The Incomprehensible

One of my first thoughts on the latest school killing in Germany was slightly cynical: How long will it take that "Killerspiele" (First person shooters are condemned sweepingly (German) as "killer games" in Germany.) are indicated - once again - as a reason for the killing? It took only one day.

Hardly anybody will actually say these games are a reason but simply the fact that only one day after the shooting the police discloses (German) they found Counter-Strike on the killer's computer and the repeated claim for bans of those games reveal the reasoning. Why is that?

Putting the numbers in context: In the U.S. in 2005 it had 16,692 homicides, 11,346 by guns. That means statistically 46 people were murdered every day, 31 by guns. The deadliest school shooting (Virginia Tech massacre) took the life of 33 people. And how many people die in "family tragedies" (German euphemism (German) for homicides within the family, usually with suicide of the perpetrator) every year as just recently (both German)?

But nothing causes as much sensation - and claim for actions - as the school killings. Is it the sheer number of victims? I think it is rather the impossibility to comprehend the incomprehensible, the idea of somebody causing as much damage as possible before committing suicide, the question how nobody could have noticed the gunman's psychological strain. A murder with robbery happens out of greed, a family killing out of jealousy or despair, they are "explainable" - a school killing, in both its extent and randomization of victims, can not be explained with a single reason though, if at all.

But then why do people look for simple solutions? Is it the only thing to hold on to? Some examples:

• The ban on (German) "killer games" is a classic. First person shooters are usually approved for people of age 16 in Germany if they are diluted (e.g. no showing of blood). Otherwise they must be only sold to adults. Minister of Family Affairs proposed test purchases to control shops stick to the law. One chain completely stopped selling of games with 18-plus ratings.


• Controls in rifle clubs are rather new. It's only that 1.5 million people are organized in the parent organization Deutscher Schützenbund. Should everyone provide a psychological assessment?


• Chancellor Angela Merkel even thought out loud about unannounced controls for weapon owners. Without any concrete reasons how is that consistent with the Grundgesetz (German constitution, basic law), not talking about sheer practicability?


• A more reasonable idea is the separate storage of weapons and ammunition (the quote from Handelsblatt), others propose a limit on the number of weapons (German), even more unlikely is the total prohibition of keeping weapons at home (Where should they be kept?).

One of the saddest proposals is the one for swipe cards, metal detectors and security guards (see the quote from Die Welt) at schools. This will turn schools into prisons:

[Schools] shouldn't be turned into bunkers, and they can't be turned into fortresses without their ability to teach suffering. After the murders in Winnenden, it's understandable that people would start discussing things like swipecards and metal detectors. But there is no such thing as absolute security, and every added bit of preventative technology brings with it the danger of making people feel even more vulnerable. If you go into one of the schools in the United States that has been outfitted to become a high-security facility, you feel anything but safe and secure. Instead, you feel completely lost at sea.

All the proposals have some things in common: The effectiveness is at least questionable. Germany has already one of the tightest weapons law in Europe if not the world. Similar the regulations on video games or films. And then there is always the black market to get either video games or weapons and ammunition.

And second all the proposals only address symptoms, not the causes. No video game (World Of Bullshit, German) has ever caused a school shooting. The membership in rifle clubs might actually provide acceptance though I would argue if anybody needs to learn how to shoot except for security services as police or military.

But what about the perpetrator, not Tim K. in particular but in general. What about personal responsibility of people associated with such killers? What about parents allowing their children to play the games (or not knowing it)? In analogy to the proposals above why does nobody think about testing parents whether they qualify for raising children? What about teachers, classmates, coaches, friends? What about the selective German school system? Will psychological counselors help to find precarious "candidates"?

These questions shall illustrate the complexity of the problem where easy solutions just don't work - and question the mentioned proposals even stronger. The bottom line is: We are living in a free society. There is and will never be 100 percent security. As hard as it might be to accept, especially because of their senselessness: School shootings are rare. Giving up freedoms for questionable means can't be the solution. Neither can just going on - but that's exactly what simple solutions tend to. It's in everybody's responsibility to take care. Sounds naive? Maybe it is but the government simply can't help and is not supposed to help. If society does not change on its own accord we just have to live - with the incomprehensible.

Let Market Fix It!

Last week I saw the documentary Let's Make Money in cinema. Despite some awkward conspiracy theory tendencies it shows some really interesting examples of globalization gone wrong. One of it is cotton production in Burkina Faso, one of the poorest countries in the world. Not long ago I also posted about an approach to help German farmers called "Ein Herz für Erzeuger" or in English "A Heart for Producers" which I consider totally wrong.

Now how are the two stories linked with each other? It's as easy as that: Due to globalized markets paying huge subsidies to European and American farmers does not only distort the local markets but has effects on the markets in the whole world. And just as with the milk seas the cotton subsidies lead to over-production and an extremely low price for cotton. According to the film's website the US spend $3 to 4 billions on cotton subsidies (German) per year. This costs Burkina Faso around $150 millions per year while they get only a fourth of it as development aid - from the US, EU and Japan together! (The EU isn't better of course: Cotton in Spain is subsidized with $1 billion per year as well.)

This means the most severe problems in the developing countries (or emerging markets as they are called now as one episode in the film shows) could be fixed just by opening markets in the EU and the US - without any additional payments in form of development aid. Surprisingly, this is capitalism in pure form, simply following the maxim of market fixing itself. I understand this doesn't make it easier to pursue in the EU but what about the US!? Next time somebody complains about Big Government (in both the EU or the US) I suggest to get rid off agricultural subsidies. But wait, it might just be the same people complaining about Big Government and getting elected by farmers...

PS: Some amounts I converted from Euro to US Dollar at current rate of 1 Euro = 1.30 US Dollar.

PPS: The film also has an episode on Cross Border Leasings (German) I wrote about recently as well.

Good News for People Who Love Bad News

If you haven't lived hermetically the last year you couldn't have missed it: There is a crisis going on. Hardly anybody doubts it is worse than anything else since WWII. I was impressed though that the same experts that hadn't seen the crisis coming wanted to tell us how bad it's going to be. Starting in October, when the crisis was still a financial crisis, not yet an economical one in Germany (Germany's unemployment rate was the lowest in 16 years) following predictions have been made for the economical growth/ downturn in Germany:

15.10.2008, German government: 0.2 percent.
03.11.2008, EU commission: 0.0 percent.
06.11.2008, IWF: -0.8 percent.
25.11.2008, OECD: -0.9 percent.
05.12.2008, German federal bank: -0.8 percent.
05.12.2008, Deutsche Bank: -4 percent.
10.12.2008, RWI: -2 percent.
11.12.2008, IFO: -2.2 percent.
22.12.2008, IfW: - 2.7 percent.
19.01.2009, EU commission: -2.3 percent.
21.01.2009, German government: -2.25 percent.
28.01.2009, IWF: -2.5 percent.
23.02.2009, Deutsche Bank: -5 percent.

It is like a competition on who makes the worst prediction. I seriously wonder whom are all the bad news supposed to help. Or to say it with German comedian Dieter Nuhr:

Wenn man keine Ahnung hat, einfach mal Fresse halten.

(More polite translation: If you don't have a clue, shut up!)

But there have actually been some good news like unexpected increases in certain indexes based on people's expectations for the future. It's just that the economic institutes don't seem to trust their own surveys. And a report about Germany's export growth in 2008 reads: Export growth is lowest in 5 years! That's how a good news (growth!) is turned into a bad news. And I've always been thinking economy is so much about psychological effects. So shouldn't we interpret every ray of hope as a positive sign rather than turning it down!? I would really like to know if this is a special German mentality issue or if there is the same phenomenon in other parts of the world as well.

Business Opportunity

Today I want to tell you a short story. Imagine I have a car. It doesn't matter if it is an old one, a fast or a cool one. I have a car. Now there is another person taking a look at my car. Following dialogue gets started:
He: "You have a nice car! Can I lease it from you?"
Me: "But then I don't have a car anymore."
He: "That's not a problem. I will lease it out to you immediately."
Ring! Ring! Ring! Alarm! Sounds suspicious.
Me: "What's the point of it!?"
He: "Wait, it's even better. I will you pay you money for this business!"
Ring! Ring! Ring! (Was that an alarm ring or the money sign in my eyes?)
He: "Yes! We are investors, the leasing rates are our investment and so they are tax deductible. We will just give you part of the tax reduction in advance."

Now replace me with German municipalities, the other person with American investors and the car with municipal facilities and services like incineration or sewage plants and you get so-called Cross Border Leasings (German). The article says around 150 contracts have been concluded over 30 to 80 billion Euros.

On the second ring I (smart-ass me, not the supposed me from above) would have asked pathetically if this isn't fraud - if not legally (obviously there was a loophole) then morally. A court in Cleveland, Ohio ruled in one case (Case No. 1:07-CV-857) last year that the tax saving has to be paid back by the investor - at least.

But now the German municipalities are left behind with these financial constructs and the problems they cause. They were backed by the now infamous Collateralized Debt Obligations which are nothing worth anymore (if they were ever) - and the German municipalities have to take all the risks and pay for possible losses.

This is economical growth simply based on the flow of money. Even better, the money wasn't actually flowing except for the initial payment. The investors borrowed the money from the same bank the German municipality had to pay the leasing rate to. And the investors did not have access to the money but it was used to pay their leasing rates. So it was simply moving money from one account to another, fictitious transactions which I consider fraud at the expense of American and German taxpayers.

One final point to add: The article only points finger at the German politicians for taking such high risks rather than questioning the approach because of the moral issues. Since moral obviously doesn't pay off and you can't charge somebody for irresponsibility politicians should finally be liable for their actions in office. They would think more than twice about such high-risk transactions.

Disclaimer: If I have oversimplified the case and there is economical sense in such a transaction I would really like to hear it. Feel free to contact me!

A Heart for Producers

Last week I had to try hard to keep from laughing. I was shopping for grocery and saw a new campaign: Ein Herz für Erzeuger (A Heart for Producers). The idea: Rather than spending 49 cents on a liter of milk you pay 59 cents and the additional 10 cents go completely to the farmer. This is ridiculous in many ways!

In Germany there is both a charity campaign Ein Herz für Kinder (A Heart for Children) for needy children and a magazine Ein Herz für Tiere (A Heart for Animals respectively Pets). And now needy farmers? So first it's simply a ridiculous name from a marketing perspective - or am I the only one who thinks first of a donation account when hearing this campaign name?

Second, why should I pay more for the same product? For my good nature or my conscience? I'm sorry, but this is the same milk from the same intensive livestock farming where cattle is fed with the same antibiotics! Isn't it understandable I don't feel sympathy for this kind of farming? If I want to have a better product for which I'm willing to pay more I'll get organic milk.

Third, I'm not denying that many farmers, especially small businesses, have major problems with the low milk price and their costs. But the problem is far more complex (German) - and needs painful consequences. For years the market for milk was totally regulated (just like every other agricultural product in the EU) by setting quota how much a farm can produce. This led to the infamous so-called milk seas or butter hills - products produced beyond the market's needs, bought with huge subsidies by the EU and destroyed or fed to livestock.

Now the quota system is going to be removed - and the market will fix the distortions caused by the regulations: The price will likely drop due to the oversupply. Some farms might switch to the production of organic food which gives them higher income per unit (a liter of organic milk costs 89 cents). But there will definitely be individual fates, especially small farms, that will have to shut due to reduced income. But it is not possible to work against the market or it will cost an enormous amount of money. It makes more sense economically to spent the money otherwise despite the costs for social benefits or other support for the victims of this change. Only one thing is sure: The 10 cents can't prevent that change. If at all it will extend the agony.

Top 10 Albums 2008

2008, the year of Chinese Democracy is over. Unfortunately, neither the one nor the other worked out. I don't even want to append as expected because I can hardly imagine anybody was actually expecting anything. And all the hope for 2008 was already used up.

Anyways, in 2008 I bought again around 40 CDs, most of them within the last days of my trip to Philadelphia because CDs are so much cheaper in the US than in Germany - and that's not only due to the Euro exchange rate. So I only influenced the US Amazon 2008 charts, but not the German one. Maybe that's why not even one of my personal Top 10 made it into the latter :-)

And what does it tell you about the year 2008 in music (or the people buying music) if the first 3 places are taken by albums from 2006 and 2007? I found some great CDs though and here it is, my personal Top 10:

1. The Walkmen - You & Me


2. Gus Black - Today Is Not The Day...


3. Rainald Grebe - 1968


4. MGMT - Oracular Spectacular


5. Kings Of Leon - Only By The Night


6. Fleet Foxes - Fleet Foxes


7. Sun Kil Moon - April


8. Vampire Weekend - Vampire Weekend


9. The Mountain Goats - Heretic Pride


10. Randy Newman - Harps And Angels

Most surprisingly there is a German album on the list. I can't remember when the last one was even close to that. But '1968' by Rainald Grebe is so amazingly sarcastic - I'm still laughing whenever I listen to it. As a sample his performance in German satirical TV show Neues aus der Anstalt: Der Präsident.

Most of the other 12 songs are even better, but this one fits Germany's Presidential elections this year. Since the president doesn't have actual power in Germany (that's also what the song is about) the parliamentary elections at the end of September are more interesting. Though German democracy isn't actually endangered let's see what uses up our hopes this year :-)

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Reading an article about Angela Merkel reminded me of finishing my classification of politicians which I have in my drawer since quite some time: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Don't ask me why but somehow this movie title came to my mind. More serious it's the programmatic, the ideologist and the opportunist. Of course this classification isn't scientific at all, I just made it up during last year's US election campaign.

Let's start with the ideologist, the obvious example is George W. Bush. His 2 terms can be characterized by the ideology of the everlasting fight of Good vs. Evil. Unfortunately, for pursuing his goal of spreading democracy especially in the Middle East to "build a safer world" he regarded every means as justified - including those I consider to be preserved for the Evil:

Those methods, including the use of stress positions and forced nudity, continued to spread through the military detention system, and their use “damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority.”

Not talking about all the problems that got out of focus, ignored and grew into crises on their own. Even looking back Bush shows hardly any sign of regret (and even less does Vice President Dick Cheney). I consider that very typical for people blinded by ideology.

The second characterization is opportunist. There is no ideology he blindly sticks to, but the lack of leadership and predictability is also the problem in these times of crisis - just as with German Chancellor Angela Merkel:

She put together a rescue package for banks that so far hasn't had much effect. She has come up with an economic stimulus package that may not be enough. She hasn't made a single major speech. There is no sign of a claim to leadership, whether in Germany, Europe or the world.

Former Vice Chancellor and Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer of the Green Party describes her style in an interview as follows:

Until now, if opinion polls are anything to judge by, this approach has served her well. She always takes positions that allow her to maintain a majority. However, in this global crisis, that is simply the wrong attitude. What is needed now is strategic, large-scale planning -- in the European spirit.

A more recent article is even more excoriating:

A major crisis actually presents an opportunity for a chancellor. Everyone is at a loss, everyone is plagued by uncertainty, and virtually everyone is waiting for someone to take charge. And what has Merkel done? She has joined those who are waiting. She has become the leader of the waiting game. [..] What counts for her is that she has a result. It doesn't matter what it is. It is typical of a chancellorship that searches for harmony but lacks leadership.

Of course her behavior could be interpreted simply as cautious - if she just wouldn't change her opinion too often. Not long ago environment was an important topic for the former Minister of Environment:

Chancellor Angela Merkel has gone out of her way to show herself as a climate saviour. In August 2007, she had herself photographed on a block of ice in Greenland in order to draw attention to the consequences of climate change. Just a short time before she helped to negotiate a global climate "roadmap" at the G-8 summit in Germany.

Now that's no longer valid since it might cost jobs? This argument sounds very familiar, just like the failed strategy of the US economy, in particular car industry. If only many experts would not see green technologies as a chance to create thousands of jobs. In my opinion she endangers Germany's leading position in environmental technologies and so jobs in the long run.

Or the economic crisis:

The chancellor seemed unsure of herself when it came to preventing the impending collapse of the banking system. [..] First she touted an international solution before eventually bowing to pressure from German banks and agreeing to a coordinated European approach. [..] Merkel also flip flopped when it came to the political consequences of the economic downturn. At first, her office announced that she and Steinbrück had agreed to bring forward a plan to make health insurance premiums tax-deductible. But then she dropped the plan when it came in for sharp criticism.

Sure, she is still by far preferable to French Omni-President Nicolas Sarkozy with his aimless actions for the sake of acting. But I'd like to know what she is actually up to.

Somewhere in the middle is the programmatic, with a general plan laying out the base for the politics, an idea, but not blindly sticking to it like an ideology. The means are chosen as the cases arise but according to the greater plan. For being successful this needs good judgment and a strong team of experts - and a strong leader for this team.

My hope is that the new US President Barack Obama will fulfill this role. So far he has laid out the general guideline in his speeches: being a president for all US Americans, no matter what descent, what religion, what region or walk of life. The speech in Berlin showed that he doesn't intend to limit the guideline to the US, but also apply them internationally.

He has also chosen his team of experts for which he received praise from left and right (actually more from right since the lefts are kind of disappointed he didn't choose more radical candidates). He now has to prove his judgment and his leadership of this alleged team of rivals.

As little scientific my classification is as blurred are the borders between the groups. Bush was forced by the "circumstances" aka economic crisis to give up the neoconservative ideology and rather spend a whole lot of money to bail out banks - which just underlines his failure even more. A weak leader will switch from his program to opinion polls as guideline of his politics just when leadership and guidance is needed the most. (That is what I think actually happened with Angela Merkel.)

The last 2 months were a lame duck season not only in the US but also in Germany if not Europe. Everybody seemed to wait for the inauguration of Barack Obama. Now Obama made an impressive start. Let's see how it is going to work out.

Update: There is a new article on Angela Merkel's failure:

[..] A chancellor without a compass, a head of government without authority and a party leader who lacks the support of her own people.

The Speeches to the White House

Last Tuesday, on November 4, 2008 Barack Hussein Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States. His way to the White House has been marked by great speeches. I want to start with the keynote address at the Democratic Convention on July 27, 2004 in Boston. It was the first time he and his central message became known to a broader audience beyond the borders of Illinois (not to me though):

There is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America — there's the United States of America.

At the end of 2004 Obama didn't feel ready for running for president in 2008. Within the next 2 years he had changed his mind no longer ruling out to run:

When the election is over and my book tour is done, I will think about how I can be most useful to the country and how I can reconcile that with being a good dad and a good husband. I haven't completely decided or unraveled that puzzle yet.

It was the time when the media recognized his qualifications but questioned his experience to be ready in 2008. But there was no question he was going to play a bigger role in American politics in the future. At the end of October in 2006 the Time had a cover story on "why Barack Obama could be the next President". And the German author Florian Gathmann wrote recently in retrospect (German) to his 2-months scholarship in the summer of 2006 at the Chicago Tribune that there was no way around Obama:

In den folgenden zwei Monaten, die ich in Chicago bei der "Tribune" verbringe, ist an Barack Obama kein Vorbeikommen mehr.

His article "Der Gesegnete" (German, "The Blessed") was released on October 27, 2006 in German newspaper Thüringer Allgemeine, refering to Obama's first name Barack meaning "blessed" in Swahili. On February 10, 2007 Obama finally announced his candidacy giving the guideline for his politics:

That is our purpose here today. That is why I'm in this race. Not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation. I want to win that next battle — for justice and opportunity. I want to win that next battle — for better schools, and better jobs, and better health care for all. I want us to take up the unfinished business of perfecting our union, and building a better America.

It's this style of patriotism - loving the country, but looking for ways to perfect it, not ideologically! - that's so atypical for a politician and that impresses me the most.

But on July 7, 2007, when I flew to the US to work for one year in Philadelphia, I still had not heard of Obama at all. It must have been at some point within the next 3 months that I got to know him since I remember being all for Obama already at the Democratic debate at Drexel University in Philadelphia on October 30, 2007.

Eventually, on January 3, 2008 the primary season started - when Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was still expected to wrap up the nomination of the Democratic party on Super Tuesday (February 5, 2008). But she had a false start with losing Iowa to Obama - and no plan for beyond Super Tuesday.

Obama had it's own struggles with the unwelcome race issue bubbling up incarnated by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for 20 years. He could rebut the cliche of the "angry black man" by giving a speech on race in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008. He analyzed that "black anger" and "white resentments" result from historical discrimination and social injustice (and the perception of it) nowadays - and that they have to be taken seriously. But it takes more than talking about the symptoms to fix one single cause. The idea must be to overcome race:

It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper. [..]

This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. [..]

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the emergency room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care. [..]

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job. [..]

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag.

Again the central points are 1. perfecting the 2. one America.

At the end Obama secured the nomination as Democratic candidate for the presidential election with the last primaries on June 3, 2008. In the evening he gave his nomination speech in St. Paul with the main focus on reuniting the party after the tough fight with Hillary Clinton. His opponent on the Republican ticket was Senator John McCain who secured his candidacy 3 months before on March 4, 2008.

On a campaign tour around the world Obama introduced himself to international leaders in the Middle East and Europe. The highlight on this tour was for sure his speech on July 24th, 2008 in Berlin to 200,000 people around the Victory Column in Berlin - and the millions in front of the TV screens in the US. Here he put his message with profound references to history not only of Berlin into a global context:

The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down. [..]

In this century - in this city of all cities - we must reject the Cold War mind-set of the past, and resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must, and to seek a partnership that extends across this entire continent.

Unfortunately, it was only two weeks later when so many called for the next Cold War when the conflict for South Ossetia between Russia and Georgia broke out - and called Obama's inexperience to people's mind and his comfortable lead in the polls started to shrink. But while many Western politicians including McCain ("Today, we are all Georgians!") were very fast to blame the Russians while the the sequence of events wasn't actually that clear.

Another three weeks later, on August 28, 2008 Obama accepted the nomination at the Democratic Convention in Denver after choosing Joe Biden as his running mate for Vice President. With the general election entering the critical stage his speech was much more aggressive, but still he did not divide the country but only separated himself clearly from John McCain:

The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America - they have served the United States of America.

The next day McCain presented Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate for Vice President. In my opinion he chose her to appeal to both disappointed Democratic voters of Hillary Clinton in the primaries and to the conservative Republican base. The surprising choice seemed to work out for McCain by electrifying the Republican base. He even took the lead in CNN's national polls of polls in early and mid September.

It was not before Palin gave two disastrous interviews and especially the economic crisis became acute that Obama gained ground again. McCain was criticized for his crisis management, not having a consistent campaign. He couldn't untie himself from the Bush government, which was hold responsible for the economic crisis, despite his reputation as maverick. As last argument he tried to denounce Obama as friend of a terrorist (because of his alleged connection to Bill Ayers) and socialist (because of his tax plan) while Obama could simply keep a steady hand: In his 30-minutes infomercial six days before the election Obama presented his program without even mentioning Bush or McCain. Simply everything played into Obama's cards. On November 4, 2008, after a nearly flawless campaign of more than 20 months, Senator Barack Hussein Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States and gave his victory speech later in the evening in Chicago.

So what do I expect from the President Obama? Not less than "changing the world"! That doesn't mean he is supposed to fix all problems the US face at the moment or even the world. He will have a hard time to solve only part of them within the next 4 years: tumbling economy, 2 wars, crumbling infrastructure, cracked image in the world, inefficient social security systems and imbalances in the constitutional powers. But I expect him to introduce another tone in US politics, to reach across the aisle not only in the US but also work together with the partners in a multilateral world.

I might be naive but I'm positive this will allow Obama to address the problems. If some of them can't be solved in his first term and not even in a possible second term it still might pave the way for the future. The world isn't just black and white as it was seen in the last 8 years. Obama often showed in the debates or his speeches that he is willing to see gray shades - and hopefully this change leads the world into a bright future :)

Cause and Effect

Just 2 weeks ago I wrote about the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus arguing that allowing students to carry weapons on campuses would make them safer places. Obviously I don't agree with it, but think that's rather ridiculous. Now in the face of everyday incidents the British government started an advertising campaign supporting my point of view:

If you carry a knife, you are more likely to get stabbed yourself.

The question is if this statement can stand deeper investigation, especially in terms of cause and effect. I expect at least the statistical correlation to be verifiable. I would not be surprised though if the actual correlation is between the crime rate of the districts those people live in and the chance of getting stabbed (which is a quite logical conclusion since stabbing is a crime on its own). And those people just carry knives with them to feel safer.

The campaign wants to make 2 points directly supporting their view though: The chance your knife is being used against you: A knife that you don't carry with you can obviously not be used against you. And (not only out of this) the only imaginary safety, similar to what I asked 2 weeks ago ("How do they think this is going to work out?"):

When someone is attacked by a knife they normally find out AFTER they have been stabbed.

Whatever cause and effect are, the point is made - and I highly support it. Imagine only few people don't carry a knife anymore. The next time they argue they can't pull their knives immediately. They stay with words - or fists which are at least not as harmful as knives. Now just imagine what this means for the US and guns!

If you are not too sensitive watch the videos like the imaginary knife wounds lecture.

Some people just don't get it!

I would have thought students are just more intelligent but it seems that's not compelling reasoning. Have you heard of the SCCC, the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus? This organization is not affiliated with the NRA, but has the same ridiculous mindset: Guns for everyone will make this world a safer place. Actually I wrong them because they don't want guns for everyone but only

those individuals--age twenty-one and above, in most states--who possess valid concealed handgun licenses/concealed carry weapons permits to be afforded the same right to carry on college campuses that they are currently afforded virtually everywhere else.

But that's not the point. The question is how more guns should make this happen. I mean how do they think this is going to work out? The person running amok is presenting himself and everybody got a free shot? I would rather fear that in such a situation full of panic self-proclaimed wannabe heroes just shoot wildly around and cause even more casualties. Ever heard of friendly fire? More than one fifth of the deaths in the Operation Desert Storm has been killed by friendly fire - and we are talking about professional soldiers here, in a "controlled" operation (as far as it is possible). Not hobby shooters with people running around panicking.

Also what do you think is going to happen when everybody is allowed to carry a weapon? Isn't it likely that the potential gunman will just take more powerful weapons, e.g. full-automatic ones or grenades? Just think about it, we are talking about people that want to cause as much damage and casualties as possible. There own life usually doesn't matter to them anymore. Another example, what happens in case of somebody taking hostages? Do you want to have uncontrollable people around trying to free the hostages and endangering their lifes?

The believe in weapons is naive to say it mildly. It's just hard to scare somebody who wants to sacrifice his life. That's why George W. Bush's War on Terror had to fail and that's why the idea of the SCCC or the NRA can't work - neither on campuses nor on the streets. Maybe it's just a problem of too many guns on the streets. Maybe somebody should just start thinking about the actual problems in the (American) society. But that would require intelligent people which I would have hoped you can find easily on universities.