Zugspitze

I am going on a trip on the first of May to the highest mountain in Germany. Here is a picture of it:

Electronik Supersonik

Not much news to report.

Chris has a new favorite video that I think you should all enjoy. It really gives an insight into the psyche that is Chris. Get ready for your cosmic blast off.

Fun Facts to Know and Tell à la J., et al.

Well, I found this article that I recently read very interesting. It certainly puts in question many of the environmental concepts that we have been fed. Of course, the obvious question that it brings up is: if driving a Hummer is better than driving a Prius, how much better is riding on public transportation when possible and just selling your car completely? So, if you are like me and eat a T-bone steak about once every couple of months, have no car and walk to work, shouldn't you get some kind of reward (tax break) for helping the environment? The idea here in Germany is not about tax breaks, though, it is about taxing cars and the gas they run on. To have a car is extremely expensive and just about no one really needs one because of the extremely efficient public transportation. But, the highways are still jam-packed with them. Oh, what to do…

Fuzzy Climate Math

By George F. Will
Washington Post, Thursday, April 12, 2007; Page A27

In a campaign without peacetime precedent, the media-entertainment-environmental complex is warning about global warming. Never, other than during the two world wars, has there been such a concerted effort by opinion-forming institutions to indoctrinate Americans, 83 percent of whom now call global warming a "serious problem." Indoctrination is supposed to be a predicate for action commensurate with professions of seriousness.

For example, Democrats could demand that the president send the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate so they can embrace it. In 1997, the Senate voted 95 to 0 in opposition to any agreement that would, like the protocol, require significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in America and some other developed nations but that would involve no "specific scheduled commitments" for 129 "developing" countries, including the second-, fourth-, 10th-, 11th-, 13th- and 15th-largest economies (China, India, Brazil, South Korea, Mexico and Indonesia). Forty-two of the senators serving in 1997 are gone. Let's find out if the new senators disagree with the 1997 vote. Do they also disagree with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist"? He says: Compliance with Kyoto would reduce global warming by an amount too small to measure. But the cost of compliance just to the United States would be higher than the cost of providing the entire world with clean drinking water and sanitation, which would prevent 2 million deaths (from diseases such as infant diarrhea) a year and prevent half a billion people from becoming seriously ill each year.

Nature designed us as carnivores, but what does nature know about nature? Meat has been designated a menace. Among the 51 exhortations in Time magazine's " Global Warming Survival Guide" (April 9), No. 22 says a BMW is less responsible than a Big Mac for "climate change," that conveniently imprecise name for our peril. This is because the world meat industry produces 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, more than transportation produces. Nitrous oxide in manure (warming effect: 296 times greater than that of carbon) and methane from animal flatulence (23 times greater) mean that "a 16-oz. T-bone is like a Hummer on a plate."

Ben & Jerry's ice cream might be even more sinister: A gallon of it requires electricity-guzzling refrigeration and four gallons of milk produced by cows that simultaneously produce eight gallons of manure and flatulence with eight gallons of methane. The cows do this while consuming lots of grain and hay, which are cultivated by using tractor fuel, chemical fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides, and transported by fuel-consuming trains and trucks.

Newsweek says most food travels at least 1,200 miles to get to Americans' plates, so buying local food will save fuel. Do not order halibut in Omaha.

Speaking of Hummers, perhaps it is environmentally responsible to buy one and squash a Prius with it. The Prius hybrid is, of course, fuel-efficient. There are, however, environmental costs to mining and smelting (in Canada) 1,000 tons a year of zinc for the battery-powered second motor, and the shipping of the zinc 10,000 miles -- trailing a cloud of carbon dioxide -- to Wales for refining and then to China for turning it into the component that is then sent to a battery factory in Japan.
Opinions differ as to whether acid rain from the Canadian mining and smelting operation is killing vegetation that once absorbed carbon dioxide. But a report from CNW Marketing Research ("Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles from Concept to Disposal") concludes that in "dollars per lifetime mile," a Prius (expected life: 109,000 miles) costs $3.25, compared with $1.95 for a Hummer H3 (expected life: 207,000 miles).

The CNW report states that a hybrid makes economic and environmental sense for a purchaser living in the Los Angeles basin, where fuel costs are high and smog is worrisome. But environmental costs of the hybrid are exported from the basin.
We are urged to "think globally and act locally," as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has done with proposals to reduce California's carbon dioxide emissions 25 percent by 2020. If California improbably achieves this, at a cost not yet computed, it will have reduced global greenhouse gas emissions 0.3 percent. The question is: Suppose the costs over a decade of trying to achieve a local goal are significant. And suppose the positive impact on the globe's temperature is insignificant -- and much less than, say, the negative impact of one year's increase in the number of vehicles in one country (e.g., India). If so, are people who recommend such things thinking globally but not clearly?

Bell Voix

I'll bet most of you don't know this story. I don't really tell it that often, probably because it makes me look, in the end, human (greatly diminishing my "sitting on an ivory tower" kind of mentality.)

When I was 18, I was an exchange student in Brussels, Belgium. I went to the Royal Conservatory of Music there and studied with a very famous Bass named Jules Bastin. I hob-knobbed with some pretty amazing people and spent most of my time with my fellow classmates, all of whom were over 30. I was originally supposed to study in a high school there, but hearing my singing, the higher ups in the Rotary Club that were sponsoring me arranged a hearing with a local conductor. He then arranged for me to be heard by the late Jules Bastin.

I was just some back-woods kid, and didn't know the importance of all that was happening. I sang for an opera star that day, "La donna è mobile", at 18. He told the Rotary Members, who came and picked me up in their black suits and Mercedes, whisking me off to my audition for him, that my talent was one which would be a shame to waste and that I should audition for the Royal Conservatory where I could study with him on a weekly basis. (It's about now that you're wondering what about this story paints me in an off-color light. Ha ha) I auditioned, not knowing, perhaps luckily, how difficult the audition cycle would be.

(I remember being ushered into a huge hall full of people, all of them seated, fearfully looking at the 9-foot grand on the stage. You could have cut the tension in the room with a butter knife. The eyes suddenly focusing on me as I entered. You know, it was one of those situations where you enter a small side door and are suddenly before a giant crowd, all of whom looked as though they had to claw their way in just to get their seat, let alone the audition in general. You can hear them laughing with scorn at the obvious late-comer, 'Good luck finding a seat, chump, let alone passing this test.' I stumbled to find a seat, not even aware, really, of what I was doing there. I had only been in Belgium about a month by that time. I asked someone in a horribly broken French what exactly this audition was all about. I quickly surmised that it was an aural exam--that someone was going to come in, play a few things on the piano, and that we were supposed to notate, musically what he had played. Huh? I was supposed to write down what he had played? At this point, I had studied no music theory at all, had taken lots of piano lessons and some voice lessons. This was beyond my abilities, plain and simple. I had to beg someone for a piece of staff paper, as I had only come equipped with a pencil. The fear had infected me to my very core by the time the professor approached the keys. I still have a hard time believing that I really passed that exam. I just know there was some Rotarian behind the scenes, exchanging money.)

So, here I was, a country boy spending a year abroad, studying at some hoity-toity institution with some famous star that I had never heard of. Already inclined to thinking highly of myself, I was on cloud nine, and I don't think that anyone could have knocked that chip off my shoulder. But, being young, and poor, I was always running out of money. My parents would occasionally send me a little and I received an allowance from the Rotary, but Brussels is expensive, what can I say…and I was bad with money through much of my youth, it is true.

The end of the year came rather quickly, and it was practically time to go home; I had no money. (There is an amazing story about me going to see a friend in far-away Germany near the end of my stay and not having enough money for the kind of train I was on. The conductor was going to throw me off at the next stop until a couple of old, German ladies sitting in my cabin took pity on my and paid him the extra fee so that I could stay on the train. I didn't have ANY money at all with me. I had just gotten on a train, filled out my Eurail pass and went. Those were the days of "adventure" and living by the seat of my pants. I will never forget those old ladies and how much their generosity meant. God always has had a way of sending his angels in at just the right moment in my life.) At any rate, back in Brussels, I had about a week before my year would come to an end and I didn't have a single gift for anyone in my family and no means to get any. So, I went to the city center, put out a hat and started singing songs and arias that I had learned at the Conservatory.

This story comes up because Joshua Bell, the famous virtuosos violinist, recently participated in an experiment. He played in the NY subway for an hour, and practically no one even noticed him. He only made $32 playing some of the most difficult music of his repertory. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html?hpid=topnews) My story about Brussels came into my mind, because, in that week before I left, I ended up making a killing. I would come home every day and count the money that I had made, amazed (and thinking, 'now why didn't I do this the whole year long…') I made enough money that week to get my whole family gifts from Belgium, even having enough to buy my mother a doily of hand-made Belgian lace which now hangs, framed, in my parent's home.

I know that I did not play a Stradivarius and am in no way as talented as Joshua Bell, but I am certain that I made at least the 1991 equivalent of $32 a day in Brussels, which makes me somehow strangely proud of myself. No, I am not proud that I had to stand on the street and sing for money because I was so poor. But I am proud that I did not think too highly of myself to do what I had to in order to do what I thought was right.

Iran, but from whom?

Yesterday, the Washington Post posed a very interesting question:

The seizure of 15 British sailors raises the question: Who's running Iran and how should we deal with them?

Here is my response:

I agree with one of the previous, anonymous posts: Iran is a Democracy. That means that Iran is run by its own people in the form of the officials they elect. How would an American feel if someone were to say that GW Bush is running America? Really, he is not running the country; he is sharing that power with two other branches of government. The problem is that we know so little, in general, about Iran and its political system because we are fed an overly simplistic view of how the Iranian government functions. (I understand this phenomenon because I am an American living in Germany and what the Germans actually understand about our government is also very over-simplified.)

From what I have read of the posts up to this point, I don't think that anyone really knows the answer to this complex question of "who's running Iran". It reminds me of life immediately after 9/11. Afghanistan? Where is that? Why do they hate us? The Taliban? Never heard of it. What was amazing, though, is how people became very quickly educated on this far-away, previously unknown land because of the attacks.

Now that potential conflict is before us, we should take it upon ourselves to become educated about the inner workings of the government of Iran. The lack of clear response to the question here is a perfect example of how little we know.

Isn't there some educated person out there who could give us a quick rundown of the basics of Iranian politics in a non-biased way?

You gots to read this crazy ass shit!

Ain't Nobody Telling Me What My Baby Allergic To

So yesterday some bitch nurse at the clinic was wasting my time trying to tell me my baby Liondrae all allergic to penicillin or some shit. I...

Wolf Man on Orange Organ, Variations on a Theme

I woke up this morning wishing, more than anything else, that I could roll over and hold my baby in my arms. But, Chris gets up for work before six, and this perhaps over-indulgent opera singer doesn't get up before 8. And I mean never.

It is something that I thought would never happen to me. Every passing day brings me closer to Chris. With every day my love for him grows. I told him just a few weeks ago that I had never even imagined that I could love someone as much as I love him. I guess that makes it even more special--that even my imagination could not encompass what this is.

This longing to cuddle and having seen "Born Into Brothels" last night have reminded me of how extremely blessed I am. I declare today a day of being thankful. If you can read this, you are probably doing so from your own computer in your own computer room in your own home with maybe even your own yard, gently sipping on a Latte or imported tea. Something tells me you are blessed, too. Just thought I would remind you. We shouldn't completely forget this fact in spite of the inner machinations of our complicated lives.

On a much lighter note, I came across this funny video of Chris during the winter months. It sort of speaks for itself, but for those of you who may read this and not know me personally, you may think that Chris is a bit "weird". Don't be afraid. I like him that way.

Who knew that pink ties would really be in?

Dudelsäcke

You know why bagpipers always march when they're playing? They're trying to get away from the sound.

Europe, Thy Name is Cowardice

The editorial reproduced below, entitled "Europe, Thy Name Is Cowardice," was written by Mathias Döpfner, CEO of the large German publishing firm Axel Springer, and published in the German periodical Die Welt on 20 November 2004. My father recently sent it to me in a mass forward which brags that it checks out with Snopes.com. I extracted a better translation of the article and include it here. I included the article in its entirety as a courtesy. You can either read the full, unadulterated article and then refer to the article with my comments, or simply read the second article with the comments inserted. Normally, I would make my comments using footnotes to refer to certain passages. Because that is not ideal for the internet, I will make my comments using brackets like these: [ comments here ].

"A few days ago, Henryk M. Broder wrote in the Welt am Sonntag, "Europe — thy name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so painfully true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and Gentiles their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated far too long before realizing that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements. Appeasement stabilized the Communist Soviet Union and the former East Germany, those parts of Eastern Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideological alternative.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and we debated and debated and were still debating when the Americans finally came in and did our work for us. Rather than protecting the only democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," relativizes the fundamentalist Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel. Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to condone the 300,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery in Iraq and condemn the actions of George Bush in the self-righteousness of the peace movement. And in the end it is also appeasement at its most grotesque when Germany reacts to the escalating violence of Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere by proposing a national Muslim holiday.

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership realize that there is a form of crusade underway, an especially perfidious one of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims targeting civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies. This is a conflict that will likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century, waged by an adversary who cannot be tamed by tolerance and accommodation but is instead spurred on by such gestures, mistaking them as signs of weakness.

Two recent American presidents had the courage needed for staunch anti- appeasement: Reagan and Bush. Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, and Bush — supported only by the persuasive Social Democrat politician Tony Blair — recognized the danger in the Islamic war against democracy. His place in history will need to be evaluated a number of years down the road.

In the meantime, Europe snuggles into its multicultural niche instead of defending the values of a liberal society with charismatic certitude and acting as a positive center of power in a delicate balance between the true global powers, America and China. We instead present ourselves as the world champions of tolerance against the intolerants, which even Otto Schily [Germany's former Federal Minister of the Interior] justifiably criticizes. And why, actually? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic.

For his policies, Bush risks the devaluation of the dollar, huge amounts of added national debt, and a massive and lasting strain on the American economy — because everything is at stake.

Yet while America's so allegedly materialistic robber baron capitalists know their priorities, we timidly defend the benefice of our social affluence. Just stay out of it; it could get expensive. We'd rather discuss our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage or listen to televangelists preach about the need to "Reach out to murderers." These days, it sometimes seems that Europe is like a little old lady who cups her shaking hands around her last pieces of jewelry as a thief breaks in right next door. Europe, thy name is Cowardice."

Now the same article with my comments:

"A few days ago, Henryk M. Broder wrote in the Welt am Sonntag, "Europe — thy name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so painfully true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and Gentiles their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated far too long before realizing that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements. [Trying to pretend that Saddam Hussein had the ability to gain enough power to someday conquer a good portion of the world and to someday drive his tanks down the Champs Elysée is ridiculous, and I think we all know it.] Appeasement stabilized the Communist Soviet Union and the former East Germany, those parts of Eastern Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideological alternative.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and we debated and debated and were still debating when the Americans finally came in and did our work for us. [This is utter bullshit. The war in Kosovo was a NATO-led conflict. Whereas it is true that the Europeans' forces were weaker and less skilled by far than the Americans and that the Europeans could not have won the conflict without the help of the Americans, it was not like the Europeans did nothing. The American troops were sent to fight under the NATO flag by their Commander-In-Chief Bill Clinton! Funny, he is not mentioned later in the article as one of the great American presidents.] Rather than protecting the only democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," relativizes the fundamentalist Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel. Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to condone the 300,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery in Iraq and condemn the actions of George Bush in the self-righteousness of the peace movement. And in the end it is also appeasement at its most grotesque when Germany reacts to the escalating violence of Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere by proposing a national Muslim Holiday. [Now might be a good time to mention that the word "appeasement" has at its core the word "peace". I urge you to read the political history of this word: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement] What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership realize that there is a form of crusade [the use of this word practically negates the entire article, indicating that this person is some kind of religious zealot, more than willing to sacrifice our men an women, sure that it is the will of God that we wipe out Islam.] underway, an especially perfidious one of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims targeting civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies. [I am not sure that suicide bombers have such high-falutin' notions as a war against "our free, open Western societies."] This is a conflict that will likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century, waged by an adversary who cannot be tamed by tolerance and accommodation but is instead spurred on by such gestures, mistaking them as signs of weakness. [Actually the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James Baker found that the Iraq War has not only not helped terrorism but may have made it worse. So, whom is being spurred on by what?]

Two recent American presidents had the courage needed for staunch anti-Appeasement: Reagan and Bush. Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War [Reagan was present at the collapse of the Cold War, but it was the systematic isolation of the East Bloc, and their own mismanagement that eventually forced the entire system to collapse. Reagan didn't really do anything to achieve that. If we have anyone to really thank for the end of the Cold War, it is Mikhael Gorbachev with his ideals of Perestroika and Glasnost.], and Bush — supported only by the persuasive Social Democrat politician Tony Blair — recognized the danger in the Islamic war against democracy. His place in History will need to be evaluated a number of years down the road. [Oh, it will, believe me, it will.]

In the meantime, Europe snuggles into its multicultural niche instead of defending the values of a liberal society [the fact that he uses the word "liberal" must really chap the asses of those people who are heralding this article as "truth."] with charismatic certitude and acting as a positive center of power in a delicate balance between the true global powers, America and China. We instead present ourselves as the world champions of tolerance against the intolerants, which even Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. And why, actually? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic. [Is this person actually trying to pretend that a typical European is more materialistic than an American? This is fucking laughable. Ok, to review for all of those that don't know it: no one in Europe goes without healthcare; no one in Europe lives on the streets because they are too poor for housing. Americans don't want to have these things because that would mean they would have to pay more in taxes. Put more simply, Americans are more selfish than Europeans. This means that Europeans are materialistic? No.]

For his policies, Bush risks the devaluation of the dollar, huge amounts of added national debt, and a massive and lasting strain on the American economy — because everything is at stake. [Uh, not to mention the 3,246 soldiers who have, to date, died! Let's not forget the actual lives that have been lost in this fiasco. Bush, by the way, seems to be doing this all on his own at this point. The majority of Americans believe that the war was a mistake:

In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?

Yes, a mistake 56%
No, not a mistake 41%
No opinion 2%
(Jul. 2006)

Source: Gallup / USA Today
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,005 American adults, conducted from Jul. 21 to Jul. 23, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent.]

Yet while America's so allegedly materialistic robber baron capitalists know their priorities, we timidly defend the benefice of our social affluence. Just stay out of it; it could get expensive. [It could cost lives.] We'd rather discuss our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage or listen to televangelists preach about the need to "Reach out to murderers." [I have been in Germany since 2003 and, to date, have never seen a televangelist on TV. I have no idea what this guy is talking about.] These days, it sometimes seems that Europe is like a little old lady who cups her shaking hands around her last pieces of jewelry as a thief breaks in right next door. Europe, thy name is Cowardice." [This article should be renamed "Europe, thy name is Pragmatism". In my opinion, Europe has done the right thing. Saddam should have been contained and forgotten about. But, now countless numbers have died and will continue to die because, according to this author, Bush had the moral gumption to do what was right. Hmmm. Do I need to remind everyone that the war began because Bush lied, trying to tell America and the world that Iraq was a threat because of its weapons of mass destruction? Now, conservatives are doing what they hate most, writing history from a revisionist slant, as they try to convince us that the Iraq War is morally right because we needed to free those Iraqis from their murderous suppressor. Do you have any idea how many murderous suppressors there are in this world? We cannot go after them all. The US has long criticized Europe's philosophical view that nations such as Iraq have the responsibility of freeing themselves from within, much in the same manner that America did in the 18th century. I used to disagree with this notion, believing that it would be better to give everyone freedom as quickly as possible. But, isn't it obvious by now that the Iraqis are simply not ready for it. Their whole society has not the developed infrastructures and way of thinking that would even allow it. That is yet another factor which makes the "Iraq situation" an impossible one.

America and Americans can try to sit on the high ground of moral superiority as long as they like. The facts remain so, at least at the present, that I am less in danger of a terrorist attack sitting here in Germany than I would be if I were sitting somewhere in the US. To assume that American security is not in any way the fault of bad US foreign diplomacy is a kind of denial that is bound to bring about even more problems in the future. Why can't people, even conservatives, just admit that Iraq was a huge mistake? Let's learn from that mistake for a better future.]