Swiss and Latvian Television Programming

Swiss and Latvian Television Programming

A posting by Viking Pundit on Swiss TV confirms that he who controls the news media controls the world, and of course he who controls the money controls the news media. Oil, anyone?

For a similar experience, the Law Pundit was just in Latvia and was astonished to see that almost all TV programming is made in Moscow and in the Russian language, even though the Latvians have their own TV channels – but apparently not yet the financial means – to produce sufficient programming in their own language.

Much has, however, changed in Latvia in recent years, while Riga is once again becoming the Paris of the East, but more about that later.

Managed Books in Academia – The Harvard Cases

Managed Books in Academia – The Harvard Cases

Two cases of alleged plagiarism by reputable professors at Harvard have led to some published statements about the matters, the core of which must be corrected.

The Instapundit Posting

Glenn Reynolds has posting about “managed books” in academia at:

“IT’S NOT PLAGIARISM — they’re ‘managed books:

‘Managed books,’ Professor [Howard] Gardner [of Harvard] said, ‘are a recent phenomenon in which some academics rely on assistants to help them produce books, in some cases allowing the assistants to write first drafts.’

I don’t think that’s good.”

Managed Books – A Good Thing?

Sorry, Glenn, but in the opinion of LawPundit, you are wrong on this point.

“Managed books” are nothing new. The label may be new but otherwise students have been helping professors to write books without authorial attribution for quite some time. There is in my view nothing wrong with this long-standing practice as long as the authoring professor or professors retain and fulfill their responsibility for the content and accuracy of the final manuscript.

Managed Books are Nothing New

As a law student at Stanford Law School between 1968-1971 – over 30 years ago – I worked for a total of five professors as a student assistant. Let me say that this was one of the great experiences of my life, adding a quality to my law school education shared by very few students and being immensely useful to me personally in the ensuing years. I am thankful to all of these men for having given me such a great opportunity.

One of those professors, the late Professor John Kaplan (obituary November 27, 1989 in the New York Times), was an extraordinarily brilliant man and good friend. Obviously, John Kaplan did not need me to help him write his books in any way, but in the course of my assistantship he offered me the opportunity to help with the creation of two of his books. It was an opportunity which I gladly accepted and fulfilled. Any law student of promise would have jumped at the chance.

Kaplan knew precisely what he wanted in his books. He just needed someone to help him do some of the time-consuming footwork.

Managed Books and the Role of Assistants

It was quite clear that my contributions as a “researcher” and “editor” were being made without any attribution as an author, which would have been absurd. After all, Kaplan was at that time a leading authority in his field and I had not yet even graduated from law school. Still, there were numerous ways in which I was able to save him a lot of valuable time, and that is one reason why student assistants are hired. I wrote and selected a minimal amount of “draft material” on which Kaplan always had the final word and on which he did the final editing. From my point of view, I was thrilled: I was being paid for work which I was enjoying immensely, and from which I was learning a great deal.

I would write MY books…later.

After all, it was HIS book, not mine. It was HIS reputation that was on the line when his authored books were published, not mine. It was HIS responsibility that all materials be properly selected, and accurately written, cited, and footnoted. It was HIS intellect that was the guiding force behind what was being produced: in fact, Criminal Justice (which John co-authored with a professorial friend), one of the books that I initially helped to edit and put together, became a leading college textbook bestseller which at its peak was used in more than 300 colleges and universities.

Even though my actual role may have been only something like 5%, I like to think that not only did I play my small part in making that book appropriate in style and content to the requirements of the ultimate users, but I really think that my contribution was useful in making the book popular – and John was smart enough to see that. We were constantly asking – what ideas are we trying to get across and what material will get those ideas across in the most interesting manner to the young people John was trying to reach. The result was that we threw out a lot of boring material and put in things which were fresh and exciting.

John knew what he was doing. Indeed, I would imagine many professors could use a second or third voice in the selection of text and materials for textbooks and other publications. Allowing young people to help put educational books together puts a dynamics into the equation that might otherwise be missing.

In any case, many written documents in our modern society are “team” efforts, often worked on by many people who do not get “authorial” attribution. Major law firms are full of law associates who do tremendous amounts of quality work, all supervised or “managed” by junior or senior partners, who ultimately put their John Henrys or law firm seals of approval on documents. This is neither unusual nor undesirable.

The New York Times spends time on a Simple Oversight

In the case of the November 24, 2004 New York Times article by Sara Rimer, “When Plagiarism’s Shadow Falls on Admired Scholars“, this is the kind of journalism that should ordinarily be criticized for making mountains out of molehills.

Obviously, in the cases of Professors Charles J. Ogletree Jr. and Laurence H. Tribe, one has accidentaly left out the proper citations to TWO paragraphs in Ogletree’s book and one 19-word sentence in Tribe’s book. No one would intentionally plagiarize such small amounts of material in books running to nearly 400 pages. It was obviously a scholarly oversight and as the New York Times article writes: “The two professors said their errors were accidental, and no scholar has suggested otherwise….”

Teaching – not Scholarship – is the Core Activity of a University

What Professor Howard Gardner writes, that “Scholarship – the core activity of the university – cannot be delegated to assistants,” is completely at odds with the realities in the academic world where e.g. teams of laboratory assistants do the work, supervised by a major guru. Why should it not be the same in law? It is simply more efficient, and efficiency is economically desirable.

Moreover, Professor Gardner is greatly in error in stating that “scholarship” is the core activity of the university. Scholarship is the core activity of tenured professors and those wishing to get there. The major job at a university is passing on knowledge – i.e. TEACHING – and that too is done increasingly by assistants in the form of “assistant” professors, lecturers, fellows, adjuncts, etc. So why should research and ultimate publication be any different?

Was This Plagiarism? – Hardly

In a profession where precedent and stare decisis rule, we are bound by what has been written before us and are in fact obligated to use it. We just have to cite it properly. The instant alleged “cases” of plagiarism are insubstantial as compared to the corpus of the entire book materials. It was obviously not intentional.

Much too much noise is being made about these cases, it is all a bit of the sound and the fury signifying nothing. When students turn in entire papers as their own, but which in fact are copied from the internet, THAT is plagiarism, but that is an entirely different problem, and one should not mix that situation up with what has happened in these two “managed books”.

To be…or not to be…Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

To be…or not to be…Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

What does the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court actually do?

Frederic R. Abramson at his law blog Law, Current Events and Culture links to a somewhat unusual November 16, 2004 article by Dahlia Lithwick at Slate under the unnecessarily provocative title “Talk About Your Overrated Job: Why would anybody want to be chief justice?”

The article covers a current topic of great legal interest since present Chief Justice William Rehnquist may have to step down for health reasons, although no one knows this for sure.

See also in this regard the November 11, 2004 remarks of Theodore Olson at the CNN reported AP article “Former solicitor general predicts tough going for next justice.” Olson is not an uncontroversial figure but is regarded to be among the top prospects for the position, should it become open.

Trademarks, Brands, Law and Reality

Trademarks, Brands, Law and Reality

Wendy Seltzer at Legal Tags, The Blog in her posting “Trademark Law Gone Bad” refers to some excellent discussion on trademarks, brands, law and the real world at James Surowiecki’s “The Decline of Brands” and BoingBoing.

Surowiecki’s main thesis is that trademarks and brands have historically provided a protective shield for companies, a legal protection whose power is disappearing:

“That sense of protection is eroding in industry after industry, and instead of a consumer economy in which success is determined in large part by name, it’s now being determined by performance. The aristocracy of brand is dead. Long live the meritocracy of product.”

The LawPundit does not doubt that some of what Surowiecki writes is true, but the power of trademarks and brands is still substantial, otherwise the world would already be in economic chaos with pure product quality deciding retail purchase decisions. The fact is that vast masses of humanity cling to the idea that “Nomen is Omen” (The Name Speaks for Itself, The Name Says it All). Just look at what the younger generations wear.

In any case, should you disbelieve this, just answer the following questions:

NAME one example of each of the following:

A Direct Computer Seller –

A Computer Operating System –

One Internet Browser –

A Software Manufacturer –

A Hardware Manufacturer –

One Blog Hoster –

Blog Software –

The odds that any of your answers are “no-names” is very small. Brands still rule the roost, although of course there can also be fairly rapid fluctuation or displacement among old and new coming brands. But all things still must have a name – and that name is important, because the name affiliated with any product accumulates “good will” as an asset.

Just look at the blog and domain name scene and at your own bookmarks or links.

The Concept of a "Social Minimum" and Poverty in the United States

The Concept of a “Social Minimum” and Poverty in the United States

Lawrence Solum at the Legal Theory Blog has a posting on “White on the Social Minimum” referring to Stuart White’s new entry “Social Minimum” on the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, quoting White:

“‘People should not be allowed to starve in the streets.’ ‘No one should be denied access to a decent minimum of health-care.’ ‘Every citizen should be able to meet his or her basic needs.’ These statements all express a widespread view that a political community should seek to ensure that its members are all able to enjoy at least a minimally decent standard of living. They assert the importance of what is often called the social minimum.”

As a political centrist with more right-wing leanings than left, the LawPundit definitely agrees that the concept and the realization of a “social minimum” in modern society is essential to avoid social discontent in the short term and political revolution in the long term.

To take one example, as we have written elsewhere on LawPundit:

“During the Great Depression, Hjalmar Schacht, Governor of the German Reichsbank, ‘played a crucial role in bringing the Hitler regime to power’ as ‘citizens were expropriated, and their living standards brutally lowered’, leading to a right-wing dictatorship. The same thing is happening now [in Germany].”

There is in fact absolute empirical evidence that a judicious redistribution of wealth achieves the goal of a social minimum and we find that proof in a publication of The Century Foundation (TCF) entitled The New American Economy: A Rising Tide that Lifts Only Yachts. This publication shows that equitable distribution of wealth is the only viable solution to poverty:

“When considering only household earnings (before taxes and transfers), the United States does not have an unusual proportion of its population living in poverty. However, as the figure illustrates, after considering the effects of public policies, the proportion of the population in the United States that remains in poverty is significantly higher than that for other nations.

[See Figure 7].

As the figure makes clear, other countries do not wait for economic tides to turn, but rely much more than the United States does on active tax and transfer policies to lift families out of low-income status….

Policy decisions affecting income and wealth distributions are complex, both politically and substantively. Some income and wealth inequality is necessary to provide incentives for efficient allocation of time, labor, and capital. But for most Americans, the prospect of these ever-widening income and wealth gaps, coupled with little improvement in the economic well-being of the majority of the population, surely must provoke unease. Is this really the America we want?”

As always on tough questions, the right answer on the question of wealth redistribution is generally a question of degree, not of absolutist proportion. However, “a social minimum” must be achieved, otherwise – as history shows in untold cases – revolution and destruction of the system surely await one down the road. In other words, the redisitribution of wealth to achieve a “social minimum” for all is not – as many believe – a political, religious or moral question, but rather a simple issue of survival, not merely the survival of the have-nots, but also survival of the haves.

In other words, achieving a “social minimum” is a symbiotic “Solomonic” solution. As in the famed Solomonic judicial instance of the child claimed by two mothers, the child – here the society – is not cut into two halves (haves and have-nots), which leads to the death of both halves, but rather, reason prevails and the child survives intact. sues Google for IP and other Violations sues Google for IP and other Violations

John Palfrey at the Berkman Center at Harvard Law School has a November 20, 2004 posting entitled “Pornographer sues Google on 12 grounds”.

Obviously, the case will get a lot of attention because it will give everyone a good excuse to look at – perhaps that is the major intention of the suit. The LawPundit had never heard of this website prior to this legal action. Sex sells. has its place of business in Beverly Hills, surely not the low rent district. Hollywood has a lot of starving starlets who never make the top billing in the few blockbuster movies out there, so that we imagine that there is a good market for photo models.

We should add that the use of the word “pornographer” is probably “politically incorrect” as the plaintiff states in the complaint that its business “consists of the design, creation, production, marketing, promotion, and sale of copyrighted adult entertainment products.”

For the law side, read the legal complaint and Palfrey’s analysis of the complaint and see also Copyfight and Legal Tags (with a very good summary of things) which also post on this topic.

The Law Pundit does not think that has the ghost of a chance of winning this case.

Good Advice for Law School Applicants

Good Advice for Law School Applicants

Christine Hurt of Marquette University Law School in her posting

So, You Want to be a Law Student?

has some very sound advice for law school applicants. Indeed, much of what she writes applies to all kinds of applications – seen through the eyes of one person who makes the decisions.

Public vs. Private Interest Law – a Matter of Money?

Public vs. Private Interest Law – a Matter of Money?

ambivalent imbroglio comments in depth on a posting by Jeremy Blachman about not going to work for a large law firm, discussing therein the demands on time made by large law firms and the monetary differences between jobs in public and private interest law.

amibivalent imbroglio writes in his posting “Public Interest Law: It’s Not About You“:

“And a good way to see the difference is to stop asking what a particular job can do for you, and ask instead what a job could allow you to do for other people. That makes the differences more clear for me, anyway.”

To which the LawPundit would add three rhetorical questions:

Is it not a fact – by definition – that the MORE we are paid, the MORE we are doing for others?

Is it not a fact that the MORE we do “our own thing”, the less we are generally paid?

Do not some idealistically inspired people (doing their own thing “100%”) even work for nothing? (Bloggers come to mind).

There is a common misconception that people who get paid well are working MORE for themselves and those who get paid LESS are working more for the community. But this is simply not true. Generally, the reverse applies.

There is a general wisdom about getting rich: “Go out and observe your fellow men and then give them what they want or need and you will be wealthy”. And also this is true.

He who follows his “own” path will generally not be rewarded for it by others, unless somewhere down the road other people observe that the selfishly chosen path also provides THEM with a benefit, e.g. iconoclastic inventors, pioneering entrepeneurs, the rare genius, etc.

Some artists, for example, become rich and famous in the course of their careers for doing their thing (very seldom), but most are starving, whereas “commercial artists” make a good living. Indeed, many of the great masters painted portraits of the rich and the famous – for cash – during their lifetime.

The trouble with work for large law firms is that one has to GIVE a lot to GET a lot. That is all.

That’s life.

Marshall Plan Fund in Danger under German Chancellor Schroeder

Marshall Plan Fund in Danger under German Chancellor Schroeder


A Sun News post of October 17, 2004, contains the article, Marshall Plan dollars still at work in Europe: Businesses benefit in Germany, by Tom Hundley of the Chicago Tribune (registration required). More below.

The Marshall Plan monies are covered from a different perspective at the June 26, 2004 Guardian article under the title “Democratic Deficit” in which it was reported that:

“Nearly 60 years after the Marshall plan was launched to reconstruct Europe after the second world war, its funds are still bailing out the Germany economy. Hans Eichel, the German finance minister, wants to use €12bn left over from the Marshall plan to stealthily privatise his government’s stakes in Deutsche Telekom and Deutsche Post, to allow the government’s public sector development bank to buy its shares.”

Thankfully this plan at that time failed – it was just another of the wild plans of the incapable Schroeder administration. See in this regard the Law Pundit postings here and here.

The Current Problem

As the Guardian writes:

“For the past decade – with the exception of 2000 – the German economy has spluttered rather like a misfiring Volkswagen, during a long period of sluggish growth that reached its nadir with a mild recession in 2003. The government has seen its attempts to maintain fiscal rectitude fall victim to over-optimistic forecasts, leading to a string of deficits. While combined federal, state and local tax revenues have been static, government spending has ballooned, resulting in a €79bn deficit last year – the third time in the past three years that Germany’s shortfall has breached the 3% of GDP limit set by the eurozone’s stability pact.”

The issue of the Marshall Plan Fund has again surfaced, as found in a Welt am Sonntag, November 21, 2004, article reporting that German Finance Minister Hans Eichel now wants to appropriate the current “Marshall Plan Resource Fund” (in German known as “Marshall-plan-Mittel” or ERP-Sondervermögen) in order to keep the federal deficit from exceeding 3%.

Apparently the Schroeder administration has not considered using the Marshall Fund for the purpose for which it was intended, i.e. to get the economy moving by loaning the money out.

Based on the above events, there appear to be no bounds to the apparently desperate financial perfidies of the Schroeder administration.

Of course, there is method in this madness. The coming generations of voters – indeed, probably most of the voters who put Schroeder into office – generally have no better than passing knowledge or understanding of the role that the United States played in bringing freedom to Europe and in reconstructing post-War Germany after WWII. Rather, the anti-American views of the uninformed are those views which Schroeder and his administration nurture and use to stay in political office based on the ephemeral events of today.

People who still recall the Marshall Plan, support US efforts to bring democracy to Iraq and the Middle East. The young, softened and spoiled generations, who have little clue as to source of their freedom – also won by deposing tyrants – generally oppose the USA efforts in Iraq, apparently much to the delight of Schroeder and Co.

History of the Marshall Plan

After WW II, the United States assisted the reconstruction of shattered European economies through the “Marshall Plan”, named after then Secretary of State George Marshall who introduced the plan at a June 5, 1947 speech at Harvard University.

Under President Truman and the Marshall Plan (the European Recovery Program – ERP), the United States provided $13.3 billion (about $90 billion in today’s dollars) in economic aid to 16 European nations, most going to Britain, France and Italy with Germany as the 4th-largest recipient obtaining about $1.39 billion (about $9.4 billion in today’s dollars).

On December 15, 1949, the Marshall Plan monies in Germany were transformed into so-called “special fund” (ERP-Sondervermögen) also known as the Marshall Plan Resources Fund – monies which are specifically independent of normal German government budgetary assets, as written by the International Monetary Fund (IMF – p. 15 of that .pdf-source):

“The mechanisms for the coordination and management of budgeted and extrabudgetary activities are well defined…. The only exception is the Marshal [sic] Plan Resources Fund (ERP-Sondervermögen), whose budget is approved separately by the parliament, including an entitlement for debt.”

These monies are intended to be used to as loans to finance revolving credits for business and industry:

“‘We’re not allowed to spend this money, only to lend it. That’s the whole trick,’ said Hermann Faas, director of small business financing for the ERP.

Since its inception, the ERP has made about $150 billion worth of loans to German businesses. In the ERP’s offices, there are no U.S. flags, no bronze busts of Gen. Marshall, but according to Faas, the United States still gets credit for its postwar magnanimity.”

In any case, it is noted that:

“The Marshall Plan is revered as the wisest and most successful foreign policy initiative undertaken by any U.S. administration”.

It would seem to clearly define the dishonest nature of the Schroeder administration that the Marshall Plan monies are now up for grabs as a despicable monetary trick to help keep this incapable administration in political power.

As a matter of law, there is an interesting question as to whether US approval would be required for this kind of an extra-appropriation of the ERP monies. As reported in Welt am Sonntag:

“Das Wirtschaftsministerium ist strikt gegen das Vorhaben…. Auch sehen die Experten seines Hauses völkerrechtliche Schwierigkeiten. Bei dem Vorhaben hätten die USA ein Mitspracherecht. “

The Law Pundit translation of the above is as follows:

“The Ministry of Economics and Labor is strictly against this proposed plan…. In-house experts envision international law problems. The USA would have a right to a say in the proposed plan.”

The World’s Highest Bridge – In France

The World’s Highest Bridge – In France

Towering over the Eiffel Tower? – not quite, but nearly

Clive Davis points in his posting “A NEW BRIDGE TO THE 21ST CENTURY?” to a remarkable French architectural and engineering achievement.

Wayback Machine’s Internet Archive Admissible as Evidence

Wayback Machine’s Internet Archive Admissible as Evidence

Via The Speculist we are directed to the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society (CIS) and their cyberlaw newsletter Packets Vol. 2, No. 3 containing the topic “Internet Archive’s Web Page Snapshots Held Admissible as Evidence“.

As written at CIS about the case Telewizja Polska USA, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 2004 WL 2367740 (N.D.Ill. Oct. 15, 2004):

“In a pretrial evidentiary ruling, a magistrate judge [Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys] in the Northern District of Illinois held that “snapshots” taken by the Internet Archive that depict web pages as they appeared in the past are admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The court rejected the arguments of plaintiff Telewizja Polska USA that the archived pages constituted hearsay and that the Internet Archive was an “unreliable source.””

The Wayback Machine is described in the Stanford newsletter as follows:

“The Internet Archive (IA) is a non-profit effort to preserve Internet sites and other digital media and make them available online. IA’s spiders regularly crawl the World Wide Web, making copies of web pages and storing them permanently in an enormous digital archive. Using the “Wayback Machine”, one of the Archive’s popular services, users can input the address of a web page and call up a series of dated copies, allowing them to see what the page contained at the times it was accessed by the IA spider.”

There are currently 30 billion pages archived from 1996 onward.

Roland Collection of Videos & Films on Art

Roland Collection of Videos & Films on Art

We ran across this website by chance.

The Roland Collection of Videos & Films on Art is a tremendous “pay to buy” collection of art films and art videos – all titles are available for sale – but the site also offers free viewing of 450 complete films on-line. Available by art period are:

Early Cultures

First Civilisations


Pre-Columbian America

Romanesque and Gothic

Renaissance and Mannerism

Northern Renaissance


Baroque and Rococo

Neo-classicists and Romantics

The Victorians

Impressionists and Post Impressionists

Art Nouveau


Cubism and Futurism

Into Abstraction

The Bauhaus and De Stijl

Dada and Surrealism

Modern Masters

Modern and Contemporary Sculptors

Contemporary Painters

New Directions – New Dimensions

Modern Architecture and Design

Unfortunately, surely in order to urge the viewer to buy the original quality video or film, online quality is only top at “100%” – a very small screen size (though the films and videos are also viewable at e.g. 300% or larger screen size). Pull the right lower edge of the RealPlayer display to play with size.

Still, it is terrific stuff, e.g. take a look at Tassili N’Ajjer – Prehistoric Rock Paintings of the Sahara.

Media Law at the Guardian

Media Law at the Guardian is the Guardian’s media news site, including its Media Law site (free registration required). For example, a recent November 1, 2004 article there by Charles Boundy, group legal director of Random House and partner at Fladgate Fielder, writes about the actual publishers’ problem of publishing photos (e.g. of celebrities or politicians) which include children. The article is entitled “The age of enlightenment: When is a child responsible enough to agree to their photo being taken?“. Boundy presents an important legal issue in the modern internet age, at a time when photography albums of all kinds are being posted to the internet.

What about the related issue of privacy law? As written by Ciar Byrne in “Government rejects call for privacy law“:

The right to a private life is enshrined in article eight of the Human Rights Act. However, separate privacy legislation does not currently exist in English law.

Another example of a law article at the Guardian’s Media Law is the October 11, 2004 “No hiding place for pirates” by Andrew Hobson, head of IP (intellectual property) at the law firm Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, who discusses how “the British music industry is to clamp down on illegal file swappers” and what “legal routes … could be pursued”.

Motors banned on the Ridgeway prehistoric road during Winter

Motors banned on the Ridgeway prehistoric road during Winter

Bravo. Who says there is no good news on the news.

One of the amazing things about humanity is that the supply of Yahoos (in the Jonathan Swift sense) is endless. The story below is once again evidence for the necessity of laws. Here – as is usually the case – voluntary codes simply do not work because there are always people who do not abide by them.

The BBC carries a November 12, 2004 article reporting that:

“Motorbikes and 4×4 vehicles which were damaging one of Britain’s oldest roads have been banned from the [Ridgeway by a] … temporary order … imposed by a number of district councils on parts of the Ridgeway National Trail in south Oxfordshire during winter months.

In previous years the 6,000-year-old trail has been churned up by trail bikers and off-road drivers. The ancient chalk ridge route, used by prehistoric man, runs across the Chilterns and the Wessex Downs.

This ban is excellent news for all walkers, horse riders and cyclists who wish to enjoy the Ridgeway in peace.

A council spokeswoman said: ‘We have undertaken extensive surface repairs and drainage improvements on the trail over the last two years. I am pleased to say that the condition of the Ridgeway is improving. However, we need to protect the most vulnerable sections from unacceptable levels of damage over the winter.’

Ian Ritchie, chairman of the Friends Of The Ridgeway, said: ‘A voluntary code of respect has been in operation on the Ridgeway for 10 years but has plainly not been working. This ban is excellent news for all walkers, horse riders and cyclists who wish to enjoy the Ridgeway in peace, free from the ruts and mud that make the trail hazardous and unpleasant.’ “

This is also the kind of legal sanction that needs to be imposed in many other places and countries where ancient sites are being destroyed by ignorants. Nazca in Peru is another example where joyriders are ruining the ancient Nazca lines and figures. (For more information on Nazca, see

100 Things That Are Still Better in the USA

100 Things That Are Still Better in the USA

Many Germans still love many aspects of America.

We just happened to chance upon this list of

“100 Things That Are Still Better in the USA”

via HalleysComment to Caroline van Oosten de Boer to MetaFilter

to the German newspaper TAZ (die tageszeitung)

and their list of “100 Dinge, die besser bleiben”

which means something like “100 things, that are still better” (in the USA)

No, we are not going to translate them for you,

but a good number can be understood without translation.

“Hollywood” stays “Hollywood”.