Fakt ist: Wäre Bin Laden nach pakistanischem Recht verurteilt worden, wäre vermutlich ein Todesurteil gefällt worden. Wäre er nach amerikanischem Recht verurteilt worden (je nachdem in welchem Bundesstaat) mit größter Wahrscheinlichkeit auch. Was mich persönlich aber irgendwie an dem Fall stößt: Die USA haben an dieser Stelle nicht nur die Souveränität Pakistans verletzt, sondern auch gegen die Konventionen der Menschenrechte verstoßen (u.a. Artikel 11). Der Rest der Welt applaudiert trotzdem. Ist das nicht irgendwie seltsam? Natürlich kann man hier argumentieren, dass die Vorwürfe gegen Bin Laden berechtigt waren, und es wenig gibt, was ihn in einem Verfahren entlasten würde, doch haben wir deshalb das Recht ihm das Recht zu nehmen? Um ein krasses, aber nicht allzu weit hergeholtes Beispiel anzubringen, selbst die Naziverbrecher, denen die Alliierten habhaft werden konnten, wurden zunächst vor Gericht gestellt. Laut momentaner Berichterstattung (s. u.a. Spiegel) stellte Bin Laden längst keine große Gefahr mehr dar. Den Terror befehligen heute andere.

War der Tod des „Meistgesuchten Mannes der Welt“ nur mehr Vergeltung und Wahlkampagne? Von George W. Bush wäre das zu erwarten gewesen. Dass sich nun Obama mit solch zweifelhaften Erfolgen zu schmücken scheint finde ich dagegen tatsächlich traurig. Alles in allem erscheinen mir Jagd auf und Tod Bin Ladens als nebulöser Fall, doch ich fände es zynisch das ganze als PR-Gag zu bezeichnen…

Gott sei Dank scheinen alle sehr Englisch-erprobt zu sein, denn meine Polnisch-Künste lassen noch zu wünschen übrig. Das grobe vorstellen mit Name und Interessen klappt zwar schon ganz gut, aber sieben Fälle und das Durchdeklinieren sämtlicher Namen und Nomen erfordern seine Ausdauer. In wie weit ich bis zu meiner Abreise fließend Polnisch spreche – wir werden es sehen. Zumindest der Papierkram dann erledigt sein. Bis dahin sag ich aber erst mal: „Dobranoc!“

Meine Krankheitsbilanz:

Medikamentenzuzahlungen                                               20,- Euro
Praxisgebühren                                                                 20,- Euro
Zusatzmedikamente die nicht übernommen werden    11,50,- Euro

Macht 51,50,- Euro.
Fazit: Gesund sein = Unbezahlbar!

Die letzte Kursperiode inklusive Klausurenphase war dann wohl endgültig zu viel. Virusinfektion. Supergau. Mein Körper ist halt auch nur ein Mensch. Zwangsbettruhe ist keine schöne Sache, war aber wohl notwendig und hat auch seine Vorteile. Endlich ohne Reue schlafen! Mein Körper und ich sind gerad auf dem Weg zur Versöhnung. Ich hoffe er lässt sich wieder sieben Jahre Zeit um mich mit der nächsten ausgefallenen Virusinfektion zu überraschen.

Introduction

“When in Rome, do as the Romans do”, this saying also counts for food. But what’s a delicacy for me might just be disgusting for someone else. Not few people were badly surprised by the regional dish they ordered during their holidays. Worms and grasshoppers, for example, have their place at the menu’s top of many cultures all over the world. Their intake in Germany (and in other western countries too), however, is reduced to a popular test of courage in TV Shows[1]. Our culture mainly influences what we eat. The other way round, food plays a big role for our identification with a cultural group. Remarks like: “Oh my God! They eat fish-eyes!” are often made without thinking. How comes that we meet particular foods with disgust? Is it just a question of experience and habituation or do we connect more than nutrition and pleasure to the things we eat? And if culture is really such a big determinant of our food choice, are we right to judge someone else’s food as disgusting?

1. “Was der Bauer nicht kennt, frisst er nicht.”[2]

Cows are lucky animals. Day by day they stand on the willows and chew their daily portion
of grass. Cows do not have to choose whether they want sushi or pizza for dinner. They do not have to argue with their children about putting cheese or chocolate-cream on their school sandwich. Cows do not share human worries about diets and too much sugar.

The reason why we humans worry just about those things is that we are so-called ‛omnivores’. This means we do not eat just a single type of food, like cows do, but we consume everything that seems to be edible (Rozin, 2006). Consequently, this brings us into the dilemma of having to choose what we want to eat. But how do we make this choice?

The food psychologist Paul Rozin (2006) gives a simple answer: “The plain fact is that the biggest determinant of what an individual eats is availability. One eats what is there, and more critically, one does not eat what is not there” (P. 19). Put in the light of evolution “eating what is there” is our human recipe for successful survival. It’s our ecological niche (P. 25). But even though our food choice is restricted by what’s available, or what is achievable from our income, there still remains the need for a final choice. In contrast to animals following a single diet, human omnivores have to make sure they get all essential nutrition. Furthermore, eating everything involves the danger of consuming toxins (P. 20).

Our genes are a slight help here. Innately, humans avoid bitter tastes, associated with toxins, and prefer sweet tastes, associated with fruits. Scientists suspect besides, that we have “an innate preference for fatty textures (associated with fat, protein, and in particular meat) and an innate avoidance of irritating sensations (such as generated by hot peppers or tobacco)” (Rozin, 2001, P. 238). Furthermore, we find a good portion of scepticism against new food (‛neophobia’), and a piece of curiosity for unknown food (‛neophilia’) in our genetic backpacks (P. 237). This is all our genes tell us about food choice. ‛Good food’ is therefore identified mainly by experience and social learning (Rozin, 2001).

Assumed you are in a restaurant with a friend of yours. Your friend, let us call him Paul, orders a dish you have never tried before, for instance snails with herb butter. The waitress brings your order, and you smell the very pleasant aroma of herbs and something unknown. On the one hand, you are very attracted to this smell. Your genes tell you: “This might be a delicious extension to your diet!” On the other hand you are scared. Your genes tell you: “Be careful, this might be dangerous!” You watch Paul while eating the snails. His face does not show any disgust. “Maybe I should try”, you think, as you see that Paul is neither getting any cramps, nor is starving. You ask for a bit and start to chew carefully. “Interesting,” you think “but still strange.” While you were busy with chewing snails, Paul tried your broccoli. “Tasty!” he says.

Two weeks later you meet again for dinner. You order the same dishes as last time. “Would you like some of my broccoli?” you ask Paul. Surprisingly he denies. “No thanks, after trying them last time I suffered from a terrible nausea, I think I will never eat broccoli again.” You shrug your shoulders and smile sympathetically. “May I nevertheless taste the snails again?” you ask. You pick one of Paul’s snails from the dish and start chewing,
“Hm… I start getting used to it!”

Paul’s and your dinner meetings nicely explain how we learn about food. By observing others while eating (during our childhood mostly our parents), we get a first impression of a food’s edibility. Does the other person not show disgust or symptoms of illness, we conclude, the food must be harmless. Whether we try the food in the following is also dependent on sensations like odour, consistency and appearance. Slimy or strong smelling foods are often rejected, probably because they remind us of decay, depicting a danger for our health (Jones, 2000). If food we tried is not followed by nausea[3], we try it again. The more often we try something, the more likely it gets that we like it (Rozin, 1997, P. 33). Food intake, which is followed by nausea, will not be repeated. We classify the concerned food as potential danger for our health, as it obviously made us ill (Rozin, 1997). This probably explains the effect why we cannot drink or even smell whisky for a long time, after we had too much of it on the last party.

This example is of course very simplified. In real life one would have to consider also familiar, religious and social influences. For instance, that your mom might have told you that broccoli is very healthy, which made you order it. Or, that she told you that snails are dirty animals, and that you therefore would never try to eat them. But this is another story. Generally we can record the fact that experiences about the edibility of particular things
get passed on. Over the centuries these experiences were collected and summarized in what we call ‛cuisine’. Cuisine contains not only the dishes and how they are made, but also “culinary rules about the ordering of dishes within a meal, what can be served with what, and what is to be served at particular times or occasions” (Rozin, 2001, P. 236). The traditional ‛Mittagessen’ in Germany, for example, is served between twelve and one o’clock at noon. A common dish contains a piece of meat, for example pork, vegetables like green beans or peas and carrots, and potatoes. In other countries lunch time and elements of a meal are very different.

The cuisine’s task of transmitting knowledge about food combinations and processing techniques is as important as the knowledge about the edibility of particular foods. Only the combination of different foods makes sure that we get all the nutrition we need. Processing techniques can contribute to that. The consumption of corn in many American cultures is a good example. According to Rozin (2001) “corn is not an adequate, complete nutrient.” The usual way of serving it, is processed into tortillas and combined with beans. In fact, processing and combination of “corn and beans [makes] an adequate protein source” (P. 240).

Cuisine furthermore equips us with so-called ‛flavour principles’ (Rozin, 2001, P. 236). Rozin (2001) assumes that common ways of flavouring food are a way of dealing with neophobia in preparing unknown food in a known way (P. 238). Cuisine is specific to the culture, as it lives from its ingredients. It uses ingredients available in the region and is therefore bound to them. As we get raised with the cuisine of our culture, we are used to its flavours and components. Other food habits may therefore arouse our suspicion (neophobia). Cuisine moreover also contains beliefs about food. Beliefs can make us feel strange about eating particular things. They can even lead to disgust.

2. Yurk! – The Origins of Disgust

I hate the taste of eggs. No matter if they are cooked or baked – I cannot stand them. If they are in a soufflé and I figure it out by smell or taste, I cannot eat anymore of it. Most of you will have similar aversions against one or more particular foods. Some of you might remember that they once got ill after eating it. As we heard before, this food is then put into the category of dangerous foods and therefore not liked anymore (like Paul’s Broccoli). On the other hand, there is food we would never even taste, like worms or crickets. Just like me, a lot of you will not be sure why they find the ingestion of particular things disgusting. Where does our disgust come from?

Michael Owen Jones (2000) points out, that disgust is easily confused with distaste or dislike. Actually both feelings are very different. If you just do not like a food, this can result from the characteristics it keeps. You can, for example, do not like egg, because you do not like its consistency. Or you might not like tomatoes, because you have once eaten
too much of it. It might also be that you lost your sense for tiramisu, since you saw how your ex-boyfriend fed it to his new girlfriend. Distastes like these usually do not last forever (P. 54). I’m pretty sure, when you have overcome the break-up with your ex, you will get back to tiramisu again. Who could resist it any longer? “Disgust” says Jones, “leads to aversion: avoiding the noxious object. But disgust is not the same as aversive learning or ‛bait shyness’” (P. 55). According to Jones, real disgust is rather a product of our culture.

Let me give an example. My friend was raised in South America, Ecuador. A popular Ecuadorian dish, she often ate, is roasted guinea pig. Guinea pigs are prepared in a similar way like chicken. The fur is plucked, the innards are taken out, and the rest is roasted over a skewer. Do you feel offended by the imagination of eating guinea pigs? Do you feel nauseated just by the thought of it? This is the kind of disgust we’re talking about. You never tried guinea pig, so you cannot know if it is not a very tasty, delicious meal. The reason for why the idea of eating guinea pigs is so offending for you is because in your culture guinea pigs are cute, little companions of children. The relation of people in Ecuador to guinea pigs is more like the relation of Europeans to chickens. They are livestock without any names. Eating animals they feel related to, like cats or dogs, is also for Ecuadorians a taboo. In fact, scientists agree on the theory, that we generally reject to eat animals we regard as humanlike, for example pets (Jones, 2000, P. 58).

‛You are what you eat’ is a popular saying. In our Western culture it moreover seems to be a belief, influencing our food choice (Rozin, 2001, P. 244). In a study with American college students Nemeroff & Rozin (1989) detected this belief not to be conscious, but very subtle. In the study undergraduate students were provided with a description of a culture, containing inter alia information about their food and hunting habits. Afterwards they were asked to make judgements about the characteristics of the culture’s members. A great part of the undergraduate students rated, for example, members of a culture eating boar as more ‛boarlike’ than members of other cultures, eating for instance turtles. ‛You are what you eat’ explains partly, why most rejected foods stem from animals (Rozin, 2001). Who would like to take on the properties of a snail by ingesting it? Even though this idea sounds odd at first sight, we should not judge about this belief too early. Thinking of the fact that you can, for instance, take a red colour by eating a lot of tomatoes (Nemeroff & Rozin 1989), the idea of overtaking properties of your food does not seem so unlikely anymore.

Even though ‛You are what you eat’ seems to serve as a good explanation for food rejection it is not the only probable one. In Germany, the popular TV-Show ‛Ich bin ein Star, holt mich hier raus!’[4], regularly causes sensations in the best sense of the word. During the show, playing in the Australian jungle, celebrities have to solve a bunch of ‛jungle challenges’. These challenges often include the ingestion of, for German stomachs, unusual foods, for example worms and maggots (prepared or alive), deer-testicles or a purée made of crocodile penis (n.d., 2011, ‛Sarah Knappik und Jay Khan in der vierten Dschungelprüfung’). Just the thought of eating these things fills most of us with disgust –
the contestants in the show obviously suffer by doing so. What, besides ‛You are what you eat’, makes these things so disgusting, that they can serve as objects for a test of courage?

Starting with the worms we first of all can make the note, that humans not only regard the ingestion of humanlike animals as repellent. We moreover reject to eat animals that are very different to us, like maggots, crickets and other insects (Jones, 2000, P. 58). Miller, in Jones (2000), conjectures that especially slimy, slithery things, like worms, remind us of the future rotting of our own body. They therefore fill us with horror (P. 58). Furthermore, we all know that especially maggots eat spoiled foods, dead animals and even human corpses. This involves the so-called ‛sympathetic magical law of contagion’. “The law of contagion holds that ‛once in contact, always in contact’; that is, when two objects come into contact, properties are permanently exchanged” (Rozin, 2001, P. 245). By eating rotten things, the maggots themselves gain a rotten quality. We therefore reject them as potential food.

According to Jones (2000), also “animal and human waste, bodily fluids or secretions, and body parts associated with saliva, urine, feces, and so on trigger revulsion at the thought of contact with them, especially oral incorporation of them” (P. 56). This explains the jungle camp’s participant’s disgust to eat deer testicles and crocodile penis. As sexual organs these parts of the animals came in particular into contact with the bodily fluids we would not like to ingest. By consuming these body parts “the history of what the organ had touched and done would [psychologically] become a contaminating part of [our] own history” (P. 56).

Jones (2000) and Rozin (2006, 2001 and 1997) drew their conclusions from observations and experiments they made in the United States of America. Although there are big differences in food habits between the single European countries already, I nevertheless think that their results can be applied to the whole western area. This is because we share a similar history of thought and also religious backgrounds, as our nations always stood in close contact and exchange.

A common cultural background, however, not only shapes disgusts, but also a common identity. This not only counts for people living together in one area, but also on the smaller level of, for example, a country. People living in the western states might share particular ideas, but people living in the same nation will find even more similarities in their ways of thinking (Scholliers, 2001). Mostly, this contains a common taste for food. Food can easily become a source for identification with a country, but it can also contribute to shape a country’s identity (Belasco in Belasco & Scranton, 2002).

3. Tell me what you eat, I tell you where you are from!

If you think of France, what do you think of? – Baguettes, croissants, red wine and cheese? Italy – Pasta, pizza and espresso? Food is more than just nutrition or joy. According to Gary Fine (in Belasco in Belasco & Scranton, 2002), “we use our diet to convey images of public identity” (P. 2). Consequently it is not surprising, that most of us relate the delight of pasta with sunny days at the Lake Garda, or think of the Eiffel Tower while enjoying a piece of Camembert. – This is what Italy and France resemble to us. But what actually is identity? And what has food to do with it?

The concept of identity is not unproblematic, as it contains diverse types and theories (Scholliers, 2001). Nevertheless, to answer our questions, the general definition of Peter Scholliers (2001) seems sufficient. According to him, identity is “a person’s own definition in terms of group membership, which entails intergroup behaviour, or the identification of a person with the norms, ideals and manners of a group” (P. 5). Thus, if you identify yourself as a French citizen, you also identify with French attitudes and French culture. Identity is very important for us. Imagine you lost your mind after a car accident. You would not know your name anymore, where you live and what you like. Moreover, you would not know who the people around you are. Are they friend or enemy? You would feel scared and confused. To feel safe, we need to categorize our environment. This is only possible if we can decide whether certain characteristics of a category do or do not belong to a particular thing or creature (Scholliers, 2001). Identification is thus the key to categorization.

Scientists agree upon the fact, that food habits determine a great part of our identity and the other way round (Scholliers, 2001). This is only logically if we consider that we spend the major part of our daily life with earning money to buy food, thinking about food, cooking food, and last but not least, with eating food (Rozin, 1997). Recent research (Fischler in Scholliers, 2001; Rozin 2006, 2001, 1997) has given rise to the suspicion that we are so sensible about what we eat, because we take it into our bodies – surely one of our most intimate acts.

Group identities, like those of nations, are constructed by the similarities of their members (Scholliers, 2001). By identifying with the attitudes of a particular group (nation/country), we identify with the group’s food habits too. In a nutshell: If the French eat cheese, you need to eat cheese to be French. Thus, what a person eats can tell us about his or hers place in the world. Identity is, however, not only constructed by similarity, but also by what differentiates us from others. “If we are what we eat”, says Warren Belasco (in Belasco & Scranton, 2002), “we also are what we don’t eat. People moralize constantly about what they will and will not eat. To eat is to distinguish and discriminate, include and exclude. Food choices establish boundaries and borders” (P. 2).

If I decide to abstain from eating meat, I exclude myself from the group of people eating meat. But at the same time I have the possibility to join the group of vegetarians, defining themselves by just not eating meat. Fischler (in Scholliers 2001) points out, that we regard people as more trustworthy, if they eat similar foods. People eating unusual foods, are, however, met with suspicion. National cuisine consequently serves as a source for identification with one’s own country. On the other hand it gives the possibility of excluding others, who do not share our taste or even eat things which are tabooed in our own food culture (Bell & Valentine, 1997).

4. Culinary Diversity – Why we should not judge about other’s diner

Grilled chicken or roasted guinea pig? What you prefer for Lunch depends to a large part on your cultural background and what you are used to. Whether you do or do not eat pork steak is moreover also a question of identification. Food and cultural identity are deeply interrelated. Food habits are therefore more than just a question of delight – they can turn into a political issue. A multicultural society should foster unity, but beware its diversity at the same time. This is only possible if all members of the society show respect for each others cultures (Parekh, 2000). Our multicultural society not only confronts us with women in burkas, but also with different eating habits we have to respect. Still we often thoughtlessly talk about other’s food habits: “Did you hear? Anna was in Thailand. They eat maggots there.” “Yurk! Disgusting!”

Not too many people think about the ignorance such remarks express. Chinese eat dogs. This simple assertion contains more than just one level. It expresses not only the fact that dog flesh is eaten in a few parts of China[5]. By saying “Chinese eat dogs” we generalize. We say “All Chinese eat dogs”. Imagine a Chinese saying “All Germans eat sauerkraut” or “All Dutch eat cheese”. Even though it seems more probable that all Germans eat sauerkraut than that all Chinese eat dogs[6] (Wu, 2003), it is simply not true. By saying so we, moreover, draw a line between them (‛the Chinese’) and us. ‛We’ do not eat dogs. Last but not least, we also make judgement: Is not eating dogs somehow reprehensible? Only people morally inferior to us could eat such adorable animals. The thought that one’s own way of living is the best, is poisonous for a multicultural society. We should therefore better think before making such statements out of the blue.

Embracing other cultures, especially in the domain of food, is very popular these days. Chinese restaurants, sushi bars and doner kebap take-aways spring up like mushrooms. Unfortunately this does not mean that we got more tolerant. A closer look reveals that we just welcome what already fits into our set of beliefs – Or did you ever find fish eyes, fried crickets or chicken feet on the menu of your favourite Chinese restaurant (Wu, 2003, P. 221)? Being tolerant is more than just ignoring unpleasant characteristics of foreign cuisine. It means looking into particular food traditions and trying to understand them. Wu (2003) points out, that the tradition of eating dogs in Asia, for instance, can be dated back to times of poverty and famine, when “dogs [competed] with humans for resources” (P. 225). The concept of a pet as we keep it today would have seemed ridiculous to the peasants. Knowing about this background, we can understand how dogs could find their way on the menu.

Surely, there should be room for discussion of food habits “between equals” (Wu, 2003, P. 225). Under the premises “If you can criticize my cultural practices, I should be able to criticize your cultural practices”, (P. 225), we would also have to think about our tradition of pork joint. Frank Wu (2003) remarks, that eating pigs does not differ so much from eating dogs, as they share the same amount of intelligence. Our ways of keeping them until they are slaughtered are, however, also not very humane (P. 227).

A more dramatically influence has the western open disgust for insects as food. DeFoliart (1999) claims, that “our bias against insects as food has an adverse impact, resulting in a gradual reduction in the use of insects without the replacement of lost nutrition and other benefits” (P. 1). According to DeFoliart (1999), we should be more open to eating insects, as they contain a lot of nutrition and are easily and in sufficient amount available.

In the end, we have to learn to respect the differences of other cultures in order to keep diversity. We should try to understand why we feel uncomfortable about particular foods, and why other people still eat them. Being open for dialogue does not mean, that we have to give up our traditions, but it helps to understand, that we eat things others find strange, too. By overcoming our suspicion, we can, for sure, just profit from the richness of each others cuisines.

5. Conclusion

“Appetite comes with eating” is another well known saying. An acquaintance of mine went often to Thailand for holiday. When he got to know some locals, they invited him for dinner. After finishing a delicious rice dish he asked for the ingredients. You can imagine his surprised look when he found out that the darker grains were no different type of rice, but roasted maggots. Since then, he got more courageous in trying foreign foods. Although what we like or dislike is influenced by the experience of our own culture, we should try to be open to new experiences. Our disgust for certain foods can be explained by our set of beliefs. Maybe we can overcome it by looking at the set of beliefs lying behind the eating of traditional dishes that appear strange to us. Everyone can talk disparagingly about other’s food habits. Trying to understand the other’s traditions requires a deeper look into the motives. If we can learn to respect our culinary differences, this can not only contribute to a better society, but also to a richer cuisine.

References:

Belasco, W. & Scranton, P. (2002). Food Nations. Selling Taste in Consumer Societies. New York, London: Routledge.
Bell, D. & Valentine, G. (Ed.). (1997). Consuming Geographies. We Are Where We Eat. London, New York: Routledge
DeFoliart, G. R. (1999). Insects as Food: Why the Western Attitude is Important. Annual Reviews, 44, 21 – 50
Jones, M. O. (2000). What’s Disgusting, Why and What Does It Matter? Journal of Folklore Research, 37(1), 53 – 71
Nemeroff, C. J. & Rozin, P. (1989). „You are What You Eat“: Applying the Demand-Free „Impressions“ Technique to an Unacknowledged Belief. Ethos, 17(1), 50 – 69
Parekh, B. (2000). Rethinking Multiculturalism. Cultural Diversity and Political Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press
Rozin, P. (2006). The Integration of Biological, Social, Cultural and Psychological Influences on Food Choice. In Sheperd, R. & Raats, M. (Ed.), The Psychology of Food Choice. (pp. 19 – 36). Wallingford: CABI
Rozin, P. (2001). Sociocultural Influences on Human Food Selection. In Capaldi, E., Why We Eat What We Eat (3^rd ed.) (pp. 233 – 256). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association
Rozin, P. (1997). Why We Eat What We Eat, and Why We Worry About It. Bulletin of the American Arts and Science, 50(5), 26 – 48
Scholliers, P. (Ed.). (2001). Food, Drink and Identity. Cooking, Eating and Drinking in Europe Since the Middle Ages. Oxford, New York: Berg.
Wu, F. H. (2003). Yellow: Race in America Beyond Black and White (1^st paperback ed). New York: Basic Books
n.d. (2011). Sarah Knappik und Jay Khan holen in der vierten Dschungelprüfung neun Sterne, Retrieved January 14th, 2011 from http://www.rtl.de/medien/unterhaltung/ich-bin-ein-star/dschungelcamp-news/127af-925e3-7c29-22/jay-wo-kann-ich-jetzt-k.html

Beim Anwalt erfuhr ich, dass mich eine Klage gegen das Abschleppen gar nichts kostet – noch nicht mal einen Anwalt – vor Gericht kann ich mich in diesem Punkt nämlich selbst verteidigen, und mein Anwalt meinte, dass würde sogar wohlwollend gesehen. Im schlimmsten Fall muss ich die Strafe am Ende doch bezahlen. Verfahrenskosten gibt es aber keine. Also: nicht den Mut verlieren.

Ich hab also einfach den Bußgeldbescheid abgewartet und innerhalb der zweiwöchigen Frist Einspruch eingelegt. Die Mühlen der Justiz malen ja bekanntlich langsam, aber letzte Woche habe ich dann endlich die Bestätigung bekommen, dass die Sache an die Staatsanwaltschaft übergeben wurde. Jetzt mal abwarten was draus wird.

Was ich jetzt schon aus der Sache gelernt habe: Es lohnt sich mal zu recherchieren, ob man wirklich alles so hinnehmen muss. Denn meistens gibt es tatsächlich einen Weg zumindest mal seine Meinung zum Thema los zu werden.

Dieses Jahr Weihnachten habe ich eine Dreiviertelstunde gebraucht um meinen Wagen auszugraben. Fluchend haben der Mann und ich bis zu den Knien im Schnee gestanden. An den Fenstern standen die Schaulustigen (oder auch Feiglinge), die ihre warme Wohnung nicht verlassen wollten, und haben uns johlend zugesehn. In Tempo 30 sind wir dann gen Kleinstadt geschlittert und zwanzig Minuten nach dem geplanten Zeitpunkt tatsächlich angekommen.

Da das Weihnachtsessen immer die Domäne meines Vaters war, gab es dieses Jahr Fondue. Quasi ein „Brat-it-Yourself“. Auch wenn ich Fondue durchaus was abgewinnen kann, ist Weihnachten ohne Schweinelendchen in Pfeffer-Rahm-Soße und das Gemeckere meines alten Herrn über Mutters Hang zur Weihnachtsbeschallung nicht das Gleiche… Aber, wir versuchen ja uns zusammenzureißen. Ein Gewaltmarsch durch den Schnee hilft dabei. Nach der Hälfte der Strecke stellten wir allerdings fest, dass wir die Entfernung vielleicht doch etwas unterschätzt hatten. Auch mein Versuch Schlitten zu fahren war nicht ganz so von Erfolg gekrönt, wie ich es mir vorgestellt hatte. Der Schnee war zu hoch und zu weich, sodass mein Bruder und ich mit dem Schlitten einsanken und den Berg mehr herunterkugelten, als zu fahren. Ich wage allerdings zu behaupten, dass das auch viel lustiger ist…

Der Schnee hat uns letztendlich auch vom gestrigen geplanten Verwandschaftsbesuch in der Modestadt am Rhein bewahrt. Dafür fahren in Rock City keine Busse mehr, seit dem 23., wie ich selbst schmerzhaft feststellen musste. Der Schnee hat halt gute und schlechte Seiten, genau wie das diesjährige Weihnachtsfest. Nichtsdestotrotz bin ich froh nicht in den Bayrischen Wald fahren zu müssen um auch mal weiße Weihnachten zu feiern. Denn Ski laufen, Schlitten fallen und Schneemänner bauen können dieses Jahr wir dieses Jahr auch in Rock City. In diesem Sinne wünsche ich euch noch ein schönes, verschneites restliches Weihnachtsfest!

Heute habe ich mich endlich dazu überwunden meine Winterjacke in die Reinigung zu bringen. Die Frau an der Annahme wirft einen Blick darauf und ruft nach hinten: „Birgit, wat kostet denn die Reinijung von ner Kinderjacke?“. Ich möchte an dieser Stelle feststellen, dass es sich um eine Damenjacke, Größe 32, handelt. „10 Euro!“, ruft Birgit zurück, und innerlich denke ich mir „Na ja, wenn’s dadurch billiger wird…“