Reck-Malleczewen zum 20.07. 44

The Fifth Column

What can I say, I like Hemingway. His short stories are always fun and food for thought as well. His novels I have always enjoyed. Obviously - to me - he is not in one class with people like Faulkner and Twain, but he definitely is up there in the canon of American literature. The Fifth Column apparently is the only play he ever wrote, under shells stuck in a Madrid surrounded by Franco's forces I might add for melodramatic benefit. Hemingway tells the story of an American counter-espionage agent working for the Republic (and a greater, future - socalist - good). He falls in love with an American girl, working in Madrid as a writer and in the end has to choose whether to pursue his current life or follow her into the glamorous life-style of well-off American expatriots in Europe. This being Hemingway, you should know what he chooses, I will not tell you.

I liked the play, but I cannot claim that I was overly thrilled about it. Somehow - and paradoxically - Hemingway's method of telling a story, through factual descriptions, and uninterpreted dialogue does not really work in this play. Maybe because the factual descriptions of what people are doing, what they are looking at and so on are missing and he relies nearly solely on dialogue (kind of like Richard III, which I just read actually, but absolutely different nonetheless of course). Yet, what bothered me most was not the way Hemingway told the story, but rather what he implied in it.

The girl, which is called Bridges, but according to Hemingway himself could have been called Nostalgia as well, is described as beautiful with a remarkable body, but lazy and inept most daily activities. In a way she represents what men are supposed to long for in a woman, and that is actually what tempts the main character, Philip, to turn his back on his life as a killer - for political reasons and in a war, surely, but a killer anyway. Yet, that what she stands for does not come across as tempting to me, she is shallow, naive, vain; if that is what Hemingway looks for in a woman - and that's how it comes across - good for him, it doesn't work for me - a nice body and good looks simply don't cut it.

Finally, a feminist critique of her role would be necessary as well I believe, in the beginning of the book, she chooses Philip over the man with whom she has been living up until then, mainly - if not solely - on the basis of him being a man's man. Philip is not just a writer sitting in a hotel room, afraid of the shells, he is a tough guy that does not mind using his force to take advantage of other people. He treats Bridges badly, mostly for reasons associated with his job, yet she doesn't know this. The whole thing just makes me wonder whether Hemingway really believes women decide on who to fall in love with, based only on these traditional masculine elements. I doubt it.

Having explained how I disagree with the author over his main characterisations, I have to say that the play was fun to read anyway. I would recommend his short stories or novels for people that don't know him, but for further reading this play is definitely good. The Spanish Civil War is a very interesting subject anyway, as you have in a micro cosmos the forces fighting out the 2nd World War and the Cold War already. I would love to read more about it, and hope I do get that chance at some point.

Richard III.

A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!

Sounds familiar? That's actually from Shakespeare's Richard III. I knew it was from Shakespeare of course, but I hadn't read the play in which it was featured. This king-centered play is in some ways very similar to Macbeth. Again you have a famous warrrior who conspires to kill the king and crown himself. There are two main differences here, Richard does not only murder the king but also his sons (the king's), his wife (Richard's), and about 5 or 6 other nobles, additionaly he is not just a famous warrior but actually related to the king and his family. Not that family strife is anything all that new in Shakespeare but this one definitely is extreme by any standard.

I enjoyed the play and would recommend it to anyone, Shakespeare is just too good to pass up in the end, but I disliked two impacts, that I felt were missing (again, especially in comparison to Macbeth which I immensely enjoyed). One, there was no comical relief whatsoever in the play. I always thought that Shakespeare pepped up his tragedies' cruelty by some impromptu comedy like the porter in Macbeth. More importantly, Richard has no kind of moral argument with himself. He wants the crown and he takes it and does whatever he needs to do to secure it. There is no real reasoning for this, no self-doubt, he seems like an amoral human being. I found that a serious flaw in Richard III., as it kept the main character more at a level of a stock character - the true villain - than anything else.

Eurosceptism

The Times argues in a column that a revised Constitutional Treaty (which would be purged of certain national elements (anthem....) and not be called constitutional anymore (which was incorrect and a PR debacle in the first place)) is not wanted nor needed in Europe. They also demand, not to be cheated out of a referendum on this treaty. They obviously have a point in regard to the referenda (I will get back to that in a second), but their overall argument is quite faulty.

The implication is that the treaty gives 'still more power to the European bureaucracy.' This completely ignores the fact that the treaty in its current form actually strengtens national parliaments as well as the EP. Also, through qualified majority voting (meaning that not as many issues would require unanimous deciscion-making anymore) the clout of democratically elected politicians would be strengthened (even if at the expense of the nation state, yet definitely not favoring the European bureaucracy).

Fear of the 'Franco-German alliance' dominating the EU are invoked, which suggests that the author has not kept up to date on his politics for a while. Ever since the accessions of 2004 France and Germany simply cannot dominate as much anymore, two countries, no matter their size or historical/traditional EU-powers, cannot impose their will on 25 others. If Britain was willing to take a more active role in EU-politics, its influence would rise accordingly and no would be able to (nor really want to) prevent this from happening. A case in point for this would be developement of the European Defense and Security Policy in which Britain played a decisive role (plainly speaking, it would have never gotten off the ground if not for British involvement).

Finally, William Rees-Mogg claims that 'a number of countries' would prefer no new treaty. I don't see that. Poland, yes. The UK, maybe (not so sure whether Blair or even Brown would agree). But that's kind of it, I believe 18 countries have ratified the Constitutional Treaty, showing open support to it, two have rejected it. I wonder a little where those numbers that he talks about are coming from.

Lastly, in regard to possible referenda, I agree that it would be elitist to ratifiy a new treaty based on the old Constitutional one, especially in France, the Netherlands (where the people rejected the earlier one) and the UK (where a referendum had been promised to the people). Yet, I would argue that a referendum should take place on a European level, on one day, involving some kind of mixture of states and absolute votes won to pass the treaty. Thus, the people would have their say, but at the same time would not pass judgement on Blair, Chirac or Balkenende and turn Europe into a scapegoat. This obviously will not happen, national politicians are not really interested in creating a European political arena, but it would be a strong signal of taking the people and European democracy serious while at the same time strengthening an emerging European society (yes, it is still a long way to go, but what do you want? I am a progressive utopian sometimes, not just a cycnic all the time).

Wo Spinnen Ihre Nester Bauen

Ich weiß gar nicht mehr, wo ich mir Italo Calvinos Wo Spinnen Ihre Nester Bauen gekauft habe. Ich entsinne mich nur noch, daß es super billig war und ich es kaufte ohne irgendetwas über den Autor oder das Buch vorher zu wissen. Ich habe es jetzt in den letzten Tagen relativ schnell gelesen (ja, irgendwie mache ich das gerade öfter so, schalte meinen Rechner morgens nach dem Email-, Zeitungslesen und Vokabeltraining einfach aus und kriege dadurch viel mehr andere Sachen hin) und es hat mir sehr gut gefallen.

Calvino erzählt die Geschichte der italienischen Resistenza (?) gegen die deutsche Besatzung nach dem Sturz Mussolinis aus der Sicht eines kleinen Jungen. Dieses Kind ermöglicht es Calvino seine gesammelten Erfahrungen, weil er wie Babtschenko schreibt über einen Kampf an dem er selber teilnahm, aus einer gewissen naiven Perspektive mitzuteilen. Pina, wie der kleine Junge heißt, mit der Grausamkeit und Rücksichtslosigket eines Kindes nimmt kein Blatt vor den Mund und deckt die Scheinheiligkeit der erwachsenen Welt erbarmungslos offen. Er stiehlt dem deutschen Matrosen, der zu den vielen Kunden seiner Schwester gehört - diese gehört als Dienstleisterin dem vielmals als ältestem der Welt bezeichneten Gewerbe, seine Pistole, er verrät die Äffäre, die der Kommandant seiner Resistenzgruppe mit der Frau des Koches hat vor versammelter Mannschaft. Er muß, auch wenn er es nie wirklich tut, lernen zwischen den Worten und Taten der Erwachsenen zu unterscheiden, welche ihn durch starke Worte zum Widerstand animieren, nur um dann selber bei geringstem Druck ihre einstigen Kameraden zu verraten und zum Feind, zur Schwarzen Brigade, zu wechseln.

Pina hat in einer gewissen Art etwas von Huckleberry Finn, seine leicht naive Ezählweise, in welcher er kontinuierlich Wörter einwirft, welche er nicht wirklich versteht (zum großen Teil kommunistische Begriffe wie Trotzkist), seine Abenteurodysee verweisen beide stark auf Mark Twains jugendlichen Helden.

Es bleibt anzumerken, daß die Erzählweise meistens aus der 3. Person bei Pina bleibt, außer in einem eindrucksvollen Kapitel, wo ein intellektueller Führer der Widerstandsbrigade - ich habe keine Ahnung, ob Calvino sich hier verstärkt selber einbrachte, es wäre eine Möglichkeit in Anbetracht der Tatsache, daß er selber im Widerstand kämpfte - sich darüber Gedanken macht, was die Gründe für den Kampf seiner Mitstreiter sind. Diese erscheinen profan, und ohne Richtung, die wenigsten von ihnen arbeiten hin auf ein sozialistisches - oder anders geartetes - Ziel, die meisten versuchen einfach ihnen angetanes Leid wieder gutzumachen oder zu rächen. Sein innerer Monolog ist eine sehr anregende Reflexion über die Gründe dieser Männer ihr Leben zu riskieren und gibt dem Rest des Buches dominiert von menschlichem Versagen eine Art theoretische oder philosophische Basis.

Ein sehr schönes Buch.

Taking Shots

Keith Glass, a basketball agent, wrote Taking Shots about his life as an agent in the NBA. I had not expected his book to be of any true worthiness from a literature point of view, but I did think that it would have a couple of interesting stories to tell. Would give some interesting insight into the world of professional basketball.

Instead, it is badly written (he abounds in repetitions, bad sounding phrases and lame colloquialisms), none of the stories really held my interest for any extended period of time and Glass is intent on preaching all the time. Even content-wise: criticizing what is wrong with the NBA is all fine and dandy, and he has some valid points, but this general attitude problem aspect I find to be absolutely lame. If you can't pinpoint what you actually dislike, then don't criticize.

Summing up, even if you are die-hard basketball fan, don't bother. I hope Paul Shirley's book will be better.

Die Farbe des Krieges

Ein Kumpel hatte mir Arkadi Babtschenkos Die Farbe des Krieges ausgeliehen und dies mit der Aussage verbunden, es sei ein gutes Buch und ich würde schnell damit durch sein. Ich kann beides nur bestätigen, habe glaube ich nicht mal mehr zwei Tage an dem Roman gelesen und es war sehr eindrucksvoll.

Die Erzählweise erinnerte mich sehr an Tim O'Briens The Things They Carried, Norman Mailers The Naked and The Dead sowie Hemingways A Farewell to Arms. Dieser Kriegsbüchertradition folgend erzählt Babtschenko aus Tschetschenien. Unzusammenhängende Episodengeschichten ermöglichen dem Leser einen Einblick in die Grausamkeit und Unmenschlichkeit des Krieges. Bei seinen Beschreibungen kommt hinzu, daß die russische Armee durch eine weitverbreitete (und bis in die höchsten Ränge hineinragende) Korruption geprägt ist und durch ein körperliche Gewalt förderndes System, in welchem die Großväter neue Rekruten als persönliche Sklaven und Aggressionsablassmittel mißbrauchen. Der Autor benutzt dazu eine Sprache, welche nicht vor falscher politischer Korrektheit zurückschreckt und stellt auch dadurch dar wie der gemeine Soldat ein Opfer des imperialistischen, machthungrigen russischen Systems ist. Politische Anschuldigungen beschränken sich zwar auf ein Minimum (Jelzin und Putin werden beide, wenn auch nur einmal, beschuldigt), aber seine Episoden reichen aus um die moralische Verdammtheit dieses Krieges im Besonderen wie auch des Krieges im Allgemeinen und nicht zuletzt der russischen Armee zu verdeutlichen.

Ich persönlich fand, daß Die Farbe des Krieges den Leser (also mich) leer hinterläßt. Es bleibt einfach nichts mehr hinzuzufügen. Die sinnlose Gewalt, die Folterpraktiken, das Morden, es hinterläßt nichts als eine angewiderte Faszination für diese Abgründe menschlicher Existenz.

Holts Euch, lests.

Le Vicomte de Bragelonne II

Alors, j'ai fini la deuxième partie du Vicomte de Bragelonne (jusqu'à côté, quelqu'un m'a dit ce soir que Alexandre Dumaus aurait été le fils d'un esclave et un aristocrat francais, je ne sais pas encore quoi faire exactement avec cette information, assez bizarre en tout cas). Je ne veux pas dire trop sur ce bouquin parce que enfin c'est plutôt un tier d'une histoire qu'un livre singulier. Seulement, je dois avouer que la première partie m'avait plu vachement plus que ce. La deuxième n'était pas mal non plus, mais il y avait moins des histoires d'aventure avec Artagnan, Athos et al, et plus des intrigues de cour de Louis XIV. Les histoires amoureuses entre lui (Louis) et quelques femmes (sa belle-soeur et la fiancée de Bragelonne surtout) ont dominé cet episode. Encore, c'était une plaisir de lire ca aussi, surtout parce que Dumas a fondé presque tous personage sur les personnes réeles, mais enfin je préfère les aventures, comme dans la première, Les trois Mousquetaires ou Vingt ans après. J'ai déjà fait la commande pour la troisième partie et j'espère que ca sera plutôt comme ca.

The Wealth Effect

I had not initally wanted to publish this essay because I wasn't really happy with it. But, I decided not to chicken out and hide it just because I feel not as sure of my argumental skills when it comes to economics. The essay deals with the wealth effect on consumption. Meaning how an increase in different kinds of wealth (housing and financial) impact one's consumption.

The Poverty of Philosophy

• Immortal Technique - The Poverty of Philosophy
  
  This guy is just plain amazing.
  
  When you try to change the system from within, it is the system that will eventually change you.
  
  His rhymes definitely, makes you stop and think.


• I am a little confused about this suite against a Canadian Al Qaida fighter. He was only 15 when he was caught, so obviously he would have to be treated differently then an older terrorist. Yet, I wonder more generally how he can be even defined as a terrorist and charged of war crimes when 'the shrapnel from the grenade he is accused of throwing ripped through the skull of Sgt. First Class Christopher J. Speer, who was 28 when he died.' How is that terrorism or even a war crime? Isn't that a regular act of war, he gets attacked (or even attacks first, that doesn't change anything really), throws a grenade, kills the guy. Horrible, but isn't that what the Americans are doing everyday in Iraq? What they did in Europe during the Second World War? I just don't get how you can accuse someone of war crimes who acted the way soldiers are supposed to. He didn't after all torture someone, rape or kill civilians or anything like. Would appreciate it if someone could explain this to me.


• Apparently, trained police officers in a study shot less often at unarmed men because of racial premises, than do regular citizens. I wonder how I would score on this exam. But then, maybe, even if subconsciously you have a racial fear of some people and not of others, it is a question of controlling this irrational fear in every day situations. After all, you will usually not have to make split-second decisions like this.


• 'Mr. Bush’s comments to federal law enforcement trainees in Georgia on Tuesday, in which he took the rare step of going after conservative critics in terms usually reserved for Democrats, has charged the Republican ferment, specifically his suggestion that those opposed to the plan “don’t want to do what’s right for America.”
  
  Presidential aides said later that Mr. Bush did not mean to impugn anyone’s patriotism, and that he had ad-libbed the line during a passionate address on an issue he holds dear.' (NY Times)
  
  What a sad state of political rhetoric when all the argument Bush can find is that people don't want to do what's right for America. I guess this is nothing new, nor only existent in the USA, but think about it for a second. Is that an argument, does it further his position, convince his opponents? I guess that is what politics have stooped to, accusing the other person. Sad. (And, I do of course realize that this is a prevalent thing, that quote just struck me when reading the news this morning.)

Afghanistan, Playin' Ball & Obama

• Deutsche Polizeiausbildung ein Desaster
  The Germans have failed completely with their police training program. They were sending local, provincial policemen, aged 45 or 50 years old, who had no concept of Muslim culture and no concept of training. That has been a disaster. But we need the police to provide security, keep the peace, fight drugs, establish the writ of the state and to establish the writ of Karzai. Now the Americans have taken over, they are training an 80,000 member police force. This failure has been very critical. (From an interview with a Pakistani journalist who is somekind of a specialist on Afghanistan, no real surprises here for any regular reader.)


• Obama has just changed my perception of him some, the guy plays ball! What I found really interesting, and what the NY Times mispresents in their article ('Cut to the future Mrs. Obama asking her brother to take her new boyfriend out on the court, to make sure he was not the type to hog the ball or call constant fouls.'), is that Obama's brother-in-law who was interviewed in accompanying video claims something which I have always believed in as well. It is possible to psychologically analze people through the way they play ball. I cannot really explain this, how it works precisely, but I sincerely believe that playing ball with someone tells me more about his character than talking to him for any extended period of time. You can pretend to be something you are not in virtually every situation, yet, that does not work on the court. Obama's wife back then did not want to know how he played ball of course, but rather what kind of an impression as a human being he made.

North Carolina Slave Narratives

I stumbled across North Carolina Slave Narratives - The Lives of Moses Roper, Lunsford Lane, Moses Grady & Thomas H. Jones by accident in the JFKI library. Just saw the North Carolina in the title while walking past a shelf and decided to grab it as some kind of an early introduction into where I am actually going to be living starting in August. It turned out to be a really good read. I skipped most of the lengthy introductions, just because I was interested in just the primary source content and none of the supplementary comments and explanations, but I thoroughly enjoyed the narratives.

Four former slaves autobiographically recount their lives' experiences and how they managed to escape the slave system and settle in the British colonies and England (for the most part). All four of them were written earlier than Frederick Douglass' famed account during the 1830s, also unlike him they testify on exactly the way they escaped (Douglass, in order to protect the people that helped him, skips over this part in his narrative) which makes for a very exciting read. The experiences of all four were immensely different.

Moses Roper continuously tried to run away, being caught, whipped and put in chains countless times, yet never giving up and finally succeeding in getting to the Northern states where abolitionists financed his continued flight to England (according to federal laws at the time any slave that had fled the South had to be deported back into slavery when being caught in the slavery-outlawing Northern states).

Lunsford Lane on the other hand had a lenient owner who rented him out to himself (a rather bizarre practise where the slave would pay the owner a fixed sum every year, which he had to accumulate himself by whatever enterprise he chose to enroll in, everything above that sum he could keep for himself). After a couple of years he had amassed enough savings to buy himself from his owner and thus liberate himself. He then proceeded to save up money to buy his wife and children as well and being of an industrious nature succeeded financially with this as well. Yet, a self-liberated entrepreneuring black man like him posed a threat to the system as it caricatured the image of the lazy, child-like, incompetent slave that without the slave owner would degrade and finally die because of his incapability to nourish himself. Thus, he was chased out of North Carolina by use of the law (there were no free blacks allowed to enter the state of North Carolina and since he had gone to New York for a while this law was used against him) and the threat of mob violence.

Moses Grady like Lane toiled for himself in order to pay his master out. Unlike Lane though his masters cheated him out of his money twice by simply accepting the money for his liberty after having made an oral contract for the same, yet then not granting this liberty to him. While this was morally condemned even by most white people, legally he stood on safe grounds simply because as an owner you could not cheat your property as everything he earned or did belonged to you anyway. The third time he paid money to his - then - master, that white man tried again to cheat him out of his liberty, yet in the end succumbed to moral pressure on the part of the white community.

Thomas H. Jones was the last and least interestingly written account. He fled to the North and later Canada after having had a friend bought his wife and children. His flight went uneventful (luckily for him) and smooth. His narrative was in my opinion the worst, because he, a preacher, wrote in a sermon style with constant and very repetitive references to God. His writing simply did not suit me and his Christianity of forgiving even the worst slave holder in the name of Jesus I found hard to believe and even harder to relate to.

All in all, I would recommend this to virtually every one as the accounts detail and make one aware better of important aspects of the Southern slave system. The way families, husbands and wives were split up for example and how people dealt with that. How common corporal punishment was, yet how blacks and whites lived together. Thomas H. Jones' sermons in rural North Carolina are visited by blacks and whites alike. Also, how older slaves were left in the woods own their own, because their masters considered it economically unsound to feed and clothe them any longer. Lastly, as a more positive aspect I guess, how many slaves seem to have worked for themselves, rented themselves out and thus enjoyed a relatively high amount of freedom. Again, read something like this if you care about the American South, history or simply human beings.

The American Welfare State

I have to write an essay on the American welfare state and an exposé for that essay is due today. So, if anyone of you cares to find out why the American welfare state developed later and differently than most European welfare regimes. Have fun.

Naivität

• Die internationale Medien (EU Observer & NZZ) haben Deutschlands butterweiche Position auf- und angegriffen. Ich bin jetzt mal gespannt, ob die deutschen Medien da auch kritisch darüber berichten werden, oder ob der deutsche Außenpolitik Konsens Kritik und negative Aspekte wieder mal (1, 2 & 3) verschweigt.
  


• Aus dem EU Observer:
  "Under the scheme, an EU member state – in order to fill its labour gap – would temporarily hire non-EU workers, as long as they respect the key condition and return to their home country after their contracts expire.
  
  "The idea is that people come and work in the EU for a couple of months, then return home and later come again," one EU official explained."
  
  Behaupten wir mal ganz theoretisch ein Mitgliedsland (Deutschland zB), würde Arbeiter aus einem anderen Land (die Türkei um bei einem möglichst abstrakten Modell zu bleiben) als Gastarbeiter anwerben, ob die wohl alle irgendwann wieder nach Hause gehen würden?

Le Vicomte de Bragelonne I

Quand j'étais un jeune adolescent, j'étais obsédé avec d'Artagnan et ses amis. Je crois que je lisais Les Trois Mousquetaire et Vingt Ans après au moins cinq ou six fois. Or, quand j'ai vu à Paris qu'il y avait une troisième livre sur cette histoire je l'ai acheté tout de suite. Ca c'était en été de 2006 en fait, quand je travaillais à Paris, et un ans avant que je suis venu faire Erasmus là-bas. J'éssayais de lire Le Vicomte à l'époque mais j'n ai pas réussi, parce que le vocabulaire était trop dur pour moi, en plus Dumas utilise le Passé Simple, Passé Antérieur et Subjonct if souvent, lesquels je ne connaisas pas du tout (il faut admettre que même si mon francais s'a amélioré, je ne suis pas encore capable de former ces trois temps, mais je me promets de bosser au-dessus). Aujourd'hui le livre n'était plus trop difficile, bien sûr, je ne comprenais pas tout - comme dans Les Bienveillantes les déscriptions de nature ou des batîments étaient le pus difficile - et parce que je n'aime pas lire avec une dictionaire à côté de moi - je l'éssayais plusieurs fois, le résultat pour moi ce que j'arrête à lire, parce que je déteste chercher pour les mots dedans tout le temps - je suis sûr qu'il y avait beaucoup des choses qui m'ont passé.

Mais, ce bouquin est un d'eux qui on déteste à arreter à lire. Je continuais plusieurs fois quand j'aurais dû dormir déjà. Je ne vais pas dire grande chose sur quoi ce livre s'agît. Je suis sûr que tout le monde connait d'Artagnan, Porthos, Aramis et Athoas. Ils sont plus agée, le fils d'Athos est très important aussi, mais sauf ca, il n'y a pas une grande différence en qualité et suspense en comparasion avec les premiers deux. Le seul problème ce qu'il y a trois livres qui compose Le Vicomte de Bragelonne, j'ai déjà fait la command e pour le deuxième, mais je ne sais pas quand c'arrivera, et hier soir quand j'ai fini le premier tier, j'étais vraiment faché que je pouvais continuer tout de suite avec le deuxième.

Race & The NBA

I've already discussed the study by two economists that empirically prove that there is a racial bias in foul calls by white and black referees respectively. The NBA of course denounced this and offered up an apparently ridiculous - from an academic point of view - study (check the input box by Tom Jolly the NY Times sports editor) to counter this. It is hard if not impossible to simply discount the findings of Wolfers and Price considering they analyzed 13 seasons, adjusted their results to role player, all stars and the such, all in all a very sound piece of work as it seems (I haven't obviously read it, but that's how most everyone not directly associated with the NBA portrays it).

Yet, John Hollinger discards it on the notion that playing a black player when a white officiating crew presides for 48 minutes instead of a white one, results in a foul call increase of only a negligible increase of 2.5 to 4.5%. Assuming that a team plays with an all black line-up this of course would imply a rise in foul calls against that team of 12.5 to 22.5%, which makes the word negligible sound doubtful already. Also, even if one considers the results of the study to be so low as to not hold any importance for the outcome of games - which I doubt - the basic premise that - subconscious - racism on the part of the referees is persistent. Hollinger excuses that by explaining that 'refs are human too, after all, and when they step on the court they unwittingly bring their life experiences and values with them.' The logical conclusion here being that life experiences and values of white referees necessarily have a racist edge to them, because otherwise how would the statistical correlation be explained? Finally, even if the statistical numbers are low that of course changes a players' behaviour anyway. Someone with two fouls will play defense differently or may not even be on the court anymore than someone who only has one in the first or second quarter of a game.

A friend of mine brings a more valid argument to the table which argues that white players less so than black players are considered defensive specialists resulting in black players such as Marion, Camby or Bowen being called for fouls more often than white shooters such as Kapono, Korver or Stojakovic. On the first and second all-defensive team for the 2006/2007 season there is not one white player he offers as further proof of this theory. While I agree with the general premise of this argument I wonder whether it could not be turned around. From my own experience of being a rather bad defender - and a slightly better offensive player - I would argue that a guy such as Kyle Korver trying to defend against the opposing team's small forward (say LeBron James) is going to rack up more fouls than Bruce Bowen doing the same thing. Obviously both of these arguments do not have any statistical back-up, just some food for thought.

Lastly in my big race and the NBA entry (hope I have not chased away the female half of my 4 daily readers with this), Richard Lapchick explains on ESPN that the NBA's big picture actually is really pretty when compared to the other major leagues in the USA. According to a study done by him (and Horacio Ruiz and Marina Bustamante) 75% of NBA players are black, 36% of all referees are either black or latino, 40% of the head coaches, 15% of team vice-presidents are black, 34% of professionals in the league office were minorities and the NBA also has the only black CEOs (5) and presidents (2) in professional sports. Also of course Robert Johnson is the only black owner of a franchise in American professional sports. While all this implies that the NBA is a front-runner in regard to integration when compared to the NFL or MLB, I have to differ with the view that it shows a pretty picture. Take a simple look at the amount of players and compare it with the rest of the numbers, especially the number of head coaches (and presidents too I believe) since most of these used to be players themselves. To me, this makes clear that basketball is (and will continue to be) a sports played by blacks (I wonder how high the percentage of of black players would be if you only included Americans) and controlled by whites (I am not even claiming that this is due to inherent racism or anything like that, probably is more related to the economic realities of racial life in the USA, am just stating a fact that I feel Lapchick is misrepresenting).

Blair en francais

Oui, quelq'un écrivait ca pour lui probablement. Oui, son accent est aussi fort, que même moi je le remarque. Oui, il l'avait exercé sans doute plusieurs fois. Mais, il parle francais mieux que beaucoup de ses - plus jeunes - compatriotes n'importe quelque langues. Il parle mieux que notre ancien chancelier, Schröder, se pouvait exprimer en anglais. Et surtout, il essaie de faire quelque chose qui existe pas assez dans la société européenne pour l'instant. Il s'adresse à un autre peuple, dans une autre langue, il essaie d'avoir une dialogue intra-européenne. Est-ce que vous pouvez imaginez Chirac ou Merkel s'adressent au peuple francais/allemand dans l'autre langue respectivement? Je trouve ca - notamment si on prête attention à son age - remarquable.

Istanbul

Ich hatte Orhan Pamuks Istanbul von meinem Vater geschenkt bekommen, kurz bevor ich dort ein langes Wochenende verbrachte. Die Stadt war sehr eindrucksvoll und deswegen freute ich mich sehr auf das Buch. Ich muß ganz ehrlich eingestehen, daß ich am Anfang nicht so beeindruckt war. Der Nobelliteraturpresiträger erzählt in seinem Roman die Geschichte seiner Heimatstadt anhand seiner eigenen Lebensgeschichte, sowie parallel dazu durch Berichte, welche andere Schriftsteller über Istanbul verfassten - hier sowohl türkische als auch westeuropäische. Ich würde fast behaupten, daß man das Buch nur schlecht als Roman bezeichnen kann. Es gibt keine kohärente zusammenhängende Geschichte, vielmehr erscheinen die Kapitel als Ansammlung von Essays, welche sich alle mit Istanbul und zum Teil mit Pamuks Kindheit befassen, aber es gibt kaum Stringenz zwischen den Erzählteilen.

Aber, je weiter ich las, desto mehr gefiel mir das Buch. Die literatische Geschichtsstunde Istanbuls - Flaubert und Twain sind nur zwei der Autoren, welche Pamuk zitiert und fast die einzigen die ich (wirklich) kannte - war faszinierend und auch die Beschreibung der Entscheidung, welche Pamuk als 20jähriger treffen mußte, ob er sein Studium abbrechen solle und Künstler - Schriftsteller oder sogar Maler - werden solle, wird fesselnd dargestellt.

Letzten Endes kann ich zusammenfassend sagen, daß ich das Buch im Prinzip eigentlich jedem empfehlen würde. Die einzige Bedingung wäre vielleicht, das der- oder diejenige vorher kurz nach Istanbul sollte. Viele der architektonischen und geographischen Beschreibungen waren für mich bereits verwirrend, ohne je da gewesen zu sein, erscheinen sind diese unmöglich zu verstehen.

Ein letzter negativer Punkt ist das 'hünzü'-Konzept, welches laut Pamuk die Schwermütigkeit, die Lethargie, das Trarige ist, welches die Einwohner von Istanbul seit Jahrhunderten geprägt hat. Teilweise bedingt durch den Abstieg des Osmanischen Reiches und darauffolgenden tiefen Fall in eine arme Obskurität. Pamuk behauptet, daß dieses Konzept nur für Menschen, die in Konstantinopel gewohnt hätten zugänglich wäre und dies mag stimmen, ich kann es nicht beurteilen. Aber, ich finde, wenn man einen Text schreibt und dabei auf ein solches Konzept zurückgreift bedarf es einer stärkeren Argumentation dahinter, mir ging es nicht vollkommen auf, ich konnte es nur sehr bedingt nachvollziehen. Dies könnte natürlich auch meine Beschränktheit sein, falls noch jemand dieses Werk gelesen hat, würde ich insofern weitere Erklärungen dankend entgegen nehmen.

Einwanderung

Falls Ihr jemals in eine Diskussion über Immigration verwickelt werden solltet, lest diesen Text. Das Argument ist im Prinzip, daß Einwanderer im Durchschnitt mehr Unternehmen gründen (Intel, Google und Ebay werden als Beispiele für die USA benannt, in Deutschland sind damit wohl eher Restaurants und Lebensmittelläden gemeint) und dadurch das BIP steigern und Jobs schaffen. Außerdem ermöglichen sie den Einstieg qualifizierter Personnen (Frauen vor allem) in den Beruf durch niedrige Löhne in Dienstleistungsjobs (Haushaltshilfen, Kindermädchen...). Letztlich geben Einwanderer vor allem am Anfang einen hohen Prozentsatz ihres Einkommens aus, eine hohe Konsumnachfrage mit all seinen Effekten (höherer BIP, mehr Jobs) folgt. Abschließend würde ich gerne mal wissen, was eigentlich diese andauernde Nennung von Kreuzberg (oder auch Neuköllns) als Symbol der gescheiterten Integration soll. Ich wohne hier (in Kreuzberg) und hatte nie irgendein Problem, wo ich mich unwohl fühle sind eher Bezirke wie Lichtenberg, Marzahn und Hohenschönhausen mit ihren hohen Glatzenanteilen, ist da die Integration auch gescheitert?

It seems that I am one of the people 'who think they should run the country.' While the list is of course way too business centred, it is quite funny.

le 6 mai

Je lisais le NY Times et LeMonde commenter sur le débat entre Sarko et Ségo hier, je dois avouer que je l'aurais aimé regarder. Mais, j'étais dans un café pour le foot avec mon père. Tant pis. Je crains en tout cas que Sarko gagnera. Sa position sur l'immigration surtout et la façon comme il piquait les votes de Le Pen m'inquiètent. Mais oui, je peux même pas voter en tout cas.

Sarko & the NBA

Si vous ne savez pas encore pour qui voter, peut-être ca vous intéressez (je les trouve un peu trop populiste parfois).

An independent study has established that there is a racial bias in NBA refereeing. White referees (who are the majority) discriminating black players and black referees (a minority and less pronounced) discriminating white players. John Hollinger counters these finds based on the little impact they have on a game ('a black player will [only] rack up approximately 0.16 added fouls per 48 minutes). While his (Hollinger's) argument does make sense, there seems to be no counter argument towards the fact that this racial bias exists. Quite shocking, even if the effects are more or less negligible.

Le Non

Ich hatte vor 2 Semestern ein Seminar über den EU-Verfassungsvertrag und wollte damals in den Semesterferien eine Hausarbeit über das gescheiterte Referendum in Frankreich schreiben. Ich schaffte es irgendwie nie diese Arbeit zu schreiben und hatte mir dann versprochen sie in Frankreich zu schreiben und dem Professor mit dem Argument, daß ich französische Literatur benötigt hätte, noch zu geben. Lange Rede, kurzer Sinn, am Mittwoch (oder Dienstag) gehe ich in seine Sprechstunde und gucke was dabei herauskommt, die Arbeit könnt Ihr Euch hier runterladen falls Interesse besteht. Nur als kleine Warnung, es gibt relativ viele Zitate auf französisch.

Les Bienveillantes

Alors, je finissais enfin le livre que je commencais après Der Jakubijân-Bau et j'ai fait cette entrée le 28 février. Ca veut dire que je lisais Les Bienvillantes presque deux mois. Eux entre vous qui me connaisent savent que je lis vraiment plus rapide que ca normalement. Mais cette livre a 894 pages et - bien sûr si vous voulez - c'est tous en francais. Je crois que je comprenais 70% à 80% du bouquin, évidemment il y avait les joue du mot que je loupais, les descriptions de la campagne ou des villes étaient assez difficile à comprende et même les situations violentes avec tous ces détails ne sont pas facile à appréhender. Mais quand même je peux déjà dire que j'aimais m'immerser dans ce livre. Ca, pas seulement parce que c'etait mon première oeuvre litterature francaise que j'avais lu, mais surtout parce que j'aimais bien le lire. Il y aura beaucoup de critique, mais je le recommends pour tous le monde quand même.

L'écrivain est un americain qui est grandi en France, habite en Espagne et est marié avec une Belge. Il décrit l'histoire d'un officier de SS, de sa perspective en fait. Je veux éviter d'éxaminer trop des détails, premièrement parce que ca vous ennuyerait et deuxièmement parce que si vous avez pas encore lu ce livre je le recommande et pour cette raison il ne faut pas détailler trop d'évents. Quand même je dois décrire certains choses qui peut-être vous ne voulez pas savoir avant lire le bouquin.

La critique (et tout ca est sur une haute niveau parce que encore j'aimais lire ca, mais enfin je suis une personne très critiquante):

• L'avantage d'être allemand avec ce livre ce qu'il utilise les phrases et noms allemands assez souvent. Mais, il y a un problème avec ca aussi, il y a trop de faute en allemand. À mon avis ca c'est vraiment gênant. Est-ce qu'il n'y avait pas un lecteur pour faire une correction? La question pour moi ce s'il y a les fautes comme ca dans la langue, est-ce que ca c'est la même chose avec les détails historique? Je lisais une critique dans le Zeit qui disait que il est soigneux historiquement, mais je suis pas sûr si je le crois, seulement parce que les fautes sur une place impliquent les fautes un peu partout normalement.


• J'avais l'impression que Littel avait peur de sa courage (un proverbe allemand ca, acune idée si ca s'est traduit) un peu. Oui, il décrit tous d'un point de vue d'un officier allemand, quelqu'un convaincu de ce qu'il fait, sans regrette même 50 ans après, mais lui, l'officier, dans un certain sens il garde son honneur touts les temps. Il critique la facon de tuer de ses collègues toujours. Il ne perds jamais son contrôle sur soi-même (en regard des juifs en tout cas). Et surtout, il travaille dans les sectors de SS tout les temps ou il travaille pour améliorer la situation des juifs. Même s'il le fait seulement pour fortifier l'éffort de guerre, enfin il est indisputable qu'il ne travaille pas à tuer les gens (juifs ou tsigane) mais pour améliorer leur situation. Je trouvais ca un peu décevant, s'on écrivait un roman sur un officer comme ca, faudrait-il pas d'aller jusqu'au sommet?


• En plus, je trouvais que Littel n'illumine pas assez certains aspects de la philosophie d'aue (le protagonist). Il y a beaucoup des situations ou Aue explique ce qu'il pense ou pourquoi certain chose serait important pour le national-socialisme, mais à mon avis plusieurs points ne sont jamais éxpliqué. Par exemple la position d'Hitler comme le Führer, ou pourquoi tuer tout les juifs serait nécessaire, ou comme Aue arrange d'être homosexuel un Nazi convaincu au même temps.

Il y avait d'autre chose que je n'aimais pas, mais honnêtement, exprimé tout ca en francais est vraiment complique, je veux même pas savoir combien de faute il y a dans mon blog d'aujourd'hui seulement. En tout cas je continuerai à lire en francais et je cherche les autres livre intéressant, s'il y a quelqu'un avec une idée ca serait sympa. Un dernier mot sur Les Bienveillantes s'il y a quelqu'un entre vous qui a lu ca, il serait vraiment sympa de rencontrer et discuter sur ca un peu.

Being Jewish 3

I've worn my Yarmulka for a week now and my experiment's original time frame is coming to an end (I haven't yet decided whether I will prolong it for the first week of classes which start tomorrow in order to have a bigger sample and exposure to more people). So far I have not heard one outright antisemitic comment. Yet, two people have commented in a rude manner that at least implicitely made a negative attitude towards jews obvious.

In the store right near my house, the shopkeeper rather incredously asked me: "Is that a Jew hat?" I responded affirmitavily and no real further conversation took place. In the second incident a baldheaded guy in the company of a dude in a German national football jersey uttered to his friend: "That's is a Jew!"

In both cases it was not so much what was so said, but the way in which the word Jew was pronounced, that made clear that these guys had a very negative opinion of Jews. Still, it seems clear that antisemitism is less openly pronounced as I thought it would be up front.

One important aspect should be mentioned though, one that a friend of mine made me aware of: Most people seem simply not to know that a yarmulka is part of the jewish religion. If this is true, and I definitely have come to the conclusion that it is, then of course the experiment has not so much led to the aforementioned conclusion, but rather has failed due to a lack of knowledge on the part of its - unknowning - subjects.

Le Bild francais

Je ne lisais rien sur ca dans les journaux allemands mais apparemment essayera Springer d'établir un quotidien en France. À mon avis ca serait vraiment une raison pour s'inquiéter. Pas seulement parce qu'on parle sur Springer ici - et si vous ne savez pas quoi ce nom veut dire en allemand je le décrirerais par le nom Volksverdummung, en francais peut-être 'faire con la population générale' - mais surtout parce que il sont déjà établi un quotidien en Pologne qui maintenant et devenu le plus grand là-bas. Si il réussissait en France aussi, ca voudrait dire que la même compagnie dominerait dans les trois pays d'Europe centrale les plus grands. Plus court, j'espère que ca ne marchera pas.

Kurt Vonnegut & la élection presidentielle

Kurt Vonnegut died yesterday, may he rest in peace. I encourage all of you - including myself who hasn't read anything by him in a while - to pick up a novel by him.

Les élections en France sont presque là - ici les dernier sondages - et moi j'ai acune idée pour qui je voterai. Mais LeMonde offre 19 questions et après ils donnent un avis de quel programme on est proche. Pour moi la plus haute était Dominique Voynet (des Verts) avec 10 points qui je ne connaissais même pas avant. Après elle j'avais José Bové et Olivier Besancenot (LCR) les deux avec neuf points.

Voynet c'est probablement assez réalistique, seulement parce que je vote pour les Verts en Allemagne presque tout les temps. Mais Bové (plus) et Besancenot (mois) m'ennervent un peu. Bové pour moi est un populiste complétement ridicule (même si je comprends contre quoi il agit). Besancenot est plus serieux mais quand même je crois que ses idées enfin sont utopians et sur un certain dégre contribue à faire les gens croire que certains choses sont possible qui ne sont pas. (J'espère qu'il y a pas trop de faute dans ces phrases et qu'on le comprends encore, mon prochain cours de francais commence mardi, alors, je m'améliorerais, j'espère.)

Day 2

The second day of my Kippa experiment came and went yesterday and the - positively - surprising thing is how little actually happens. I sat at the river reading the newspaper (a canal actually but whatever) and afterwards played some ball around the corner from my place (quite surprising how well that thing stays up there with the help of some hairpins). I live in Kreuzberg which if you mention it to people from outside of Berlin is quite a hotspot of immigration and perceived criminality - not that I ever had any problems here. Accordingly there were about 40% Germans and 60% foreigners on the court (the foreigners are German mostly too of course even if they might not have a passport their German skills make quite clear that they were born or at least grew up here). Nobody said one thing (even if some dude walking on a court with a Kippa is, well, not quite ordinary here (never have seen that actually not even in the US)). I got a couple of weird looks, but nothing was said and the looks weren't even negative just kind of weirded-out. One of our games (we won like five in a row and thus ran the court for a while) was against a group of gangsters (I assume you know what I mean with that term, their illegal activities probably do not go further than smoking pot every once in a while, but the attitude is what I mean), whom we beat soundly (good fun that always) who clearly fell in the category of kids with an immigration background and educational problems. Yet, again, nothing was said. Nothing.

All in all, so far so good, I'll be wearing this for another five days maybe and keep all of my interested readers up to date.

Being Jewish

So, I've started my experiment of being Jewish in Germany by wearing a Kippah now. I will wear this skullcap every time I leave the house for at least a week now. Honestly, I was disappointed by the beginning of this exercise though. Apart from stupid jokes by my friends I didn't hear one comment all evening. I did have the impression that some people - mostly punks or other blatantly left-wing guys - smiled at me more than they usually would have. It will be interesting how this will develop and I am kind of excited about it, but so far the experiment has been rather uneventful, which - considering I am trying to see how antisemitic German society - is good news.

UNC

Question of the day:

What do Michael Jordan, Rasheed Wallace, Henrik Rödl, Ademola Okulaja, Jerry Stackhouse, Vince Carter and Antawn Jamison have in common?

They all attended the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. Now you might wonder why you should care, or even why I care. Well, quite easy, I can happily announce that so will I. I finally received my official acceptance email yesterday evening and thus will definitely study political science in North Carolina for one year. I cannot honestly even begin to describe how exciting this is for me.

European Solidarity

Ulrich Speck and Timothy Ash call for European solidarity in the face of Iranian aggression - the capture of 15 British soldiers. I wholeheartedly agree. I am sick and tired of the Europeans' lacking unity in regard to foreign policy. Whether it be the Iraq War or the American Missile Systems in Eastern Europe. If we really want to talk about the EU as a proper political institution then now is the time to defend our European soldiers by a unified reaction (such as a common boycott of relations and the threat of immediate economical repercussions) pronounced by the current EU leader (Frau Merkel). This situation really is calling for European solidarity. Otherwise one really has to wonder what the point of the CFSP (Common Foreign and Security Policy) is. Or what the point of a European army would be.

Antiamerikanismus & la France

I've been really busy (and lazy) and also have been reading a 800 page french novel and for these reasons haven't written anything on here in a while. I am sorry for all my faithful readers (all three of you). Just a really quick entry today, I'll try to be better again.

• La France elle a un grand, grand problème. Si une situation comme un contrôle de billets peux développer dans une bataille avec la police assez rapidement et dans Paris (j'habitais jusqu'à côté), je crois que c'est clair qu'il y a une fissure sociale plus profonde que jamais. (1,2)



• Germany decidedly has an anti-americanism problem. People mix up justified criticism of US policy, stereotypes and condesendence with plain hatred. Pretty much every American who's been living in Germany for a while (and most of those speak German quite well) suffer under it. I find it embarrassing. Am not going to go into detail on this, as I don't have the time for a well argumented piece, but here is a quite polemic article from the Spiegel about it and also a more scientific text from The Chronicle Review.