Mozart and Leadbelly

Bought this by accident (I had never heard of the author, Ernest J. Gaines) because of the title only and it was well worth it too. The book is split in three parts, the first consists of essays describing his (Gaines') upbringing and how it influenced his writing, the second short stories, and the third is a transcribed interview. Gaines hails from the Deep South, Louisiana to be precise, and that is where he draws his writing material and inspiration as well. The whole thing isn't all that long, but his essays, the material that he draws on (with references to Lighnin' Hopkins for example, I did find it weird that a self-proclaimed country-blues fanatic mainly referred to jazz artists as sources of inspiration, but then maybe that was due to the intended readership), in combination with his short stories really made me want to read more by him.

As old as the Faulkner comparison is, as relevant is it when talking about Southern writers, and seemingly every promising Southerner has been compared at some point (it seems similar to the NBA searching for a new Jordan in every young star (starting with Grant Hill to now LeBron James)), the interesting twist in this case of course is that Gaines is black and thus has an inherent different outlook on the South. No, I don't think he has come even close to dethroning the great Faulkner for me, but I will read more by him if I find the time, that's for sure.

Top 5 of 2007

I did a list of the best 10 records that came out in 2006 last year. This year I didn't listen to new music as much, or maybe not that many great new albums came out, in any case, it'll be only a Top 5:

5 - Vieux Farke Touré - Vieux Farka Touré
I loved his Dad's stuff (may he rest in peace) and I thought at first this was just a son cashing in on his father's talent, wile having none of his own (say Julian Lennon, what little I have heard of him). Not true. Granted he does sound a lot like Ali Farka Touré, but he simply does a good job himself and that Niafunké sound is just wonderful.

4 - Porter Wagoner - Wagonmaster
I didn't know anything of this guy until me and a friend from Kansas saw him on CMT in a motel in Nashville by accident. Considering the bullshit they play on that station usually I was struck by his voice, his age, his experience, his wisdom that he expressed through it. A reflective, quiet old man's album, wonderful. And the guy went to Hank William's first appearence in the Grand Ol' Opry for God's sake, so sad that all these old-timers are dying out.

3 - Steve Earle - Washington Square Serenade
Definitely one of the strongest singers still alive and kickin' today. His outlaw, hick music speaks to me in ways that I have a hard time explaining (considering I am a German (Berliner) city slicker). He moved to New York last year and his album is a less politicized affaire, more a personal narration of Greenwich Village. Not his best album (but then to be fair is it even possible to top Copperhead Road or Christmas in Washington?), but very enjoyable and I felt like it grows on you too.

2 - Dion - Son of Skip James
Ever heard of Dion & The Belmonts? A Teenager in Love? The Wanderer? Catchy 50s Doo Wop tunes? Rings a bell? Well, that guy has produced the best blues album of the year (granted I didn't listen to that many this year and this is the second year in a row this award goes to a white guy, not quite sure what that means). It seems to be a weird career path true, but this is actually his second blues album (Bronx in Blue in 2006 was the other one) and he is superb. He apparently got exposed to the blues on the folk circuit during the 60s, which explains the reference to Skip James with whom he played, and he definitely learned his lesson well. A great bluesified cover of Chuck Berry's Nadine for example.

1 - Levon Helm - Dirt Farmer
So, I flew home for Christmas and my Dad once I get there hands me this CD and says: 'Heard this one? Very good one. You need to check it out.' And I did, think I listened to it for the whole following week without becoming tired of his whiny voice. Did I mention that I love rural American music? No logical explanation, sorry. Helm whom I had never heard of (he was the drummer for the Band and sang some for them too, I did thus kind of know him already) covers ol'-timey music on this album. Great, great country-rock. One Steve Earle cover, The Mountain, that is simply a stunner. Wonderful album, you need to listen to it, trust me.

The poor old dirt farmer he's lost all his corn,
and now where's the money to pay off his loan?

Honorable mentions and albums that could be good but that I haven't listened to enough yet (in no particular order):
Guru - Jazzmatazz - Volume 4 - The Hip Hop Jazz Messenger - Back to the Future
Devin The Dude - Waitin' To Inhale
Prodigy - Return Of The Mac
Wu-Tang Clan - 8 Diagrams
Tiken Jah Fakoly - L'Africain
Ry Cooder - My Name is Buddy
John Fogerty - Revival
The Holmes Brothers - State of Grace

Germany: Jekyll & Hyde

Wieder einmal Sebastian Haffner, ich weiß. Was soll ich machen? Hatte das Buch auf meiner Leselisten und dann mitgebracht bekommen. Germany: Jekyll & Hyde. 1939 - Deutschland von innen betrachtet. Auf Deutsch geschrieben, ins Englische übersetzt, in Großbritannien veröffentlicht, jetzt wieder ins Deutsche zurückübersetzt, weil das Original verloren ging.

Leider hat mir dieses Buch nicht so gut gefallen wie viele der Bücher von Haffner die ich vorher gelesen hatte (1, 2). Warum? Ich weiß es nicht so genau. Sein Schreibstil schien weniger flüssig und fesselnd, was aber wohl entweder an der doppelten Übersetzung oder den besonderen Umständen (als Emigrant in England, mit schwangerer Freundin, keinem Job und von der Schutzhaft bedroht) liegen könnte. Gerade diese Umstände, immerhin erdreistet sich ein Deutscher hier den Briten zu erklären wie sie den Krieg gegen Deutschland zu führen zu haben, sollten nicht unterschätzt werden.

Haffner beschreibt verschiedene Gruppen, welche zum Verständnis Nazideutschlands bekannt sein sollten: Hitler, die Nazis (von Göring bis zu den Blockwarten), die loyalen Deutschen (die stille, willig gehorchende Mehrheit), die illoyalen Deutschen (die stille, unwillig gehorchende Minderheit, welche das Ziel der englischen Propaganda sein sollte), die Opposition (KPD, SPD...er beschreibt sie als desaströs und hat damit wohl recht) und letzten Endes die Emigranten (welche er wohl als zu relevant bewertet auch weil er natürlich Teil derselben ist und deswegen nicht gerade objektiv in Bezug auf dieselben).

Das Problem des Buches ist zweigeteilt. Erstens, sind einige der Dikussionen einfach nicht mehr zeitgemäß. So braucht heute keinem mehr erklärt zu werden wie verbrecherisch die Nazis wirklich waren. Zweitens, versucht Haffner der englischen Politik Vorschläge zu machen, wie der Krieg zu führen sei. Diese sind aus der heutigen Perspektive gelesen einfach nicht mehr so relevant. Ein Kompromissfrieden mit Göring als Reichskanzler mag damals eine Möglichkeit gewesen sein, heutzutage ist die Diskussion darüber eher müßig.

Interessant ist sein Konzept einer Kontinuität von Friedrich dem Großen und seinem expansiven Preußen über das Deutsche Reich zum Dritten Reich ("es sind nur Nuancen, die das Dritte Reich und das Deutsche Reich voneinander unterscheiden"). Auch wenn gerade durch den Holocaust stark relativiert (der Vergleich) eine faszinierende Idee. Sein Lösungsvorschlag für nach dem krieg ist außerdem eine Art Europa der Regionen, mit Deutschland zurückfallend in seine Kleinstaaterei, aber wirtschaftlich und politisch eingebunden in ein größeres Europa.

Fast schon prophetisch ist seine Prognose über Hitler: "Er besitzt genau den Mut und die Feigheit für einen Selbstmord."

Abschließend läßt sich im Allgemeinen sagen, daß ich seiner Konzentration auf Personnen zum Nachteil von Strukturen und wirtschaftlichen und politischen Umständen nicht immer zustimme. "Wer vermag, ohne die Augen vor der Hauptursache zu verschließen, auch um eine der großen welterschütternden Krisen unseres Jahrhunderts zu erklären?" Auf den ersten Weltkrieg mag dies zustimmen, auf den zweiten? Wäre Hitler ohne die Weltwirtschaftskrise überhaupt je an die Macht gekommen? In der gleichen Stoßrichtung versucht Haffner Hitlers Politik nur als Resultat seiner eigenen Lebenserfahrungen zu verkaufen. Wie gesagt, ich finde diese Erklärungsansätze zu persönlich.

Was ich sehr begrüße ist seine kritische Begutachtung des Patriotismus, welchen ich ja eigentlich nur belustigend oder sogar abstoßend finde (jeweils auf meine Stimmung und die andere Person darauf ankommend): "Es ist normal ... die eigene Heimat und die eigenen Landsleute zu lieben [wo ich nur begrenzt zustimme, aber das ist ein ganz anderes Thema, was ich heute eher nicht anschneide]...aber je mehr im sillen, um so besser." Schreibts Euch hinter die Ohren, Ihr Flaggenschwenker der Welt.

Also, lesen oder nicht lesen? Ich würde sagen ja, aber nur für Haffnerfans und -kenner und garantiert nicht als erstes Buch.

On Obama

The New York Times claims that: "Mr. Obama’s victory in this [Iowa for those of you living in holes] overwhelmingly white state was a powerful answer to the question of whether America was prepared to vote for a black person for president. What was remarkable was the extent to which race was not a factor in this contest."

I would love to believe that, cannot bring myself to do so though for two reasons. First, it seems evident that the willingness of white Democratic voters to elect black officials is higher than that of white Republican voters. A victory in this Democratic caucus is thus no indication of his chances in a general, national election. Second (from a paper I recently wrote ):

"The greater the district's racial composition tips in blacks' favor the more inclined whites are to project […] racial fears […] onto [the] […] officeseeker." In districts were blacks are a minuscule minority the chances of a black candidate to win the white vote rises because African Americans issues are less relevant, causing less anxiety in white voters."

Clearly, Iowa falls in the latter category, for other stats or the nation as a whole this is a completely different story.

La France, est-elle devenue folle?

Évidemment, oui.

Alors, pour follier (une création cool, eh?) un pays on a besoin de quoi? Un nouveau Président qui aime trop la présence publique qui est trop nombriliste enfin, un divorce, un drame publique (nous sommes un couple, nous ne le sommes pas...), une nouvelle petite amie qui en plus est célèbre soi-même et des vacances publique dans un endroit plus ou moins exotique. Putain, suis-je heureux que nous avons une chancelière moche avec un mari qui refuse se montre en publique et est professeur en physique, comme ça on peut discuter sa politique au lieu de sa libido.

One Hundred Years of Solitude

Gabriel Garcia Márquez was one of the many unknown known writers, that I had heard mentioned a lot, but had never been interested enough to pick up a book by. The most impressive person I ever met gave me One Hundred Years of Solitude then, after she had read it, even if her review, if I remember correctly, wasn't exactly glowing.

I personally very much enjoyed it. Márquez writes in a very distinctive manner, even if I am sure that due to the translation much has been lost, also I am not certain in how far what I consider to be specific to Márquez is just a Latin American or Spanish trait. He tells the story of a family through six generations (and 100 years), making the premise strikingly similar to the Buddenbrooks, even if the two seem to offer no other possible link, making the comparison all the more intriguing to some extent.

I find it hard to really develop anykind of thoughts on this book. I did enjoy it. I found the usage of witch craft and other aspects of superstitous nature in a 20th century serious novel interesting (and comparable to Kenan in that regard). The negative outlook on human beings and what they really are capable of achieving in their lives, their failings in interhuman relationships, humans being too human for their own (and others') good in the end resounded with me. This always has been the case (Faulkner!), but I feel like recent experiences have allowed me a better understanding of these failings, of these imperfections, of the utter hopelessness of living a life in any pre-conceived manner.

Yet, in the end, I read the book and had a good time doing so, I feel like there is not a lot I will draw out of it though. It didn't touch me the way Quentin Thomas, Holden Caulfield or Lucas Beauchamp did. Maybe there are too many characters, whose characterization remains too flat. Maybe it is a question of pre-identification with a region, an author, a certain kind of character.

Ok, where was this going? Nowhere apparently. Sorry, my last post was confusing enough in his lack of lucidity. Read One Hundred Years of Solitude in any case. It is a good book.

America sucks

So, we had dinner tonight with my Dad's cousin's family. He lived in the US for a while, has travelled - due to his work mostly - extensively abroad, has a decent education and is in general a sensible human being. When we leave, he shakes my hand and tells me: "Give 'em some culture over there in the US, eh?!"

I don't think I will ever know how to deal with this kind of ignorance. I simply don't understand it. The United States of America, home of Faulkner, of Hemingway, of Twain, I could keep on going, home to some of the best literature written since the early 19th century. A country that produced not only the Declaration of Independence, but also the Constitution and a commentary called Publius which is one of the most beautiful examples of democracy in action while at the same time a piece of political science art. A country that has given the world not one but many absolutely stunning music styles - let alone musicians. What would the world be like without Jazz, Blues, Rock 'n' Roll, Hip Hop?

Now, isn't it astonishing, that a society that has produced so many wonders and beauties receives such a bad rep not only in Europe but pretty much all over the world? Can such illogical (because that's what it is if you look at the facts and I dare pretty much anyone to try to argue this with me) hatred and despisal really have been caused by politics (aka Bush) alone? Or was it here before? Did Vietnam, Nixon, and LBJ play a part? Or is it maybe more general the fear of the hegemon which makes one despise or hate him? I cannot answer these questions, I wish I could at least offer up some better hypotheses.

In the it just makes me sad. I have devoted part of my life to studying this culture, this society, this country. I have done so, because it has proven itself to be interesting and captivating over and over again, and continues to do so, all while my knowledge and understanding of it grows (or diminishes with the acknowledgment that it is too big to ever fully understand, whatever you prefer). People that claim the US doesn't have a culture (or similar statements along those lines), just show themselves to be ignorant. They miss out on some of the most amazing pieces of art produced over the last 200 years. I feel sorry for you.

I feel also sorry for you, my dear 5 readers :), because of the abstractness and lack of logic in this text. I had to express this somehow, I had to get it off my chest, but I am not philosophical enough to be able to do a good job of detailing or answering questions as abstract as this one.

Buddenbrooks

Meine Schwester schenkte mir Thomas Manns Buddenbrooks zu meinem Geburtstag, damit ich mehr deutsche Literatur kennenlernen würde. Ich brauchte ein wenig bis ich anfing es zu lesen, besitze einfach noch zu viele ungelesene Bücher, habe es dann aber trotz seiner Länge in weniger als einer Woche gelesen (hauptsächlich wegen der 4 Stunden auf dem Frankfurter Flughafen, die ich zwischen einschlafen und lesen pendelnd verbrachte).

Von Thomas Mann, als einem der Klassiker deutscher Literatur, hatte ich vorher kaum etwas gelesen (nur Der Tod In Venedig eigentlich) und war damals nicht einmal so sehr angetan. Dies war diesmal anders. Ein ganz tolles Buch, grausam in seiner Unabwendlichkeit, aber immer gut zu lesen und fesselnd. Ich hatte ursprünglich mit einem komplizierteren postmodernen Werk gerechnet, wo jeder Satz zweimal gelesen werden muß um nur der Geschichte so halb zu folgen, aber weitgefehlt, Buddenbrooks ist eine - sprachlich - simple Erzählung. Es geht um eine Lübecker (auch wenn der Name der Stadt nie erwähnt wird) großbürgerliche Handelsfamilie, deren langsamer aber stetiger Abstieg über drei Generationen beschrieben wird.

Man leidet also mit den Charakteren, sogleich diese nicht unbedingt immer die sympathischsten sind, aber gerade darin - ihren Fehlern - eben sehr menschlich sind - Tonis Arroganz und Hochnäsigkeit wäre ein Beispiel. Was mich überraschte war die fehlende Gesamtgesellschaftliche Aussage, ich war von amerikanischen Autoren (Faulkner, Kenan, Mailer, Steinbeck, Twain....) gewöhnt, daß diese oftmals durch ihre Romane etwas Zeitgenössisches kritisierten, ihre jeweilige Gesellschaft konterkarierten (Faulkern: The South!, Twain: race relations in Huck Finn). Mann will dies wohl nicht, seine Familie ist nicht wirklich exemplarisch und ihre Fehler sind auch wohl nicht der Grund für ihren Niedergang. Buddenbrooks sind zwar weniger modern als Hageströms (eine aufstrebende Kaufmannsfamilie am Ort), aber das alleine ist nicht der Grund für das auseinanderweisenden Glück dieser Familien. So schwierig es mit fiel, das Buch ist wohl wirklich nur als Buch zu sehen, nicht als Gesellschaftskritik (anscheinend studiere ich wirklich schon zu lange Politikwissenschaft) und als solches ist es einfach gut.

Lest es!

German Jews in the Resistance 1933-1945

I picked this up on a vist to the German Resistance Memorial Center (worth a visit for anyone coming to Berlin btw, free entry, super interesting and huge exhibition). It was slightly dumb to have it in English, because the original was in German, but that's what I happened to pick up, so that's what I read.

Arnold Paucker in German Jews in the Resistance 1933-1945. The Facts and the Problems gives a historigraphy of the role of German Jews in the Resistance, and with that answers charges that the German Jewry like lambs obeyingly slowly walked into doom. I am not such a big fan of historigraphies usually, they are written too dense, they have too many footnotes, because of their breadth they don't provide enough depth, in the end they are not too pleasant to read. The only pleasures you derive out of having gone through one of them, is the overview, the amount of additional information you have obtained. In this case then, the reading itself was not too much fun, but I found it highly interesting how many Jews were fighting against the Nazi Regime in all kinds of ways possible. The Allies employed a lot in their armies, resistance movements all over Europe had Jewish-German brigades, as did most Communist Groups inside of Germany.

The only problem with this kind of leaflet (70 pages) is of course its briefness, most of the stories hinted at would have been highly interesting to explore further. Hopefully, I will have time for that at some point. The general point is clear though, Jews did fight back, quite massively in fact.

Finals

Two final papers today, one is a take-home essay consisting of three parts. Quite honestly, I am not a huge fan of it, if you care about my estimate of what has happened in the US (and through the US outside of it) since 9/11 read it, otherwise don't bother. The other, is a research paper for my Legislative Systems class. Very difficult class (really tough readings every week and a lot of it too), difficult paper, very interesting and fun though. Basically, I try to show that:

• white people don't elect black representatives


• substantively there is virtually no difference in the representation of African-Americans' concerns when they are represented either by blacks or white non-Southern Democrats, all others (Republicans and Southern Democrats) vote significantly less often for black interest legislation


• while not uniform, it can and has to be argued that African-Americans with all their divergences still do form one large interest group to some extent

I really tried with this paper, would have liked more time, but I am kind of proud anyway. Hope my professor will actually notice and reward this.

L'enfant de Noé

Apparament je suis de nouveau fixé sur la deuxième guerre mondiale. Cette fois-ci, un petite livre, même pas 150 pages en fait, sur un garçon juif, qui est caché par un prêtre catholique. Ce garçon, Joseph raconte son histoire d'une perspective parfois naïve, parfois sage, toujours intéressant. Même si l'histoire soi-même n'est pas trop originale, en lisant j'avais toujours l'impression d'avoir regardé un film sur le même sujet, le livre offert un divertissement agréable. Surtout les discussions religieux, qui aurait pu prendre plus de place à mon avis, étaient très intéressant. La citation laquelle j'ai remarqué le plus, et celle-ci est bien en accord avec mon obsession secret du judaisme:

"La religion juive insiste sur le respect, la chrétienne sur l'amour. Or je m'interroge: le respect n'est-il pas plus fondamental que l'amour? Et plus réalisable aussi [...] Selon le grands rabbins, le respect est superieur à l'amour. Il est une obligation continue. Ça me semble possible. Je peux respecter ceux que je n'aime pas ou ceux qui m'indiffèrent. Mais les aimer? D'ailleurs, ai-je autant besoin de les aimer si je les respecte? C'est difficile, l'amour, on ne peut ni le provoquer, ni le contrôler, ni le contraindre à durer."

Churchill

Ich habe als Jugendlicher sehr viele Biographien gelesen, vor allem historische über Tecumseh, Hannibal und ähnliche Helden. Churchill war nicht unbedingt Teil meines heroischen Kanons, der Grund, weswegen ich das Buch las, lag allein beim Autor, Sebastian Haffner. Ich habe nämlich, wenn ich mich recht entsinne, noch kein schlechtes Buch von ihm gelesen, seine historischen Betrachtungen sind zwar zum Teil stark simplifiziert und vor allem wohl zu sehr auf historische Persönlichkeiten als institutionelle, wirtschaftliche oder politische Umstände bezogen. Aber trotzdem, oder gerade deswegen, macht es immer wieder Spaß etwas von ihm zu lesen. Nicht nur, weil seine Argumentation letzten Endes meistens überzeugt.

Winston Churchill also, ich wußte nicht viel über ihn, außer die Schlagwörter Premier Englands im 2. Weltkrieg und abgewählt vor Ende des Krieges, Haffner hat ihn mir näher gebracht. Ich war zum Beispiel geschockt von seinem Alter, mir war nicht klar gewesen, daß er in England im Prinzip seit der Jahrhundertwende einen gewissen Bekanntheitsgrad inne hatte, im 1. Weltkrieg schon Kriegs- und Rüstungsminister gewesen war. Außerdem war mir seine Bedeutung als Journalist und Historiker nicht klar – interessanterweise in diesen Betätigungen dem Porträtierenden ähnelnd. Das Buch war also perfekt geeignet als Kurzbiographie (nicht mal mehr 200 Seiten) und ist unbedingt empfehlenswert.

Schade fand ich nur, daß Haffner viele Dinge anspricht und nur wenige weiterspinnt, wohl hauptsächlich aus Platzgründen. So betont er, daß der Churchill 'der zwanziger Jahre ein Faschist [war], nur seine Nationalität verhinderte, daß er es auch dem Namen nach wurde.' Ich kann mir hierüber natürlich kaum ein Urteil erlauben, hätte es aber für nötig befunden, solche Aussagen ein wenig stärker zu belegen und erklären.
Abschließend läßt sich sagen, daß Churchill wohl der Typ rechter harter Hund war, welchen ich in der heutigen Politik verachten würde (Franz Josef Strauß vielleicht, oder Joe Lieberman). Nun kann man darüber diskutieren, ob Notzeiten wie die Englands 1940 einen solchen Typ geradezu verlangen – die Römer hatten nicht grundlos eine Diktatur auf Zeit in Kriegszeiten – und deswegen ist es eigentlich unmöglich für mich von meiner ursprünglichen Sympathie von Churchill wegzukommen. Auch gerade weil dieser in seiner Jugend einen sehr bravourösen Eindruck macht. Aber dies ist ja auch nicht unbedingt nötig, angesichts der Tatsache, daß Haffners Argument ohne Churchill wäre es möglicherweise zu einem traurigen und desaströsen Frieden Englands und Deutschlands gekommen durchaus Sinn ergibt.

Incompetence

I haven't done a political commentary in a while, but today's New York Times put two ideas in my head that I wanted to put out there:

• I am sorry to say this, just because too many people agree (never a good thing that) without being able to say why (even worse), but George W. Bush really is a moron. Maybe presidents like Ruther B. Hayes or Herbert Hoover were stand-outs in regard to incompetence, but Bush apparently can run with the best of them. The recent NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) compiled by all 16 (Does Germany even have two btw? Does anyone know this? Please help if you do.) American intelligence agencies stated that its 2005 report claiming that Iran was trying to acquire nuclear weapons was wrong and that they now are highly confident that Iran has not had a nuclear weapons program since 2003, when they supposedly caved in to pressure and halted it.
  
  Now, this is a 180 degree turn-around (and quite embarrassing considering the intelligence failure of the Iraq war), so how does the American President respond? Quite simply, he stays course. Obviously, why would you want to change policy in light of a change in intelligence, "what's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program" after all? Please don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that no pressure should be applied on Iran, especially now that it seems to have worked in 2003, but a direct reversal of intelligence estimates should at least provide some incentive to reconsider old positions (like not negotiating directly with Iran) to sensible human beings, shouldn't it?
  
  Leaving the content side of this, Bush also apparently is either a liar or not in charge of his administration. He claims to have been informed of this new estimate LAST WEEK (sorry about the caps, had to let off steam), defending his recent gloomy predictions of World War III coming up soon because of Iran in that way. Now, let's assume for a second he isn't lying about this (That is a sin after all, isn't it? And a religious man like George W. wouldn't want to go to hell would he?), what does this say about the state of his administration? Barring some intelligence agency having stumbled over one piece of information changing everything last week (and that is not how the NY Times describes the change in assessment) this has been a slow process or reevaluating positions and intelligence. Did no one inform the President of this? Did they think it would be a good idea to just let him keep on babbling about World War III, while they were completely (literally completely) reassessing their intelligence estimate? Something is amiss in the state of Denmark. Aaaeh. Washington DC.


• Interestingly enough the second monumental failure award of the day goes out to....al-Qaeda. One of the reasons for the increased security situation - or relative calm which might be more appropriate, the emphasis being on relative - (the other two main ones being the surge (which I supported back in the day btw) and Sadr's militias keeping quiet for now) is the - temporary - coalition between Sunni neighborhood groups and the Americans. This has brought - again, temporarily - the native part of the insurgency to a stand still and has been caused by what? By al-Qaeda's stupidity. Through their indiscriminate bombings and murder of Iraqi civilians they have seemingly alienated the local Sunni population enough to get them to side with an occupying force against whom they were fighting only a few months ago. Good job guys (not that that is not good news, I guess we should be happy that the bad guys have as many morons making strategic decisions as the 'good' ones).

Aimez-vous Brahms...

Un cadeau de mes parents pour mon anniversaire, je n'avais jamais entendu parler de Françoise Sagan avant de lire ce bouquin. Je l'ai lu dans une version avec des vocabulaires en bas. Ça a été très utile, je suis loin de comprendre tous de mots dans un livre français et je déteste lire en ayant un dictionnaire à côté.
Le livre raconte l'histoire d'une femme ni jeune ni vieille qui vit tristement à côté d'un copain qui la trompe regulièrement. Elle rencontre un jeune garçon qui tombe amoureux d'elle et soudain elle a la choix entre les deux. Je n'aime pas trop les histoires d'amour normalement, je suis un mec typique enfin apparemment. Mais j'ai trouvé ce livre très intéressent, peut-être parce que je pouvais m'identifier dans une façon triste (pour moi) avec son copain. Ses pensées (de la femme), ses raisons de prendre une décision enfin étaient très banales, tristes peut-être ou décevants, mais très humains.
Si vous ne connaissez pas Sagan, je peux vous recommander de lire quelque chose d'elle.

A Visitation of Spirits

I found out about Randall Kenan through a party that I went to - surprise, surprise, one can actually learn things at these places every once in a while. One of the people I was talking to told me she had written an article about him for the UNC literary magazine, that he taught at UNC and that people compared him to Faulkner. Naturally I was intrigued and had to check him. So I got a novel of his from the library - A Visitation of Spirits - and plowed through it (well, I wasn't that fast, mainly because I had too much university readings).

The first thing I have to point, quite unsurprising really, he ain't no Faulkner (but then who is). I guess every decent Southern writer will at some point in his life be compared to Faulkner and he is comparable in the sense that he also is describing a South that is slipping away into modernity (for better or worse). Yet, he is his own writer, quite different from Faulkner's abstract writing, he is more concrete, more precise, less ambiguous, his characters are less representative of the South in general. But, he is a good writer and I thoroughly enjoyed his book.

The novel deals with two characters mainly, one who grown up to become a priest in his small home-town and the first black principal of the local integrated high school, the other an overachieving student who has a hard time adjusting to his life, to growing up, to becoming an adult. So, forget about the Faulkner comparison, but if you want to read a North Carolinian author, writing about North Carolina, get one of his novels.

What I found particularly interesting about this author was the position some of his (black) characters displayed towards the white inhabitants of their small town. For someone like me who was to some extent shocked by the separation of black and white that still exists here (and that I had forgotten about since high school), a black point of view that condones self-segregation was very interesting.

Globalizing Capital

Barry Eichengreen's Globalizing Capital - A History of the International Monetary System was part of the readings for a class I have. For various reasons I never had the book when we were supposed to have to do the readings. So I borrowed and read it over my Thanksgiving break even when I wasn't sure whether the whole book or only parts of it had been assigned. Some people might wonder why now, but in my last college days, for reasons I cannot quite fathom yet, I have become increasingly interested in macroeconomic developments and the international economic arena in general.

Eichengreen in his book gives an overview of the history of the international monetary system (admittedly relatively unsurprising considering the subtitle of the book) from the 1870s onwards. He sketches the path to the gold standard, its predominance until 1914, the futile interwar attempts of reestablishing it and the ensuing instability, the Bretton Woods System, the following floating exchange rates, and finally attempts at monetary unification. Published in 1996, the one glaring omission of this book is EMU. Also, one of today's most pressing financial issues, the build-up of dollar reserves in developing countries, specifically China, is not included. But even if the inclusion of these more recent developments would have been appreciated, Eichengreen obviously cannot be faulted for them as he had finished writing his book before these points really arose. Furthermore, the book is highly interesting in any case.

I don't want to write a lengthy review of this book because of two reasons. Firstly, to give the author justice one would have to be very detailed in a critique of his book, as his argument is very detailed and exhaustive in regard to the amount of information provided. Secondly, I simply am not sure whether I am truly capable of criticizing an economic author like him yet. I started getting into economical issues late in my studies, a year ago really, and I cannot say that I have developed enough of a grasp as of yet to really have strong personal opinions on topics as abstract as this one.

Yet, having said that, it seems to me that Eichengreen's main argument is that there are two reasons why the gold standard could not be successfully implemented again after the First World War. The strict adherence to the gold standard, which was necessary to prevent speculative attacks on currencies, resulted in countries sacrificing growth and employment figures (through deflation) for stable exchange rates. This was possible mainly because the segments of society mainly hit by unemployment and this decrease in growth were politically irrelevant, they could not vote. With universal suffrage becoming a reality in most of Western Europe it became impossible for governments and central banks to pursue this kind of policy. Thus, another measure was used to keep exchange rates in check, capital controls. This made speculative attacks more difficult even if it never eradicated them permanently. Furthermore, these controls became less and less efficient and an ever increasing global flow of capital made the adherence of fixed exchange rates more and more difficult leading to the current system of most major currencies floating freely against one another.

If Eichengreen uses stylized facts in his book, I just super-stylized those. I thought I should at least try to offer a concise (hopefully) and short (definitely) summary of his book though. I really enjoyed reading it and I will almost assuredly try to find out more about this subject.

The White Man's Burden

William Easterly's The White Man's Burden – Why The West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good in some regard is a response to Jeffrey Sachs' The End Of Poverty. I had to choose one of them for an in-class assignment, but I felt that in order to get the full picture I should read both.

As so often with judgement calls it is hard to decide who is right and who is wrong, even when Easterly so clearly and openly disagrees with Sachs and it seems inherently necessary to choose a side. Just as a reminder, Sachs claims that an increase in financial aid will allow countries to escape the poverty trap in which they currently are stuck (this is obviously a very simplified and condensed version of his argument). Easterly on the other hand is of the opinion that no general blueprint provides a solution for a disparate group of poor countries. Instead of so-called planners trying to solve all problems at once – something that according to Sachs would be necessary, as partial solutions would not suffice for countries to escape the aforementioned poverty trap – he wants more searchers, knowledgeable locals who offer creative (or simple) solutions for small and specific problems. These searchers would allow market principles, trial and error, to create development, instead of relying on inefficient international institutions and aid agencies or corrupt local governments.

Easterly strongly criticizes Sachs for his belief in broad national plans that provide the big push needed for poor countries to start developing. Easterly is of the opinion that this does not work, because of bad governance and inefficient aid agencies whose activities are not evaluated by anyone but themselves. What he does not take into account is that Sachs actually agrees with him here to some extent. Sachs' national plans require a stable government only limitedly corrupt in order to have any chance of success. While he himself does not point this out, it is thus clear that failed states or highly instable countries are incapable of taking part in his plan to end extreme poverty by 2025. Furthermore, Easterly does not refute the poverty trap, assuming that this trap exists for certain countries his method of market forces combined with aid would not be sufficient for truly sustainable growth.

Finally, I believe that Easterly and Sachs are not as incompatible as they seem to think. Easterly admits himself that the current levels of financial aid are low per capita even if not in absolute numbers. They accordingly agree on a required increase in aid. Sachs' approach could be used for a strictly limited number of countries, those inherently limited by their geographic and medical conditions, while Easterly's approach of independent evaluation and more customer-orientated aid could be used for the rest. This especially, as his approach would restrict national governments misuse of financial aid through the dispersal of money of a local project level.

Easterly's book, while a very worthy read, especially after Sachs' glowing optimism, has to be faulted in that it is clearly written by an economist. His arguments are good, his examples as well, his writing style is not. Basically, what he does in large parts of the book is recount examples of what worked or did not. These examples and statistics individually might be very interesting – and are to a large extent – assure that the book never develops any kind of flow. It does thus not offer a very fast or pleasant reading, even when it provides for a very interesting argument.

Lord Jim

I very much enjoyed reading Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness so when I saw Lord Jim lying around in some bookstore, I picked it up. Of course it took me about a year to actually read it, but I finally did. Again I really enjoyed it too. Conrad tells the story of a young man who fails miserably at the first test of strength in his life, and then spends his remaining years fleeing from civilization and into heroics in order to salvage what dignity he is left with.

While some of the imagery in regard to honor for example is very old-fashioned, and the portrayal of non-white people is simply distasteful, the general moral dilemma is a powerful one and Conrad does a very good job at detailing it.

Read it.

The End of Poverty

I had to write a book review for a class of this book. Here it is: Jeffrey D. Sachs - The End of Poverty. Economic Possibilities for Our Time.

Greasing the Wheels

I can only repeat that it is amazing how much they make you read in class here. Especially my PhD class, which apparently has even more readings than most classes on that level, is extreme in this regard. But I love it, it forces one to do a lot, to learn a lot and while legislative politics is a topic I never would have thought to ever read so much about, I find it challenging and rewarding.

The newest entry in my list of books then is Diana Evans' Greasing the Wheels - Using Pork Barrel Projects To Build Majority Coalitions in Congress. People in class yesterday ripped it apart for its empirical data (or lack thereof). Quite honestly, I do not know enough about quantitative political science to properly judge the analytical methods that Americans rely on so much - I find German political scientists to be a lot more theoretical and accordingly less empirical - but having said that I have to agree that the data Evans provides is not really convincing. Not only are her results only partially supportive of her theory though, some of the statistics seem pointless in light of her argument, and furthermore her main example is questionable - as it could be argued that the Transportation Acts themselves are pork barrel projects and not general interest legislation.

What Evans is arguing, is that pork barrel projects are used to buy together winning conditions for general interest policy. Thus if a leader (whether it be a committee or subcommittee chairman or the speaker or the president) has a pet project which he wants to pass, he buys off those representatives who 'sit on the fence' - meaning they are undecided whether to oppose or support a given piece of legislation. This works a lot better in the House than in Senate, mainly because Senators represent far bigger areas and thus are a lot more expensive to buy, as for any given project to have an impact in their states it needs to be a lot bigger and more expensive.

Her argument works best when she is analyzing NAFTA and the way Clinton greased its passage in the House. Buying two military planes for 1.4 billion in this district, protecting sugar and citrus in Florida in order to ensure some more ayes, according to various estimates between 30 and 77 votes on this bill were bought.

Evans claims that pork barrel projects undeservedly have such a bad image. They help pass general interest legislation at a relatively low price - while high in absolute numbers, as a percentage of the federal budget pork barrel projects represent no more than 1% of all government spending. In my opinion she is partly right about this too, the problem is that greasing the wheels easily gets out of hand. When representatives realize that votes are bought, they will wait to receive something for their vote even if they support the project and would have voted for it in any case. Thus, in a first vote, vote-buying can be accomplished relatively efficient in order to ensure a needed majority. Every vote after that though will make projects spiral out of control. Evans does a good job of showing this on the 1991 Tranportation Act as opposed to the earlier 1987 one.

One last restriction, it seems questionable how widely applicable this model is. The NAFTA example shows that votes can be bought and that it is successfully practiced at times, yet restraints on representatives including their beliefs and earlier policy-demands make it doubtful how regularly vote-buying actually occurs and whether votes really come as a cheap as a new highway bridge somewhere in Wyoming.