Where the Red Fern Grows (Wilson Rawls)

Some things withstand the test of time better than others.  When I was a boy, I recalled loving Where the Red Fern Grows.  That was 25 years ago, though, and many things I enjoyed at the time (like the A-team,  He-man, etc.) seem rather dated (and cheesy) now.  I decided to read the book again as part of my American reading list- and I enjoyed it every bit as much as I did as a child.

Where the Red Fern Grows is the story of a boy named Billy (who lives in the Ozarks of eastern Oklahoma) and his two coon-hunting hounds, Old Dan and Little Ann.  The story follows Billy as he begs his parents feverishly for the animals, saves for years to buy them himself (when it becomes clear his parents' can't afford it), walks 20 miles one-way to pick them up, trains them diligently in the ways of the hunt, and delights in their love and abilities.  That's the story at a high level (avoiding spoilers), but there's another element here that makes this story top-notch.

What appealed to me 25 years ago- and still does- are the overall themes of the story.  They are as follows:
1) The joys of childhood in a simpler age. 
The story is told by an old Billy, whose chance encounter with a lost dog makes him recall his own hunting dogs decades prior.  From that point, Billy writes the story as he remembered it as a young boy- and I loved that.  You see the hopes, joys, fears, and love a young poor country boy experiences in his life in the mountains.  He doesn't want affluence, comfort, or 'stuff'- he just wants dogs.  I was touched (and ashamed) at what life has become for so many of us in modern society- a life of unsatisfiable materialistic ambition.  We get little/no joy out of the little things.  Not so, Billy- his dogs and the surrounding countryside are his joys, and he delights in them.    
2) Perseverance.  
Billy works for years to save enough for those dogs, then walks for miles to get then, then works for years to train them.  The dogs, in turn, 'repay' Billy by become the best- and most enduring- coon hunters the region has seen. 
3) Love.
Billy loves his dogs- and his dogs love him (and each other).  They're in it together, all the time.  They provide, protect, and sacrifice for each other.  It's touching and soul-rending.

After reading this, I'm so tempted to buy a dog (or two) for my son, because a boy needs a dog, and a dog needs a boy.

Rating: A+

The UK vs. Germany

I lived in the UK for three years, and Germany for four.  Thus, I am aware of and extremely opinionated about life in each country, and happy to tell you how they rank relative to each other.  Below, I do just that, based on categories, being careful neither to "think too hard" nor research anything to back my claims.

History
The UK has existed in its present form for much longer than Germany.  The former's history is interesting due largely to the amount of violence, deceit, and general horror that occurred at various times in their past.  The latter is noted mostly for being the primary antagonist during two world wars.  Interestingly, if it weren't for the USA, the UK and Germany might be one country right now.
Advantage: UK

Travel
Being geographically isolated, the UK encourages its residents to get off-island by making it extremely difficult to move around on-island.  The 2-lane roads are, on average, 1.8 lanes wide (0.9 when vehicles line the streets) and 1500 years old.  To encourage vehicle damage, these narrow lanes are often lined with stone walls and feature extremely circuitous paths dotted with blind corners and summits.  Also, you have to drive on the left, or "communist," side of the road, which presents further difficulty. 

German roads, on the other hand, are made for facilitating blitzkrieg efficient travel.  The autobahns have many unlimited speed zone areas, meaning you can get anywhere fast.  The Germans observe strict lane discipline- violations are considered more severe than manslaughter.  Their location in Europe means many countries are within a few-hour drive.  Also, the Germans have the good sense to drive on the right, like everyone else.
Advantage: Germany

Weather
Do I need to elaborate?  The weather in the UK is legendary for oscillating between 'annoying' and 'dreadful,' with the occasional 'tolerable' thrown in for good measure.  In Germany, it's a tad better, and noticeably more sunny- though their lack of air conditioning makes a few weeks every summer extremely uncomfortable.
Advantage: Germany

Housing
UK homes are filled with all sorts of "charm," by which we mean "mold and questionable plumbing."  Also, the average Brit doesn't seem to care about the state of his/her place, with disrepair and indifference the typical condition of and approach to home maintenance, respectively.

German homes are stark and sound.  It may not be pretty- but it will be functional.  Germany has the advantage that most of its communities were blown away updated in the 1940s, so they had an easier time modernizing.  The main downside to German housing is obtaining the digging permit required before you can put a shovel to your lawn- necessary due to the unexploded ordnance that still dots the countryside (seriously).
Advantage: Germany

Medicine
UK medicine is totally socialized and state-run.  The National Health Service, or NHS, is very good at both treating emergencies and not treating other things until they become emergencies.  It's "free," which means it's easy to go to the doctor, who will probably tell you to wait a few weeks and see if it's worse.  The first line doctors (GPs) don't always have much training/experience- one time, as I was describing my symptoms, I watched the GP typing them into google (not joking).

Germany is a bit more similar to America.  Everyone has insurance- if you don't get it through your employer, you have to buy a state plan.  German doctors don't prescribe medicines as frequently as the doctors in the States- the general mantra is "let the body fight it off first, then get medicine if you're weak necessary."  If something's wrong (or not wrong), the Germans don't beat around the bush.  I once had shortness of breath and went to the doctor about it.  He measured my lung capacity and said "you big baby- you're capacity's higher than average.  You're fine; get out."  They're quite direct, those Germans, but I did trust them.
Advantage: Germany

Food
English food isn't as bad as the stereotypes say- the Brits have a few nice dishes, most of which have comical names (like "bubble and squeak," "bangers and mash," or "neeps and tatties").  Still, they tend towards bland- for flavor on-island, you have to seek Thai or Indian.

German food is good for those desiring early heart attacks various pig products served in ginormous portions.  Also known for their beer (served by the liter), apple strudel, and bread, you won't go hungry in Deutschland.  They also happen to serve fantastic Italian and Turkish food.
Advantage: Germany

Family
The British are quite family-friendly.  Family size seemed to average 2-3 kids.  Impressively, the locals seemed to enjoy interacting with my children, even when they (the children) were screeching, destroying priceless historical artifacts, and throwing blunt objects at endangered species.

For years, the ethnic German population has been in decline; people have 0-1 kids.  Germans prefer dogs, which are easier to train, please, and raise.  Dogs in Germany are extremely disciplined; several have obtained commercial pilot licenses.  Kids in Germany aren't seen in public until they can behave- so anyone under 25 is required by law to remain indoors.
Advantage: UK

People
Brits are friendly, prone to drunkenness, kind, possibly insane, technically incompetent, focused on the past, and fun to be around.  If I had to summarize the British in one word, it would be "polite."

Germans are direct, show little emotion, technically competent, on time, heavy drinkers, focused on the future, serious, and rigid (structured).  If I had to summarize the Germans in one word, it would be "disciplined."

Choosing which is better is hard.  If you had to personify them, the UK is that favorite distant family member with many quirks who may be insane but enormously fun; you'd hang out with them but not want them to fix your car.  The German is that extremely serious, knowledgeable professor in college you'd trust implicitly but wouldn't choose to hang out with.
Advantage: tie

Culture
Culture is a broad term; by it I mean things like movies, literature, music, social life, and the like.  The UK has an impressive list of notable authors, musicians, and other cultural icons in its corner; the Germans have next to nothing (quick: name a German author not named 'Goethe') outside of composers from centuries ago. 

Advantage: UK

Language
The UK technically speaks English, though you wouldn't know it by their spelling, accent, and pronounciation.  Trust me; Americans may not be able to understand them.  Germany, of course, speaks German, and is apparently taxed for every space they use in sentences; thus, they just mash all their words together and throw a few verbs at the end for fun.  On the plus side, almost every German speaks nearly flawless English.
Advantage: UK 

Overall

I like them both in their own way, and delight in their differences.  The above list may indicate I prefer Germany overall- honestly, I'm not sure.  German society has a structure, competence, and discipline to it that I love; the Brits have the element of fun, politeness and culture which is equally appealing.  As an American, I fit in more with the British, in that I could (sort of) understand (some of) them, but I also prefer the discipline of the Germans.  In the end, I'm extremely blessed to have experienced them both.

X-men: Days of Future Past

Time for another X-men movie.  I recently posted (here) about X-men: First Class, the 2011 origin tale (and reboot of sorts) of the X-men franchise.  The latest offering, out now in theaters and subject of today's post, is Days of Future Past.

Days of Future Past takes place in two time periods concurrently: the present, and 1973.  In the present, mutant-killing robots called Sentinels (with the ability to adapt to destroy mutants of differing powers) have nearly wiped out mutant-kind and turned on some humans.  In a last-gasp effort to destroy these robots, the mutants send Wolverine's consciousness back in time* to 1973, when the assassination of Boliver Trask (the scientist responsible for creating the Sentinel schematic) by a mutant enraged the public and hastened development of the very robots responsible for destruction in the present (in fact, they captured the assassin and used that specific mutant's abilities to make the sentinels unstoppable).  Wolverine's mission is simple: gather the mutants of 1973 (the cast of First Class) and prevent the one from assassinating Trask.  If they can do so, they may get public feeling on their side as well as prevent the mutant from falling into enemy hands. The former would cancel the Sentinel program before it starts; the latter would prevent them from becoming indestructible.  He has to be quick about it- in the present, the Sentinels are closing in on the last remaining group of mutants (the cast from the first three X-men movies).  Can they succeed in time?  I dare not spoil it for you!

Most time-travel movies are complicated, and this one is no different.  They deal with the complexities well, however, and this is an enjoyable film.  There's action, suspense, and humor, not to mention tons of first-rate actors.  The effects are better this time around, too (compared to First Class).  They tie together many previous X-men movies- in fact, to get maximum enjoyment out of this, you have to be familiar with 3-4 movies: X-men, X2, The Last Stand, and First Class.  So if you haven't seen them, watch them now.  Or before you go see this- which you should.

Rating: A-

*the mutant Kitty Pryde's ability is to send one specific person's consciousness back in time to his/her younger self.  She has to maintain a link with that person for them to remain in the past; that's why they couldn't all go.

Knowing Scripture (R.C. Sproul)

In Knowing Scripture, accomplished Christian pastor R.C. Sproul discusses personal Bible study and provides some tools/guidelines for correct and systematic Scripture study/evaluation.  At the highest level, his main topics are:
1) the importance/necessity of personal Bible study (to include private interpretation as a valuable addition to knowledge received by teachers)
2) elements of hermeneutics (the science of interpretation)
3) practical rules for Biblical interpretation (and tools for Bible study)
4) culture and the Bible (looking at universal principles vs. culture-specific customs presented in the text)


This book is pretty good.  I've been a Christian for years- and read the Bible more than once- and Sproul did introduce some thoughts that would have aided my study (which I'll remember for next time around).  He can use some heady theological words, but he defines them well and does a good job in general explaining things in a way laymen can understand.  I think new Christians, especially, would benefit from reading this.

Rating: A-

X-men: First Class

With the latest X-men movie (Days of Future Past) out in theaters now, today I look back at the first X-men 'reboot'- First Class.  But first, a bit of backstory.

The X-men is a series of Marvel comics focused on a team of mutants (evolved humans, each with a unique and powerful ability).  Rejected by some humans, embraced by others, the mutants are either fighting to be accepted into society or fighting to rule it.  The 'good' group are called X-men; the bad, the Brotherhood.  The former are led by Professor X, a wheelchair-bound telepath who started an Academy for 'Gifted Youngsters'- a refuge where mutants can learn and develop their abilities without exposing them to the outside world.  The latter are led by Magneto, who can act as a magnet to control any magnetic object.
Professor X believes mutants and humans can and must coexist peacefully, helping each other to better society.  Magneto believes mutants are superior and must crush or be crushed by humanity.  Some humans help Magneto's cause by targeting mutants for extinction.  Thus, many X-men movies focus on the overall struggle of mutant vs. human.

There have been several X-men movies released to date.  From 2000-2006, the first three X-men movies were released, which introduced us to the main mutants on each side and their overall struggle to fit in (or dominate).  The most popular mutant, Wolverine, has had two spin-off movies (2009 and 2013).  And finally, in 2011, we were given X-men: First Class, which is today's review.

First Class is a prequel- it shows the team before they were a team, and answers questions like how they formed, how they harnessed their powers, and how Professor X and Magneto became the leaders of rival factions.  At the beginning of First Class, though, the Professor and Magneto are allies, and they (with other mutants) are helping the CIA struggle for the upper hand at the height of the Cold War (1960s) against the Russians.  Sebastian Shaw, a mutant who is manipulating military leaders on both sides of the struggle in an attempt to trigger nuclear war, is the primary antagonist, aided by a small group of other bad mutants.  The good X-men prepare for a showdown against Shaw & company off the coast of Cuba, with navies from both countries set to obliterate each other.  Can they avert nuclear war?  What do you think?

First Class was extremely well-reviewed after the widely-panned X-men 3 and Wolverine movies.  I enjoyed it overall, and liked seeing how it all began.  It wasn't as action-oriented as the prior offerings, which was fine by me.  On the downside, it felt long at times, and I was surprised how comparatively poor the CG effects were- that's almost unforgivable in this age.  In the end, I'd check this one out, especially if you plan to see Days of Future Past.

Rating: B

Godzilla

Until yesterday, I had never seen a Godzilla movie in my life.  I wish that were still true. 
The newest Godzilla just came out in theaters, and it's not worth your time.  Find out why below.

Godzilla tells the story of three monsters (mild spoilers follow).  Fifteen years ago, a scientist is killed in a reactor leak as her (also-scientist) husband helplessly looks on.  The area is locked down, and the husband becomes obsessed with determining the cause of the anomaly that caused the leak.  He eventually determines that it was a natural cause- and seeks to find the source.  Fast forward to the present.  The same anomalies happen again, and eventually they discover two "mutos" (ancient weird-looking giant monster bug creatures) have awoken and are putting out mating calls to each other across the Pacific.  These monsters feed on radiation- which is what drew one to the reactor years prior.  As they gravitate towards each other, another ancient awakes to hunt them: Godzilla.  As you'd expect, absolute havoc follows as they all duke it out in (where else) a major population center: San Francisco.

This movie, regrettably, was bad on many levels.  The overall story was weak, and clearly just filler to get to the scenes where giant monsters fight.  I don't expect realism in a movie like this, but I do expect plot consistency/logic and some degree of believable character reactions to the situation at hand; I didn't see either.  The only good thing I can say is that the monsters seemed unconcerned with people, and cared only for fighting each other, which was unusual (and cool).  That aside, skip this one.

Rating: D

American History: A Very Short Introduction (Paul Boyer)

As I get into my American reading list, I wanted to tackle a few overview (or 'survey') histories.  Everyone has a preference, and I like to start with the big picture and then focus on areas of particular interest.  That said, I began my survey with American History: A Very Short Introduction by Paul Boyer.  True to its name, the book races through centuries of recorded American history (from the 1400s to present) in only 138 pages.

The book is pretty good.  I hadn't read survey-style American history for 15 years, so I while I didn't learn much new, I was reminded of a great many things, which was the point.  It's difficult to achieve both brevity and depth, so I can't criticize for being too general- that's the point of a very short introduction.  Boyer mentions as many major events and personalities as he can in such a small space.  The one thing I will say- and this, fascinatingly, seems to be a challenge in many American history books- is that Boyer's bias does come through in places.  He does a good job overall of being neutral, but his preference for liberals and the liberal agenda does come out in areas.  That aside, this is a good, quick read for those who want to brush up on the basics.

Rating: B

Rip Van Winkle & The Legend of Sleepy Hollow (Washington Irving)

On my newly-created American reading list are the two most famous short stories by Washington Irving: Rip Van Winkle and The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.  Both extremely fast reads, they are summarized below.


Rip Van Winkle
A hen-pecked husband takes a nap in the woods, only to wake up finding 20 years have elapsed.  He finds his daughter and lives with her.  Not much to this one- either in content or point.
Rating: C

The Legend of Sleepy Hollow
Wiry schoolmaster Ichabod Crane is competing for the lovely Katrina Van Tassel's hand with local stud and mischief-maker Brom Bones. The latter is believed to have played a central role in the former's disappearance, when it becomes apparent that Ichabod's vanishing is due to a believed manifestation of the legendary headless horseman.
Rating: B

Irving wrote over 60 short stories in the early 1800s, so reading only two is hardly representative.  Still, it became clear that his writings focused on Dutch-settle regions of New York, the Hudson river, and the natural surrounds.  His prose is quite good, even if some stories (like Rip Van Winkle) don't appear to have much point.

The Amazing Spider-man 2

Back in 2012, the Spider-man movie franchise was re-booted with an entirely new cast and tone.  I enjoyed the first movie in the new series- and thanks to (apparent) memory-loss problems, I reviewed it twice (here and here).  In theaters now is part 2- how did it measure up?

In The Amazing Spider-man 2, we see Spidey conflicted.  At the end of the first movie, he promises Gwen Stacey's father (the police chief who passes away) that he'll stay away from Gwen, for her own protection.  But, he loves her, and the feeling is mutual, so in Spidey 2, they're together.  Then they break up, because he feels bad/wants to shield her . . . then they're together . . . then they're apart . . . etc.  With this in the backdrop, Peter has to fight a new foe- Electro.  An Oscorp employee who gets electrocuted, falls into a tank of eels, and becomes pure energy (or something), Electro seems bent on destroying Spider-man and getting noticed for the first time in his heretofore unnoticed life.  Also, Harry Osborn- Parker's friend from 10 years ago who was sent away to boarding school by his unloving father- has come back, and wants to find Spidey for a personal reason.  In addition, Peter's still mulling over the mystery of his parent's involvement with Oscorp (introduced last movie).  And there's other stuff going on.

If it's not obvious from the prior paragraph, Spidey 2 has a lot going on- too much.  There are too many stories, too many characters, and too many tones.  The movie starts off light- almost comedic- but then takes a much darker/suspenseful tone, then switches to romance, then back, etc.  It doesn't know what it's trying to be.  Character origins and motives for Electro and Osborn are rushed and inadequately developed.  Finally, it's not really clear what the overall point of the movie is (other than "it's Spider-man!").  I think the main point is let the past go, and live in the present.  But if that is the point, it's made in a roundabout, too-much-fluff way.

Sequels are always hard. I started off really liking this movie, but as it went on and more stories/characters were introduced, my enthusiasm steadily waned.  It's not as good as part 1.  Entertaining, certainly, with amazing effects.  But it's just too much.

Rating: B-

The History of the Millennium (Dave Barry)

I love me some Dave Barry- and those familiar with his work will no doubt see how strongly his style has influenced my attempts at humor.  So it was with great anticipation that I picked up Barry's History of the Millennium, which begins by summarizing "Y1K" in one chapter before covering 2000-2007 in the remainder of the book.  Each year is given a chapter, broken down further by month, and Barry reviews the happenings in each with his typical "nothing is sacred" style.

If you like Dave Barry, you'll like this.  It does get repetitive, as the same topics come up again and again and again (the war in Iraq, politicians bickering and doing stupid things, major crime cases, Iran, etc.), and Barry starts re-hashing some of his jokes towards the end.  I was also surprised that this came out in 2007- why not wait until 2010 and do a full decade?  That, plus the repetitive nature, knocks it down a notch from Barry's best, but those aside, it's fun, fast read.

Rating: B+

A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (Mark Twain)

As I now live in the USA again, I wanted my reading habits to reflect the change of address.  What better way to transition from UK to US literature by reading a famous US author's account mocking UK Arthurian legend?  That, at its heart, it the theme of Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.  Here, an 18th-century American man is knocked on the head and awakes to find himself in 6th-century Camelot.  With his knowledge of technology, science, and history, he rises in the ranks to become King Arthur's second-in-command, and uses his abilities in an ultimately-vain attempt to modernize the barbaric society. 

I enjoy Twain's writing in general, and was amused by his mockery of Malory's le Morte d'Arthur (which, by the way, it helps to be familiar with if you want your enjoyment of this Twain work to be maximized).  Yes, when you think about it, the original King Arthur tales don't make much sense, and Twain exploits both that (and the foolishness of Medieval society in general) to the hilt for comedic effect.  That's the good part.  On the downside, this went on a bit long, and I found myself looking forward to it being over. 

Rating: B

Seven Years Out (or, America vs. Europe)

 

Often when you take a step back and survey things from afar, you gain an awareness of/appreciation for something you didn't previously.  Today, that "something" is the USA, and taking a step back was living in Europe for seven years.  That said, below I look at American culture through the eyes of a European.  This is all done by means of comparison.  Each observation begins with "America is ______," with the "______" being relative to Europe.

America is big & spread out

Really big.  Our country is 3,794,000 square miles.  We're 40x bigger than the UK (94,058 square miles) and 27x bigger than Germany (137,846 square miles).  Though all of Europe (defined here, counting part of Russia) is slightly bigger than we- 3,931,000 square miles- that number includes 50 individual countries, and almost as many unique cultures and languages.

You start to appreciate the size of America living in Europe.  From where we lived in Germany, we could drive to 9 countries (Poland, Czech, Austria, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, France, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands) in 5 hours or fewer.  During our time there we were able to tour between 20 and 30 countries.  It may sound impressive, but it's quite easy to do- about the same as driving up and down the east coast of the USA. 

America's population is also spread out a good deal more than in Europe.  Consider the populations:
317 million- US population
64 million- UK population
81 million- Germany population
739 million- Europe population (defined as above, counting part of Russia)

These, plus the areas shown prior, give us the following population densities:
US: 84 people per square mile
UK: 680 people per square mile (8x more dense)
Germany: 588 people per square mile (7x more dense)
Europe: 188 people per square mile (2.2x more dense)

Not only are we less densely populated- we're also spread out more.  German & British villages are often quite concentrated and well-defined, with large swaths of countryside between them; this dates back to Medieval times, when people were required to live in close proximity for defense.  Our country, being founded later, has always been much more spread out.  We're farmers who needed land and were willing to head west to get more- so we spread out then, and have remained spread out today.

As a final note, our respective densities and living preferences show us why public transportation is so much better in Europe.  Public transportation is cost-effective only in areas of significantly dense population; those areas are much more prevalent in Europe.  It makes little sense to have the buses & trains that Europe does, because most of us simply live too far away from bus/train stations to make it economically viable.  In the UK, most people can walk to a downtown area, from where they can take public transport.  In America, we often can't walk anywhere- it's the car or nothing.

America is fast & convenient
By fast, I mean pace of life.  We don't like to be kept waiting- we have places to go, jobs to work, and things to do.  In Europe, when you go to a restaurant, you're not rushed out after your meal- you can sit at your table all evening if you prefer (and many do).  You have to hail the waiter if you want your bill- otherwise, you sit there for hours.  Several times, we'd show up to a busy restaurant, and they'd tell us that we could have a table, but regrettably for only 1.5 or 2 hours, as a reservation was booked for later.  That was plenty of time for us- but not for many Europeans.  Contrast that with America, where we generally get our food within 15 minutes of sitting down, and the bill is on the table before we finish the last bite.  Even things like appliances are faster in the USA.  We really looked forward to returning to washers & dryers that wouldn't take all day.

Once you get used to the slower pace, it can be a shock to speed back up.  Although, I will say that since we have young children, we now tend to prefer the American way- in and out before the kids melt down.

America is also convenient; by that, I mean things are open more & later.  Many European stores close at 5-6pm.  Sunday hours are either limited (in the UK, 10am-4pm) or non-existent (in Germany, most things are closed outright).  There are no pharmacies open all night, or Targets to get in late-night shopping.  Americans in Europe have to adjust their mindset/lifestyle accordingly.  It's not bad, but takes some getting used to.

America is inexpensive & consumptive
Many things (not all- like medicine- but many) are so cheap here.  I remember, back in 2004, the price hike that saw gas go from $1.50 to $4.00 in the USA.  How horrible!  Perish the thought!  Then we moved to Germany, where the prices were $6.00-$8.00 a gallon.  It's the same in the UK.  Energy, clothing, and many other prices are just through the roof.  We now relish being at home and having bottomless drink refills for $1.99- in Europe, a small drink could set you back $5.00 with no refills.  Things just cost more there- and a 19% Value-Added Tax (VAT) built in to the price makes it that much more staggering.

Because things are so cheap, we tend to consume more- a lot more.  Several categories here:
Food- my word, are we fat.  So fat.  It's ridiculous.  But hey, we have cheap all-you-can-eat buffets, so we have to take advantage, right?  Also, we don't walk anywhere- we just drive, as mentioned above- so we get less exercise.  You'll see fat people everywhere, but in America, we make it into an art form.
Energy- we drive bigger cars and use more energy than probably anyone else.  One energy usage chart per capita can be found towards the bottom of the website here.
Stuff- you've probably heard of the reality show "Hoarders," looking at people that accumulate too much in their homes.  But let's face reality: most Americans do that to varying degrees.  Because stuff is cheaper here, we have more of it- whether or not it's necessary. 
Trash- we don't consume trash; we produce it.  In Germany and the UK, we were allowed one trash can, collected every two weeks.  In the former, if you exceeded your allowance, you had to pay 5 Euros per bag over the allotment.  As I type this, it's trash day here in the States, and most people have several cans outside- and it's collected weekly. 

America is prudish & violent
When we told our family we were moving to Germany, my grandpa said "Europe, huh?  Those people would rather make love than war."  He meant it in a disparaging way (which amused me), but he was correct in his assessment.  Europeans are much more inclined toward sex- and much less towards violence- than Americans. You can tell by the way we rate movies- in America, nudity is a near-automatic R-rating, while in Europe, it's the violence that drives ratings up in films.  You will see nude pictures in public areas more frequently in Europe, and in parts of the continent public nudity is permitted (nude beaches, and even urban naked zones in major cities like Munich).  In Germany, I once saw remnants of fascist (and corresponding anti-fascist) demonstrations.  One person held a sign that said "kein sex mit Nazis" (literally, "no sex with Nazis").  I had to laugh, if only because it showed where the focus was.  America is by no means pristine regarding sexual purity, but it's more open, accessible, and discussed in Europe.  It hearkens back, I think, to Puritanism in America from the days of the founders.

America is more violent than Europe.  I think we glorify it- whereas many in Europe view it as abhorrent.  Part of the reason, I believe, is the simple reality of having two world wars fought mostly on European soil in the last 100 years.  Many Europeans witnessed the horrors firsthand, and thus are currently opposed, while to Americans, the wars were something on other continents where we came in and were heroes.  Thus, we tend to hold it up as something more honorable.  Just my opinion here.

America is young & diverse
We are such a young country.  I now laugh when I see people making a fuss over a historical building in the USA that's from the 1800s.  That was our house in the UK. Europe is old, and though country boundaries have shifted often, evidence of human occupation and accomplishment can be seen dating back 2,000 years.  In America, the old stuff is from the 1700s- so new by comparison.

We're also diverse.  Statistics on race for Germany were hard to find, but what I could determine: We're about 64% White (non-Hispanic), 17% Hispanic, 13% Black, 5% Asian (reference here).  Contrast that with England- 85% White, 8% Asian (includes India/Pakistan/etc.), 4% Black, 3% other.  Or with Germany- 91% European, 4% Turkish, 5% other.  The bottom line: we in America come from many more backgrounds than our European counterparts.


Conclusion
Though many Americans have European roots, our cultures have diverged significantly over the last 250 years.  In some ways, I prefer the American way of life; in others, the European way seems more appropriate.  Either way, it's fascinating to compare and contrast the two.

There and Back Again

It is finished.  Seven years overseas- a life of adventure in Europe- came to an end three days ago as we flew home to America.  I suspect I'll be in transition mode for some time, which means I cycle through a range of emotions hourly.  This post is a stream of consciousness that attempts to capture the moment.

This is admittedly hyperbole, but right now I feel like Frodo Baggins at the conclusion of the Lord of the Rings.  At the end of his quest, he returns to the Shire, where he had spent his entire life before embarking on his epic journey.  The Shire hasn't changed (in the movie version, anyway)- but he has, and he finds it difficult to fit in back home as a result.  That's me right now- minus the whole ring of evil stuff.  I've spent seven years on an adventure, and returning to the familiar seems anything but.

I'm trying to quantify why it seems so hard to return.  Perhaps it's this: my boundaries and awareness have both changed considerably since 2007.

Boundaries
By boundaries, I mean an undertaking or adventure that we're likely to do, yet think of as significant.  I think the sheer size and geographic isolation of the United States tends to give Americans 'small' boundaries.  Not physically small, necessarily- but culturally small.  Many Americans stay put because it takes so long to get anywhere significantly different.  We bound ourselves by county, state, or region- it's cost-effective, familiar and accessible.  That was me, anyway, for the first 27 years of my life.  As a child, adventure was going to another county in Pennslyvania, or to an adjacent state.  During and after college, adventure increased to going up and down the eastern seaboard.  But it was still the eastern USA, still familiar, and still easy to get back home if the going got tough.  Then came Germany.

When we moved to Germany in 2007, by necessity my boundaries increased by several orders of magnitude.  There was little familiar- I had to engage in and find my way through a vastly different culture (not to mention language).  Not just culture, but cultures- Europe is small and accessible, and from where we lived, in the time it took to drive from New York to Virginia, you could drive to 8 or more different countries in Europe.  We once stopped in Belgium for dinner on the way from France to Germany (think about that statement- it sounds impressive, but really isn't, due to size).  All I once thought big- driving from PA to Maine, for example- now seemed small indeed.  The culture shock I experienced when visiting family in South Carolina seemed laughable compared to trying to understand the Italians.  In short, life overseas made my world a whole lot bigger- it expanded my boundaries- and subsequently changed the way I perceived life back home.  

Awareness
By awareness, I mean cultural, historical, and travel-related knowledge of things outside the United States.  Again, most Ameicans (myself included) are very focused on America.  If we know any history, it's ours.  Foreign things are unfamiliar and can be viewed as inferior.  We are Americans, dang it.  We use more energy, have more space, eat more garbage, and drive huge cars because we can.  Those Europeans are crazy!  Small cars, expensive prices, national healthcare . . . it must be horrible living over there.  Then came Germany.

When we moved to Germany, again by necessity my awareness of things not American increased dramatically.  The Germans lived life differently- and different was okay.  Yes, some things really bothered me.  Dryers taking forever, expensive fuel, unusual homes/cars/medicines/cultural idiosyncracies . . . it wasn't all roses.  But some things blew me away by how wonderful they were.  Beautiful nature, fantastic history, magnificent structures, unlimited speeds on the autobahn, the German fests and their amazing cuisine . . . some of the differences were awesome.  The overall lesson from seven years in Europe is this: the world is different than America, and different is okay.  Different is okay.  Sometimes, different is better.  Simple lesson, but incentives given to Americans to encourage them to live overseas belies our underlying cultural belief that different is not okay.  Life overseas helped me realize that belief just isn't true- and subsequently changed how I feel being back home.

The Overall Effect
Now, I'm an ex-expatriate.  And, due to the increased boundaries and awareness mentioned above, I'm finding the transition back to America harder than expected.  Those who have done so already told me this would be the case- and now I see why.  America hasn't changed- but I have.  I love my country- but I love things about other countries, too.  I think America does some things better than any other country- but there are other things that the Germans, British, French, Dutch, etc. do better than us.  My first days home have seen frequent emotional oscillations between delight and sadness.  Delight at being back with family, friends, and culture long gone.  Sadness as the realization that some preferences developed from overseas living are now beyond easy reach.  I won't get to visit a castle or abbey on a whim next weekend.  I can't pop downtown to pick up a schnitzel or sticky toffee pudding.  Those things- and many others- are now a thing of the past.  Relegated to cherished memories, I now must turn my focus to a new adventure- fitting in where I haven't lived for seven years with a new mindset.  It will be hard, because it will be different.  But different is okay.  I know that now; may I remember it always.

The Lake District

Like everywhere else in England, sheep abound in the Lake District

We had time for one quick final trip in the UK- and we chose the Lake District.  We weren't disappointed.

The Lake District (known as simply "the Lakes" for residents) is a national park in northeast England teeming with mountains (or smaller 'fells'), lakes (duh), sheep, and all the associated activities that come with an area of outstanding natural beauty.  We stayed in Keswick- in the central portion of the park- and from there toured the immediate surrounds.  Our time was limited, but at a high level, we did the following.

30-mile driving tour

Starting in Keswick, we drove clockwise in a 30-mile loop through Borrowdale, Buttermere, and Whinlatter Pass.  It took the better part of the morning, as we drove by a slate quarry, hiked amongst the bluebells and sheep, and enjoyed the rugged beauty of the area.

Castlerigg Stone Circle
Older than Stonehenge but much less popular, this ancient stone circle is set on a small plateau surrounded by fells, mountains, and sheep.  A great way to spend a relaxing hour.

Keswick Hike & Derwent Water
Not surprisingly, Keswick has dozens of signed walkways.  We took a 2.5-mile hike with the kids to a nice overlook and down to Derwent Water (the lake).

Askrigg Hike
Just north of Keswick, some of us took an early-morning hike up a local fell- Askrigg.  The weather muted the impressive views- but it was still fun.

Beatrix Potter Museum
On our drive home, we headed east through Windermere, then on to the Beatrix Potter Museum, which celebrates the local author's Peter Rabbit series by re-creating famous scenes from each of her 23 works.

Conclusion
We wish we had done the Lake District multiple times during our UK tour.  It was close, beautiful, and relaxing.

Endurance (Alfred Lansing)

Endurance is the aptly-named story of Sir Ernest Shackleton's harrowing adventure near Antarctica in 1914.  Intending to land on the continent and see off a trans-continental dogsledding team, instead he found himself trapped on the ice in his ship, then trapped on the ice itself after the ship was pounded to pieces, then trapped in small boats for days on end, then stranded on an island, then forced to sail 800 miles over treacherous seas in a 22 ft boat, then hiking over several mountains to obtain help . . . you get the picture- he had a rough few years.

The book was fantastic. As an easy-to-read survival tale, it's top-notch.  The only negative comment I have here is regarding the common view of this work.  It's hailed as a leadership book, looking specifically at Shackleton, and I've seen it on many leadership lists. The problem: little discussion in the book focused on this.  Yes, you see Shackleton leading out in front- always doing his bit, always taking the hardest efforts onto himself.  You also see him maintain (and force others to maintain) a positive outlook regardless of odds. He was open to counsel, and not too proud to change his mind.  He was, certainly, a good leader.  That's about all you see, though.  I didn't think it focused enough on his leadership to warrant being on leadership lists.  But, perhaps the above-mentioned virtues combined with impossibly extreme circumstances are enough to warrant inclusion.

Rating: A