Hostages held, Mumbai death toll climbs

BodyPump - my favourite workout for fighting globesity

I'm still working on this article, so just stay tuned to find out why this BodyPump-lecture has anything to do with English Social Studies.

Inaugural addresses

Yesterday we were lucky to attend a lecture held by Dr. Kathleen Godfrey (Associate Professor, California State University--Fresno, Ph.D.) about inaugural addresses.

The most common usage of the term is in the context of a formal investiture whereby an individual assumes an office or position of authority or power. The term is usually used in reference to a politician's assumption of the duties of head of state or head of government (e.g. the President's inauguration). An "inaugural address" is the presidential speech given at this ceremony which informs the people of his intentions as a leader.

We discussed some famous speeches and had a really interesting and inspiring time with our American visitor=) Take a look at some famous passages from Inaugural speeches:

George Washington (1789)
"The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the Amercan People."

Abraham Lincoln (1861)
"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break or bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and partriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when touched again, as surely they will be, by the better angels of nature."

Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933)
"First of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning,unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."

John F. Kennedy (1961)
"And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

The beautiful "Time after time"

Lying in my bed, I hear the clock tick, and think of you
Caught up in circles confusion is nothing new
You say go slow; I fall behind
The second hand unwinds

If you're lost, you can look and you'll find me
Time after time
If you fall, I'll catch you; I'll be waiting
Time after time

Time after time
Time after time

by Nick Gilder/James Mcculloch

The Kite Runner Movie

The bestselling novel “The Kite Runner” has become a movie and reached the cinemas – with great success and victory! The expectations were sky-high, and the chance of failing was utterly present. But the job is done – and it’s done well. It certainly was a nice and moving alteration from book to film.
Despite the film’s low budget, the cinematography is surprisingly superb and excellent .The scenery and filming are spectacular, and all the direction and editing are amazingly well done. I will emphasize how great this movie is made by referring to an opening scene; just imagine a colorful kite in the wonderful blue sky, flying over an immense area side by side with a vast flock of birds. This is a splendid scene and this film technique pervades the whole film, making it a great and unforgettable film experience.
In addition to the great cinematography, the performances in this movie were stunning. The acting was generally astounding and beyond belief, but Ahmad Khan Mahmidzada was amazing. He did an incredible job portraying the young Hassan, it was beyond doubt captivating. I found the scene where Hassan is raped intriguing and somewhat important for the film. This is a striking turning point breaking the perfect idyll between the two boys, then ruining the loving friendship they used to share. Ahmad’s acting in this very sequence was astonishing and what more can I say, but brilliant. I was really mesmerized.
As well as great cinematography and stunning performances, the manuscript is exceptional and admirable. By experience I’m painfully aware of how difficult it is to make a spectacular film out of such a magnificent and remarkable novel, but this movie truly gives great justice to the book. Of course, some parts of the book have not been included, but I don’t think this fact constitutes any loss, because we are lucky witnesses of a great transition from a book to a film. Khaled Hosseini’s innate and unbelievable ability to write together with his compassionate storytelling is accurately represented in the movie.
Stunning performances, outstanding cinematography and a great story; it certainly was a nice and moving transition from book to film. As I mentioned, the chance of failing was considerable and the expectations were so high that they were literally sky-scraping, but nevertheless is it satisfying to achieve success. And they did.

“For you a thousand times over and over”.

Literature of current interest

Nowadays, each and every newschannel, newspaper or webpage are dominated by news considering the revolutionary election in USA last week.

This is why I want to recommend a book that I just started to read; it is called "The audacity of hope", and it is written by the winner himself, Barack Obama.

This book truly provides an unique insight when it comes to what is was that formed Obama to become what he is today; an outstanding politician who will mark American and international politics for many years to come.

The Jungle Book & The House of Literature

Yesterday, I attended a lecture held by Henrik Langeland about american literature. He talked about famous and important writers like David Foster Wallace, Joan Didion and Dave Eggers. I sure was inspired to read Infinite Jest, which is written by Foster Wallece, who died recently.

Toaday I attended a Workshop with the famous dancer Adil (he won the contest "So you thick you can dance?" in 2006). He told the class about the long and difficult process it has been to become what he his today. His father didn't aknowledge Adil's ambitions and therefore Adil went ttough a difficult time trying to reach his goals. It was a mesmerizing and emotional talk...

Adil plays Mowgli in the "Jungle Book", which we attended as "guests of honor"...

The Separation of Powers Principle

The French philosopher Charles de Secondat Montesquieu and his declaration "De l’esprit des loix" from 1748, is widely acknowledged as the philosophical and idealistic foundation of the principle of the separation of powers.
Montesquieu disliked the fact that the legislative power often acted as the executive one as well, and he worked hard to prevent this; for one thing he wrote an assertion stating: “When the legislative power is united with the executive authority in one and the same person (or in the same higher organ of a state), no freedom can be found because there will be tyrannical leaders who create laws only to execute them in a tyrannical way”.

His views and visions were a reaction to France’s more noble community’s massive waste of money and state resources. Montesquieu himself was exceedingly critical to the way that the king and his associates – richer persons like businessmen and the aristocracy– had governed the French state. His declaration and public disparagement of the state were both the forerunner and the actual triggering factor to the French revolution.
He introduced the world to a new way of dividing powers in a state, and I intend to discuss both the advantages and disadvantages (if there are any), of the principle of separation of powers.

WHAT THE PRINCIPLE INVOLVES
Here’s the deal: there are three branches: the executive, the legislative and the judicial. The executive branch is the governor. The executive’s job is to carry out the laws and make sure they are obeyed. Branch two: the legislative. Think legislature! Their job is simply explained: they are making laws. Thirdly, the judicial branch, made up of courts and judges. Their job is to make sure that the laws are fair.
So, what it is that makes this system special and has done it ever since 1789, is the fact that the US government actually works because these branches balance each other out. If one division goes too far, the others can simply pull it back. Let me exemplify it this way: each branch is responsible and conscientious for the things the other branches are not. Not only responsible, but so in charge that none of the other branches can do the other thing. For example; the executive branch can not make a law, the legislative branch can not decide whether a law is reasonable for everybody or not, and the judicial branch can not carry out a law.
There are some real benefits for you and me with this sort of deal. Think about it: if every branch could do the job of every other branch, then one could possibly take over. In other words, in a scenario like that, you would only need one branch, which means no more democracy. And no democracy is no good.
So, the next time somebody says that one branch or another should step in and set another branch aright, like telling the court how to do justice, think about what’s at stake; the answer to that is basically everything.

ARE THERE ANY DISADVANTAGES AT ALL?
I have discussed the principle of separation of powers with lots of different people lately, and when it comes to whether there are any disadvantages connected to this system or not, the opinions seem to differ. There are none known disadvantages of this system, but after several discussions I have decided to mention two aspects that may appear and be looked upon as if they were disadvantages.
1. Costly
Running and administrating the three branches of the state is often considered to be far more expensive and resource-demanding than maintaining one single government like in a unitary state.

2. Time-consuming
The branches are independent of one another, but sometimes new laws, requests and initiatives have to be negotiated through lengthy consultations between the three branches. Bureaucracy equals to slow processes.

CONCLUSION
The principle of separation of powers, which is the foundation of both the Norwegian and American state and constitution, is doubtlessly a system with more advantages than disadvantages. The system confines corruption and prevents any abuse of authority. The principle ensures that the execution of power is dispersed on three independent authorities.
One of the most popular benefits with this system is the fact that some of the power belongs to the people itself. They elect senators for the senate, and representatives for The House Of Representatives.

Democrats hold big lead as election day slowly approaches

Polls show Obama ahead in numerous states whose electoral votes total nearly 300...