computer in the children bed room yes or not?

Today it is a big question if children whether have a computer in the bed room or not?
I will show you the arguments for and against this topic.
The first point I'd like to mention is that the pupils can be in contact with the teachers , if they have questions about the homework oder something like that.

A argument against the computer at the childrens bed room is that they spend a lot of time in front of the computer and have no time to do other important things.

Another argument for the coumputer is that you can read many important information on the internet.

One reason against the computer is that you can get addicted very fast of the games on the internet.

My opinion is that children shouldn't have a computer in the bed room because the internet could be very dangerous

Angi, try to arrange your arguments more logically. Develop them a bit more (examples etc.)

by Angi

Comment: Difference between public and private schools

The time you spend in school is the most important time in your whole life. You learn things that are really important to know. That is the reason why it is a big question for parents whether they should put their childen in a public or a private school. The differences are big - and some people believe that private schools do a better job. In the following text I will present the pros and cons of learning at a private or a public school.

First of all, I want to say that public schools are much cheaper. You don't have to pay things like a trip to Paris or expensive school uniforms. Many people believe that such things are not important and that is the reason why they do not want to pay for it. Another reason for a public school is the temper of the kids. In private schools there are some rich and unfriendly guys who believe that the only important thing is the price of the car and clothes. Other kids who don't have enough money to buy things like this are derided. In a public school there are not so many differences and not so much unhappiness because of such things.
But on the other hand there are also some bad things of public schools. Mostly, the buildings are run-down. Even the classrooms are not able to be used anymore because of dust and dirt. But often there is not enough money to repair the buildings. That is a really big problem because it is no atmosphere you want to be or learn in. Another reason is the teachers . Because of these bad conditions many teachers try to get a job at a private school. Besides, they earn more money in a private school. So maybe there are not so many good teachers at public schools.

Now I will show the pros of the private schools. I think it the best reason for a private school is the care for the children. There are many people who do the best for your children and who are not stressed. They help you and your child in every situation and talk to you about teacher problems or something like that. Another reason is that the children are for themselves. You mostly know the other parents and you don't have to worry about a fight between some guys.
The cons of a private schools are the higher school rates. It is very expensive to send your child to a private school. And sometimes you just pay for the coolness of your child and not for his education. The other thing is that people believe that it is a better school where you get a better education. But it is not true because the teachers are just human beings, too. And they teach the same subjects in private and public schools. But it is very hard to tell the children that they don't get a better education than the other guys. And it is also hard to tell them that they are not some better persons just because of their school.

In conclusion I would like o say that nearly anything depends on the money. If you have money you are able to send your child to a private school. But is this really the better solution? I think it mostly depends on the area you live in and the people you know.


It looks like a lot of red, but some of it is just small stuff. Good effort overall! I am very sorry, I can't change the colour any more...

Comment
School Uniforms

For months it has been discussed whether it is better for student to wear school uniforms than to go with their own style to school.
Does it make sense to introduce school uniforms, or is it better for people to choose their own clothes?
In the following text I will summarise some pros and cons of school uniforms for schools in Germany.

Firstly, I want to say that it is a very restrictive rule if all students of one school have to wear the same clothes. Wearing different things is part of human nature. Their own clothes are a sort of idendity themsef in contrast to the others.

The second thing is, that the students have to spend much money for buying these uniforms which will be expensive. They have to life from money by the state and social help. The other side is, if you have school uniforms, you must have more than one of them. Especially if you mention the fact of winter and summertime. Or if you play football and in the end the clothes are dirty. To wash them you have to spend much time.

On the other hand are school uniforms well. In the following part are some arguments for wearing them.

School uniforms give a feeling of strong company. The feeling of friendship is on with another level.

Another fact is, that nobody will be discriminate because his clothes. That’s the biggest problem in schools. In the first class is a form of range of having money and clothes of expensive associated trademarks. If you wear clothes from New Yorker or something like that you are the king in class.

All in all I’m against wearing school uniform. You lose your stile and you will be put in a thinking of equality of a whole school.

Alex, you have to change your tactics abour writing a comment. Your text sounds as if it were translated by a computer. You have to study idioms, you have to learn words in context, like: in contrast to. to be discriminated against because of something.. etc... But I appreciate your effort!

School uniforms

Some schools in Germany think about introducing school uniforms. They say that, for example, in England the students
are always wearing school uniforms.But should school uniforms really be introduced to German schools?

My first argument for school uniforms is that the children have more time in the morning, because they do not need so much time for styling or searching for the right clothes for school. So in conclusion they have more time in the morning for breakfast or to sleep.
Secondly, an argument against school uniforms is that there are so many families with less money to pay for these uniforms. Whether they have, for example, three or four children and they all want new school uniforms.
And all students need clothes for changing so they must buy twice.
But on the other hand school uniforms represent the school, and when all people are wearing the same school uniform and look identical, more students feel better because the others have no reasons to mob them.
An other argument against school uniforms is that if all students look identical, you can not wear what you like or want.
Everybody is different and expresses his feelings with clothes. It is also boring to see that all students are wearing the same clothes.

Finally we think that school uniforms are not really useful. And we think it would be a good idea to introduce school uniforms for one week of testing to see how students feel when they wear uniforms and during this week they could choose whether they want to introduce school uniforms or not, but perhaps it is too expensive for only testing it.

By Meral and Sophie

Good job, the two of you! Please don't forget: There is always a space after each punctuation mark (both comma and full stop)

Religion Class at School

Many students don’t like to have religion class at school. They say that they don’t believe in god or in any other thing, so they don’t want to have to go to the lessons.
Because of this, the school parliament discusses to displace religion class from the timetable.
At one of these proceedings a pastor was invited to say his opinion to this heavy topic.
His arguments were that so many students don’t have the chance or don’t want to learn something about religion out of religion class in school and that it’s important to know a little bit about their own religion.
I also think that that religion is a important part in our life and that everybody should know something about their own religion and about the other religions. In my opinion, their should be an ethic class and no religion class.
It’s clear, that we can’t force the students into religion class, but to displace it, is the wrong solution.

by Bastian, 11c

Interesting topic, Bastian! Try to incorporate these words: to believe in, faith, religious education, to argue

America,Cape Cod--> dream or nightmare? ( By Julia Kirchner ( my account isn´t working ...))

In October this year I did my first student exchange with an American school on Cape Cod.
I lived with a typical American family for three weeks.
And now I want to talk about living on Cape Cod:
Is it a dream or a nightmare?
The things I really liked about living there were for example the fact that I could practice my English very well because I was talking English all the time.
Also really nice was the space every American has got in his own house, the houses are so big and everyone can have enough space for himself.
It seems to me that everyone is really rich on Cape Cod because it is kind of normal to have these really huge cars and houses and every one goes to private schools.
The good thing about private schools is that you can do so much sports the whole time and that there is so much space around the school.
In Germany I have never seen so much space around school to practice sports.
That is something I really enjoyed.
I also really liked the big choice of different food at the stores.
But in contrast to Germany I didn´t really like the way people treated me.
They all have been really friendly and so on but I felt like not been taken seriously.
It seems like the neighbors and the others pupils acted kind of unreal.
But I think that's their way to talk to strangers.
But it was hart for me to figure out if they really want to be nice to me or if they just have to be.
Another thing I really couldn´t live with was the extreme dependence from the children on their parents.
They couldn´t even get to school without their parents.
I think that's really hard to handle.
I think there is so much shelter in American childhood, for example some laws.
So you're not allowed to drink or go to clubs under 21.
But I think that isn´t a good thing because it makes children not ready for living independantly.
In conclusion I woulndn´t want to grow up at Cape Cod, but just for a student exchange or holiday it is a really wonderful place to be.

Interesting point of view! I myself enjoyed the friendliness of people in the stores, on the streets, theway people chat so much more easily. But I can see how it comes across as superficial and, in your case, even a little threatening. Here are some words for you: to prepare for something, to be protected.

I Pods, satisfaction guaranteed? (by Frederik)

The I Pod is a modern entertainment gadget which caused a big wave of excitement
especially in the student fraction. But what is so great about an I Pod? Nowadays,
almost 30% of sold MP3- Players are I Pods, in the US the rate is even higher. In my
following comment I will show you the contra side of this small but impressive
gadget.

My first and most important argument is the fact that listening to modern
entertainment gadgets isolates people completely from their environment. On the
streets or at school, you can see a growing number of people walking around with ear buttons in
their ears, isolated, calm and completely expressionless. That’s also bad for your
ears. Listening to loud music, especially with ear buttons, damages your ear time after
time. Another argument against the I Pod is the occurring discrimination which is
caused by the I Pod. Students which own an I Pod are often more integrated
in the society and more liked at school.

In the end I want to add that an I Pod is very expensive in comparison to other MP3-
Players and entertainment gadgets of producers like Sony or Phillips. In my opinion
you should think about buying an I Pod because it’s useable and your satisfaction is
guaranteed but it has no advantages compared to other gadgets.

... And I was going to buy my first I-pod in summer.. I'll rethink! Good comment!

Possible disadvantages of home schooling

As is known home schooling can improve a students' language and so they can profit of it. But did everybody think of the disadvantages of home schooling?

First of all I want to mention it has also disadvantages. One of them could be, for example, the student’s feeling of being alone. They can’t see their friends anymore because they have to stay at home. This could be the result of fewer friendships because the student has no other possibilities to make friends, except in the neighbourhood or in sport clubs. But most friends can be found at school.
Stress could be the next problem of home schooling. Children who just learn, day in day out, can get exhausted very fast. So it is important to live healthy, like e.g. do sports, eat fresh and healthy food. Students who just stay at home and do nothing can also get fat. An example for this is the USA. Americas children don't eat very healthy, they often go to several fast food restaurants.

Finally, I want secure that I am against home schooling. Though it is a good way to improve one’s knowledge it has also its disadvantages. Actually I would let my children go to normal schools because I want my children to have a nice childhood. And this requires family and friends.

Do you know anybody who home-schools? In Germany it's not allowed anyhow. Are you confusing it with boarding school? Actually, I have very different experiences with home-schooled kids. I found them to be very interesting and sociable, often they were very knowledgeable in areas they were particularly interested in. I don't think they are fatter than

the average American (or German, for that matter) kid. Interesting choice of topic!

Turkey in European Union?

Turkey joining the European Union

For many years european gouverments have been talking about the problem with Turkey and their requests. Turkey is a huge nation, which is divided up along the asian-european frontline.
Everbody knwo that we will get many advantages, but also many disadvantages by Turkey joining the EU.
In my following pleading I will discuss these problems.

Turkey has population of 70 mio. We will be a stronger and bigger community if they join the EU.
The superpowers would respect this coalition as an equal force.
Another argument for the accedence is the economy. Europe needs Turkey as a economic partner just because of the commercial crisis. A new relationship like that would consolidate the global economy. How is that? Please explain in more detail.

To begin with, what speaks against the accedence is that Turkey's culture has many differents from the european nations.
Turkey has 99.8% muslims which is too different from christian-based Europe. A argument to add is that the immigration rate will increase in middle europe and that goes hand in hand with the crime rate. Especially germany will be affected by this consequence. My last argument is the diffrent governmental process of working . These laws can't work togehter, because Turkey still belives in death penalty.

Finally I think the deparment of Turkey is an equitable poltical decision.

I don't understand your last phrase. I sense a lot of prejudices here! Still, it's an important topic and sooner or later Europe will have to give Turkey a definite answer.

Should we introduce school uniforms? ( by David)

In today`s society it`s an often discussed topic whether we should introduce school uniforms in all schools of Germany or not.
In my opinion there are both disadvantages and advantages.
I think in modern times youth doesn`t want to wear uniforms, and prefers wearing their own clothes. Most of them think uniforms are bad. We should listen to the opinion of the people who have to wear them before we decide to introduce uniforms.
Furthermore it`ll be a financial problem, because the families of the students are supposed to buy the uniforms on their own, many of them won`t be able to pay for them.
But one big problem will be solved with uniforms.
Many students are harassed because of their clothes. It can be compared with a competition whose clothes are the most expensive ones.
With uniforms nobody is able to have a prejudice against someone else, because they all wear the same clothes.
Moreover the image of the schools which introduce uniforms would be improved, because everyone who sees the student with the school uniforms gets a good impression of the respective school.
To summarize, I support uniforms at schools, because everyone would be equal and nobody convicts you because of your clothes and the focus is on the character of the person.

This seems to be a populoar topic . Is that really an option for German schools? Actually I agree with you, I'm very much for some kind of similar clothing. At the German school in Montreal people had a choice of T-shirts, Sweaters in different colors, but were allowed to wear all kinds of jeans and skirts, as long as they were blue.

Underground - yes or no? (by Judith and Laura)

Many people use the underground every day but many people also drive cars, so there are a lot of different opinions about the underground.
Everybody has others arguments for or against traveling by underground.
There surely are some arguments against it but I think there are more for it.
I like using the underground. I really think it would be good to have more of them, because they cause less air pollution than cars and with that we can help making our world cleaner.
Secondly there are no problems with parking slots when using the underground. And of course less people have to park their cars, if more people travel by underground.
So because of this you can have more time in the morning which you can spend with sleeping longer or having more time for breakfast because you won't be in a hurry to find a parking spot. And of course you don't need to concentrate on the traffic during rush hour when using the underground.
The only reason I can think of against riding the underground is that there is no fresh air and it is very noisy.
All in all I think that the aspects for traveling by underground are stronger and I really support it because it is very relaxing.

If only we had an underground in Heidelberg.... Nice job!

Kill hundred innocent people or let thousands die

It's more than an analytic fact, a logical reasoning. In case of a terroristic assault like the day of infamy 9.11 many innocent people died. But could this terrible act be avoided? For future occurrences like this attack it is discussed wether to shoot those planes down. This fact implicates a lot of ethic problems.
As a matter of fact, the people in the plane will die. Even if they would overhelm the terrorists the chance to survive is incredible negligeable small. So the logical conclusion is to abolish them. The people would die in any case.
But in this way of proceeding isn't considered that there's a big difference between terrorists as the murderer of thousands of people or to be the murderer oneself of an not insignificant amount of people who maybe have family or have to nourish kids.
There are many people who are of the opinion that it is necessary to kill them, and it is the states duty. However, there's noone who want to be responsible. Although it's a very simple thought that carries their point of view. In some countries like for exemple Greece it was already decided that "If a renegade plane, a plane that is not on its proper course over Greece, enters restricted airspace, and does not change course after being warned, it will not reach the target". This statement is from Mr Voulgarakis and from the security briefing in preparation for the Olympic Games in Athens. And it's real: the amount of the casualities in such a case would be minuscule in comparison to the one in the terrrorist's success. So the idea is absolutely justifiable and correct. And, back to 9/11, even if the planes would not be shot down the administration is responsible for the death of the people in the towers. They had the chance to rescue them. Recapitulatory the governance can kill the people in the plane and rescue the ones in the tower or let everyone die.

But this ambivalent topic can't be dicussed from only one side, one point of view. Let's see the arguments which are against this brutal and ruthless way of proceeding.
To begin with, the other point of view deals also with the people in the planes as individual subjects and not as numbers in comparison to other numbers. So you can argue that those people there, the people in the plane and the people who would die caused by the falling airplane, all of them have rights. These rights are those of the constitution which declares that the state has to save their lives and not to treat them as objects. Nearly everyone of them has a family or is responsible for someone. And even if not, everyone of them is an individual and irreplaceable human. The state doesn't have the right to act like a terrorist even in such a terrible incident like a terroristic attack.
So, in conclusion, I would like to admit that noone has the right to kill anyone else, even with the intention to rescue lives. But it's another thing if the people in the plane decide for themselves to sacrifice themselves and to combat the terrorists.
Another solution would be to vanish the root of terrorism by avoiding war and oppression.

Wow, you picked a difficult topic! I don't really know which side I'm on... Michele, it's great that you look up so many words, but you have to do that in context. Leo is not always helpful here, because you get to many constructions wrong. You need a good monolingual dictionary!

for further pictures click the link below:

http://search.live.com/images/results.aspx?q=9%2f11&FORM=BIRE#focal=6c7562b2e828e9564e199988e42bc33f&furl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prisonplanet.com%2Fimages%2Fjuly2006%2F080706wtc1.jpg

"Nessie" (from Nico)

Anyone would laugh at you if you say: "look,  there is a 25 foot monster in this sea". But not in Scotland. It is believed, that a large sea monster lives in the Loch Ness (a lake in the Scottish Highlands). But what are the arguements for this statement? On the one hand, many Scots believe that there lives a large sea monster... but on the other hand many Scots say that this is just a myth. In my comment I will show you whether the myth is true or not.
One proof for the truth of the myth is, that many people said that they saw Nessie. In 1527 Duncan Campbell saw at the bank of Loch Ness a really fearful monster. Or in the 16th century, an old chronic said a monster came out of the Loch Ness and killed 3 men. One of the most iconic images of Nessie is known as the "Surgeons Photograph", which was taken in 1934 by Robert Wilson, a surgeon, showed a long animal with a long neck. But on the other side there are just a few evidence for a monster in Loch Ness. In 1995, there was an announcement that the surgeons photograph was just a lie. Neil Clark, a ringmaster, said that the animal on the picture was just a swimming elephant from his circus.
In conclusion, I think that there isn't a monster in the Loch Ness. There are just a few evidence and I think if there is such a monster we would all know about it.

Too bad! I had always hoped to go there one day and see a real monster! :-) To me, the image looks more like a snake than like an elephant's trunk! And what is an elephant doing swimming in Loch Ness??? Fun topic!

Developments resulting from the new government of the U.S.

Developments resulting from the new government of the U.S.

After the presidential election in the United States in November 2008 there was a big movement going through the population. The new President Barack Obama is not only the first black president in the USA, which means a lot in the context of the history, especially to the black population, but he is also the one who brings hope, trust and optimism back to the country where nothing is impossible. After the Bush era, which not only caused two wars and very problematic and strained relationships to other countries, many people associate his era directly with the financial-and economic crisis.Because of that the country needs a new strong head of state.
Barack Obama’s situation is definitely not an easy one and he promised a lot to his country and its inhabitants, but he already made the first steps towards a better future. By 2011 he wants to pull out all troops from Iraq to finally end the war thousands of people had to suffer from.
On the other hand he wants to send more troops to Afghanistan to win the very hard but also important war against the Taliban.
But the new president doesn’t only want to improve the foreign policy.
He has already signed a paper which promises a financial aid packet to save the American banks from ruin.
Another important step was to decide to close the very controversial prison Guantanamo. Many people in the U.S. but also in other countries didn’t accept Guantanamo or rather they always wanted to abolish it because people were not treated as humans or according to human rights.
All in all, I think the new President gives the population hope, gives them strength in hard times and makes them believe that the government will support them.

Best comment I've read so far! Great job, Kai! There is a place for you to use 'therefore' that is why, as a consequence


By Kai Nohe,11c

Playing ego-shooter games.

Lately it has been a very popular question: Should ego-shooter games be banned? Or is it okay that kids play these games?
In our time children don't have to deal with real war. But it´s human to be interested in it. Many people say that they don´t like wars but if you look, you´ll see that many films and games use war topics. More than a half, I would say. The most famous are ego-shooter games. Scientists say that these games perhaps teach kids to use force of arms. They explain that children learn to shoot at people they don´t like. And so this rampages at schools can happen. On the other side there are scientists who say that these games won't have any influence on young people. It´s only the person itself or his social environment who makes them so cruel.
Another problem is that little children under 18 years play these games and become scared of them. Nightmares and depressions are the consequences, but this problem is easy to solve. Children shouldn´t play these games.
I think the solution is very simple. Kids shouldn´t play ego-shooter games. Adults should have the ripenes so that they can think clear of these games and minimize the influence of these games to their kids. They must keep their children off these games until they are old enough to understand the problems wich come along with games like this.

Somehow the attraction of these games totally eludes me. Do you think these games are also fascinating only at a certain age? Should teenage boys be banned? Pretty good comment!

Should sport shooters store their weapons at home, or lend them at the shooting club ?

Should sport shooters store their weapons at home, or lend them at the shooting club ? This question is discussed really often in the last time. After the terrorostic attacks at the school in Winnenden (2009) or at the Virginia Tech School in Blacksburgh (USA/ 2007) the owners of shooting clubs think about their shooters and their weapons. Is it good to give the weapons to the shooters, so that they can place them at home in a cupboard ?
The terrosrist of Winnenden had the weapons he used for killing all these people at home. The owner: his father. He placed all his 16 weapons in a "safe" cupboard in his room, and his son was easily able to remove one of them. He often braged with the fact that he knows the pin-code for the safe of his father.
The sport shooters say, that it is better to have the weapons at home. If they would be in the club's house, there would be a huge amount of weapons in one place, and it would be a big danger.
But if we hear something like this horrible terroristic attack in Winnenden, we wonder why it is is allowed by gouvernment to store the guns at home.
The gouvernment already tries to forbid it, but this is really hard.

The weapons are a big danger for the security in all countries. In Swizerland, for example, at least one person suicides PER DAY (!!!!) with a weapon.
If i look at these arguments, i come to the conclusion, that it is really bad if sport shooters have their weapons at home. They can lend them at the shooting place, and also get their ammunition there. It would be the safest place, and there would probably be less terroristic attacks.

by Patrick, 11C

I totally agree. Actually, I think I'd even go further and ban all kinds of sport shooting. Playing dart is just as much fun (I imagine). Good comment!

School begin at 9.00 o´clock

Should school begin at 9.00 o'clock

In some countries of the world school starts at 9.00 o’clock. The politicians think about whether to do that also here in Germany. But is this really a good idea? Should school begin at 9.00 o’clock?

One argument for starting school an hour later is that you can sleep longer. You don't have to get up so early and you are able to wake up better in the morning.

Another argument for starting school at 9.00 o’clock is that many kids can do their homework also in the morning. If they forgot it or if they didn´t want to do them the day before.

The last argument for startin school an hour later is that the people have more time to choose their clothes and also to have breakfast. You also don´t have to think about that you come too late, because you have more time.

My first argument against starting school at 9.00 o’clock is that your concentration isn’t so good when the day “ends”. If you have to attend the lessons in the afternoon, you only think about coming home soon and you wish that the school bells release you. When the sun is shining you can’t concentrate yourself on lessons because you want to be outside.

My next argument is that you often have too much homework. So you come home and have to do them and you don´t have the time to do anything else. You get up in the morning for going to school, come home late in the afternoon, have to do homework and then go to bed. You wouldn't have more homework than if you started the day earlier, would you? This doesn't sound logical to me.

My last argument is that you have to stay longer the day at school. In the afternoon you haven’t enough time for your hobbies. You also often can’t do any sports, because you come home so late. And then you are often not motivated enough to go somewhere because you are tired. You also don´t have time for your friends which are not at your school.

In my opinion is that school at the usual time (7.50 o’clock) is okay, because after school you can meet friends, do sports, other hobbies or simply chill without being so tired to fall into your bed to sleep. You are also able to do what you want in the afternoon. For me it is really important to do what I want. It is more fun, because you can decide of your free time and you can find out what your hobbies are. In the winter you still have time, because when you don’t have to stay at school so long it isn’t dark when you come home and so you can do something before it is dark. You also can study better for your tests when it isn’t so late in the afternoon or in the evening.

I still wouldn't mind a bit more time in the morning - and according to studies especially teenagers' biological clocks just adjusted to an early start. Good comment!

Living in London is great! (Comment)

Living in Greater London

Some people think living in London would be or is great, some think it wouldn’t or isn’t. But what are the different aspects of living there? What makes the people want to live there? Or the other way around, why don't they want to live there? These are difficult questions and I’m going to answer them by discussing the pros and cons in the following text.

The first thing I want to mention is that many people pass their exams in London. Nearly everyone passes. So it looks like there are very good schools and also good teachers. So if you go to university or even just to school there you can be sure that your graduation will be valued by the future employers you want to work for.
Another point are the high earnings. You’ll be paid very well for jobs you would maybe get less money in another city. So also people who didn't graduate well or something like that are able to earn enough money to live in a good way.
Also a positive aspect of London are the sights. London has many interesting and beautiful sights to visit. So you won’t get bored. For example you can visit the Buckingham Palace or the Tower of London or one of the beautiful parks. This is also a good way to escape from the city-life for some hours, so you won’t get sick by living in such a big city.

So these are the good things about living in London, and now I'll sum up the bad things.

London has got a very high level of air pollution because of the huge number of cars, busses and so on. It’s not healthy to live in a city with that amount of air pollution. You can become ill and also get some heavy ailments because of the exhaust emissions and other bad things in the air.
Also the houses in London are very expensive.Only a few people are able to buy a house in London. They could just rent a house but even this is very expensive, so most people who come to London rent an apartment.
The last point against living in London is the high rate of unemployment. Lots of people have a good graduation and apprenticeship but they can’t find a job. So they were evicted to move away. Or if they don’t want to they have to sell their ownings or houses or something like that.

In the end I come to the conclusion that I think that London is, in my opinion, not a really good place to live at. I think it is nice to visit and everyone should visit it once, but I wouldn’t want to live there. Maybe just a year or something like that, for going to school there, but not for a longer time.

Pretty good comment, Denise! I think I agree: Cities are expensive and noisy, still, I'd move to a bigger city than Heidelberg any day.

Comment: Hurricane Kathrina

Q: How could Hurricane Katrina become such an immense political issue in the U.S.A?

C: In the past years the amount of tropical cyclones or hurricanes has dramatically risen and so has the standard of the warning and evacuating system...one should think. But when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, Louisiana, in August 2005 it demonstrated the raw force of nature by breaking through the levees, destroying buildings and connections and taking the life of 1464 people among those which weren’t evacuated. The flood covered eighty percent of the city with at least 15 ft (4.5 m) of water and people were forced to remain on their roofs. Truly a disaster of natural causes but was it really unstoppable. As the shocking pictures and videos of abandoned mostly Afro-American people struggled to survive, doubts came up and an issue of inequality began that was fought all over America.

There are different aspects to explain the extent of this argument with different reasons. One is that the victims of the hurricane in New Orleans almost only consist of poor Afro-American people. They are part of the “second “New Orleans, notorious for its high poverty and criminality rate. So the government was accused of abandoning these people due to their skin colour and their social status. This is a huge guilt for a land affirming to declare and to treat all men equally.

Another factor had been the miserable preparations for the catastrophe. The levees built to protect broke even though the force of the hurricane, against expectations, had decreased. The evacuation was not fast enough and many people were soon cut off from the outside of the city. These mistakes not only resulted in huge damages and the relevant cost but also in deaths. The responsibles were heavily criticized by the public.

The last aspect is about the insufficient help of the government after the crises. Many victims of the loss of property were helpless and unable to continue a proper life. And so they waited for help. And waited. And as they got impatient, they started looting. The criminality rose in order to survive and people died of exhaustion. The media showed the” black people looting” and “the white looking for food” and the public protested and demanded help for the falsely accused victims.

These and other aspects caused the controversial question of inequality to once again separate the public and heat their moods and show that the problem as old as America itself, is not solved yet. Sadly it took over 1000 lives to realise that, but hopefully the next step towards the promised land of Martin Luther King has been taken.

There is an excellent series of articles on race in the New York Times (they won a Pulitzer Price, which is like the Nobel prize for journalists in America). You can access it here. Very good job on the comment!