Though we both drank loads of beer on our trip (I mostly stuck with my beloved lambics), Keith was on a self-imposed mission to consume all of the Belgian Trappists.  Did he succeed?  Scroll down to find out.

• House beer at Chez Léon, Brussels.
• Hopus Blonde at A La Mort Sabite, Brussels.
• “Lambic Dégustation: Lambic Doux, Lambic  Blanc, Kriek, Bourgogne des Flandres” at A La Bécasse, Brussels. *
• Hoegaarden at Le Pré Salé, Brussels.
• De Koninck bolleke at Quinten Matsijs, Antwerp.
• Leffe Blond at Amadeus, Antwerp.
• Kwak at Café Métropole, Brussels.
• ‘t Smisje Wostyntje Tour Hauts Mosterd Biër at ‘t Brugs Beertje, Bruges.
• ‘t Smisje Dubbel at ‘t Brugs Beertje, Bruges.
• Abbaye des Rocs Brune at Le Corbeau, Brussels.
• Delirium Tremens at De Dulle Griet, Ghent.
• Trappistes Rochefort 10 at Het Waterhuis aan de Bierkant, Ghent.
• Orval at Delirium Café, Brussels.
• Duvel at Chaff, Brussels.
• Chimay Bleue at Chaff, Brussels.
• Maredsous 10 Tripel at Café Le Fontainas, Brussels.
• Amstel at Brasserie De Roode Leeuw, Amsterdam.
• Westvleteren 12 at Café Gollem, Amsterdam.
• Westmalle Dubbel at Café Gollem, Amsterdam.
• Hertog Jan Weizener at Festina Lente, Amsterdam.
• Kasteel Donker at Café Brakke, Amsterdam.
• Leffe Blond at Café de Pels, Amsterdam.
• Duvel at Café van Leeuwen, Amsterdam.
• Charles Quint at Café Gollem, Amsterdam.
• Maredsous 8 Dubbel at Café Gollem, Amsterdam.
• Duchesse de Bourgogne at Silkbar, Amsterdam.
• Karmeliet Tripel at Café Gollem (Pijp), Amsterdam.
• La Trappe Tripel at Café Gollem (Pijp), Amsterdam.
• Leffe Brune at Silkbar, Amsterdam.
• Westmalle Tripel at Kingfisher, Amsterdam.
• La Trappe Isid’or at ‘t Arendsnest, Amsterdam.
• Texels Tripel at ‘t Arendsnest, Amsterdam.
• Stichting NH Alternatieve Bierbrouwers Maelstrom at ‘t Arendsnest, Amsterdam.

* Timmerman’s

Having been a little bit shoddy to date on the whole sightseeing front, A and I decided to spend our Saturday messing about on the river. We were both surprised to see how near the river mouth is to our condo, having caught the MRT just one stop up to Raffles Place. Obviously we need to wander about more and get our bearings better! We kicked proceedings off by starting at the Sir Stamford Raffles monument (he’s credited with founding Singapore in 1819), which is located outside the impressive Victoria Theatre. Just a hop and a skip away is the Asia Civilisations Museum which we decided to save for another day, but is housed in a lovely riverside setting. Today is the last day of the River Festival, so there are all sorts of activities going on alongside and on the river, so there were podiums and tents scattered all along the bankside which meant we weren’t always able to see all the river life sculptures that you’ll find scattered along the walk. Ah well!

We crossed the Cavenagh Bridge – good old Scottish engineering and the first suspension bridge in the country. We loved the sign forbidding cattle, horses and heavy loads from crossing. Needless to say, A found lots of heifer jokes to aim in my direction at this point. The imposing Fullerton Hotel (formerly the old post office) greets you from the other side of the bridge and its floral terrace looks like an idyllic setting for a cocktail or afternoon tea. I’m sure mum will be treated to a trip there when she visits.

 Since we arrived in Singapore, we’ve noticed these cartoon like statues dotted around the city bearing messages about acting with kindness and respect towards others. I couldn’t resist a photo opp today. They look like Olympic mascots or something, but are evidently part of a campaign to encourage Singaporeans to behave better! How PC gone mad is that? You even see it on the MRT (tube) – signs and videos asking you to wait until passengers have alighted before you get on and to give up your seats to those in need. 90% of the time it seems to be effective and it makes me laugh to think how such messaging would be received in London (no doubt with deaf ears and abusive graffiti), although not everyone seems to pay attention …

We wandered along Boat Quay – a row of bars and restaurants flanked at one end by the Penny Black (Brit pub) and the other by Bar-ra-cuda (Aussie bar) – but thankfully filled in with restaurants of  a more local feel in between. Although my Dad would have recoiled in horror at the Man Utd bar – they’re massive fans over here! They’re all situated in colourful renovated shop-houses, but you can’t help feeling how touristy it all is, not helped any by the eager waiters trying to coax you into their eatery every five seconds. Boat Quay soon merged into Clarke Quay, which is much the same as the former but more geared towards a younger social scene. Having enjoyed its delights of an evening, we wasted no time hanging around and headed on further up the river to the final point, Robertson Quay, which we were pleasantly surprised with.  We couldn’t resist the quirkily named Belgian resto-bar, “Brussels Sprouts” and headed on in for moules frites and some refreshments. They had a massive range of Belgian beer and it would have been rude not to indulge. A was in his element to see they served his beloved Kwak – although I am sure it is the novelty drinking vessel rather than the 8.4% amber goodness itself that carries the appeal! Kudos to the friendly waiter we had who  knew his stuff about Belgian beer. Every day’s a school day.

No good river trip is complete without getting on a boat, so we boarded a “bumboat” (river taxi) at the Copthorne and meandered our way back down the river in the heat of the day (thank goodness for the breeze), and set foot ashore at the Fullerton where we saw our favourite bronze river sculpture of the day – Chinese boys jumping into the river. An inviting prospect until you see how murky the waters are … 

A fab day out was topped off nicely by a chilled glass of Sauv Blanc as the sun started to set in our rooftop Jacuzzi. Ah, the life!

Nostalgie alom bij het zien van dit filmpje.
Instant hapiness!

I think I mentioned that we picked up an old game of Trivial Pursuit when we went to Door County last weekend. I now carry around a little stack of the cards in my purse, because you just never know when you might need a little Pursuit. I’ve also been informed that if I had an iPhone, this would not be neccessary, but until then I will keep them in my heavy bag of tricks.

This weekend’s weather called for the first summer visit to the Hopleaf’s beer garden. It is only a few blocks from our place, and is one of my favorite summer spots to pass the time.

Gigantic man paws with a fancy Kwak glass. Justin always looks miserable during our patio dining shots, but I assure you he was enjoying himself.

Hopleaf Frites. Do not attempt to deny yourself this pleasure. The dipping sauce is divine.

So we are sitting in the perfect temperature, on the perfect patio, eating our perfect frites and sipping beers. The trivial pursuit cards are being played. The question “What do Las Vegas blackjack dealers stand on” comes up. I sit and think about how their legs must get tired. And I think about the gel mats that bartenders get to stand on. Then I answer “little podiums or pedestals.” I was pretty confident. Justin is horrified. The answer was “17″ of course. 

Here is Justin on the walk home after we couldn't eat another frite or drink another beer. I love being able to walk home from our adventures. Getting in the car would ruin it for me. How else would I get to admire my husband's calf muscles? I have some crazy calf muscles as well. Our babies are going to have serious legs.

Burst.

Das belgische Kwak aus der Brauerei Boostels zählt zu den Lieblingsbieren des Autors. Der internationale Ruhm stammt aber nicht nur vom einzigartigen kräftig-blumigen Geschmack, sondern vor allem durch die innovative Glasform.

Wohl ist innovativ nicht der richtige Name für das besondere Glas mit seinem Holzständer, das jedem Bierinteressierten sofort ins Auge sticht. Denn dieses Glas hat lange Tradition. Gemeinsam mit seinem Holzgestell wurde es schon im 19. Jahrhundert vom flanderischen Gastwirt Pauwel Kwak erfunden, der es entwickelte um den durstigen Kutschern ein Bier servieren zu können, dass Sie an der Kutschenseite einhängen konnten. Obwohl sich das starke Braunbier damals zu einer regionalen Spezialität entwickelte, geriet es über die Zeit in Vergessenheit.

Erst Mitte des letzten Jahrhunderts braute die Brauerei Boostels in Buggenhout diese Spezialität wieder und verwendet dazu auch ähnliche Gläser, die zu begehrten Sammlerobjekten wurden. In Brüsseler Cafes war es lange Zeit üblich, dem Wirt einen Schuh als Pfand zu geben, damit man mit dem doch auch sehr teuren Glas nicht abzischt. Die Sammlerleidenschaft ist ja oft ein Hund. Und da nützt es dann auch nichts, sich auf die 8,1 % Alkohol im Kwak auszureden.

Im belgischen Fernsehen war zuletzt folgender netter Beitrag (in original holländisch) über das Kwak-Bier zu sehen:

The antithesis to market capitalism is monopoly.  High market concentration has been historically a reason to use the US Justice Department to trust bust.  We’ve had laws on the books since the late 19th century.  The last real monopoly challenge was during the Clinton administration that took on Microsoft and its software bundling practices.  The Bush 2 administration promptly walked away from enforcing the suit.  The Eurozone found Microsoft guilty of monopoly behavior and are still in the process of enforcing their court’s findings.  We’ve been ignoring monopoly-creating behavior on the part of lawmakers and corporations for decades now and we’re living with the high costs of market failure as a result.

Much of the problems in the current downturn can be traced to the behavior of some of the country’s largest banks. Banks that were allowed to grow to sizes that allowed them power in the market, power in congress, and power in the setting the terms of their regulation. Several rationalizations were used to allow banks to grow from the 1980s to present time.  First, there were the arguments for economies of scale.  Big banks were more able to process huge batches of ACH transactions and checks.  These money center banks replaced the FED as the transaction processor of choice since they were generally cheaper given the various expenses of being a FED member bank that include leaving large amounts of money in reserve and on-going regulation and monitoring.

Second, there was the argument that huge money center banks were necessary to offset the power of the up and coming huge Japanese banks.  During the 1980s period, one US bank after another on the top ten largest banks in the word was knocked off the list by a Japanese bank, then later by Eurozone banks.  It was argued that in order to compete with these larger foreign institutions, US banks concentration should be looked at in a global context.  In a global context, they were ‘competitive’ and not part of a market concentration problem.   The basis of this argument was that the bank might be big in US terms, but as a global entity it was one of many.  During the 1990s, it was typical for market concentration to be defined more on a global basis which in turn led to less prosecutions based on the traditional measures.

We now know that poor regulation and  terrible understanding of the role of financial innovations in the financial system led to the current meltdown.  We also know that many of the offenders and the biggest failures have been the huge money center banks.  Many regional and small banks that continued to follow the loan and hold model of lending, rather than the loan, securitize and sell model are still thriving and did not contribute to the current crisis.  Given the global financial crisis and the role of the mega banks and the resultant demands on tax payer funds to bailout those deemed too big to fail, should we look at regulations that  limit bank size?

Many economists, liberal pundits, and I question the Geithner plan because it assumes we need the financial system to just work as it exists today.  His paradigm doesn’t really question the failure of the system in terms of the current set-up of the system itself.  Geithner’s plan blesses the poor system that was just swept off its feet by a passing oddity that surely won’t repeat itself.  James Kwak of  Baseline Scenario questions the basis of the Geithner plan that we need just need to prop up these too big to fail behemoths until they are back on their feet.  Here’s the central part of the Geithner proposition questioned by Kwak and others.

“. . . [W]e must create higher standards for all systemically important financial firms regardless of whether they own a depository institution, to account for the risk that the distress or failure of such a firm could impose on the financial system and the economy. We will work with Congress to enact legislation that defines the characteristics of covered firms, sets objectives and principles for their oversight, and assigns responsibility for regulating these firms.

In identifying systemically important firms, we believe that the characteristics to be considered should include: the financial system’s interdependence with the firm, the firm’s size, leverage (including off-balance sheet exposures), and degree of reliance on short-term funding, and the importance of the firm as a source of credit for households, businesses, and governments and as a source of liquidity for the financial system.”

Kwak questions the underlying Geithner assumption that these systematically important firms need exist.  Kwak uses the traditional monopoly theory first discussed by Ronald Coase that argues that there is an optimal size for a firm and there are ways you can determine the optimal size.  The argument here is that these banks are way pass the size that would be efficient for transactions processing and have gone over into the ‘too big to effectively manage’ category.  Kwak argues for a size cap as part of new regulation.

There are a few main things that made companies like AIG and Citigroup systematically important. One was interconnectedness: they did business with lots of counterparties. One was complexity: when push came to shove, the regulators were not able to assess the potential damage a failure could cause, and therefore erred on the side of bailing them out. But the big one was size, and this is why we call it Too Big To Fail. The companies in question were so big, and had so many liabilities, that they could cause a lot of damage if they suddenly defaulted on those liabilities.

Interconnectedness is not going to go away. Complexity may not go away completely, but increased supervision could give regulators a better grasp on complexity. For example, all firms could be required to provide detailed information about their positions to regulators, in a standardized format, so that it could be imported into aggregate computer models; data about positions would be kept only by the regulator and not made public. Complexity could also be reduced by limiting the number of businesses an institution is allowed to engage in (like under Glass-Steagall, but updated for today’s world). But size can definitely go away, simply by setting a cap on the volume of assets any institution is allowed to hold (and doing something about off-balance sheet entities). And if a highly interconnected, highly complex but small financial institution fails, the system as a whole would be fine.

What would such a world look like? There would be a lot of small- and medium-sized banks that collected deposits and lent money to households and businesses. There would be brokerage and asset management firms that you used to invest your savings. There would be hedge funds and private equity firms that rich people and other institutional investors used to invest their money. There would be investment banks that helped companies issue equity and debt securities. There would be boutique firms that did research and other boutiques that M&A advising. For any financial service anyone wanted, there would be a company that provided that service; it just wouldn’t necessarily provide every other service, and it wouldn’t have $2 trillion in assets. It would look something like the 1970s.

What’s wrong with this picture? Some people would argue that it would limit financial innovation. But there is no correlation (or a negative one) between the size of a firm and its degree of innovation. Nor do you need to operate a financial supermarket to innovate: mortgage-backed securities were pioneered by Salomon Brothers, an investment bank under the old definition. Finally, perhaps we could use a little less innovation.

Some would argue that costs would be higher, because smaller firms would be less able to capture economies of scale and scope. First, casual empiricism debunks this theory immediately. When I got my mortgage on my house, I got a much lower rate at a small community bank (which holds onto its mortgages rather than reselling them) than at any national bank. National banks also typically offer the lowest rates to savings customers, except when they are about to fail and desperately need cash from depositors. Second, even if this were the case, perhaps slightly higher costs are a price worth paying for reduced systemic risk.

Felix Salmon at Conde Naste Portfolio.com has picked up the banner and supports the idea of a size cap.  His argument is this.

To get specific, I think that maybe $300 billion in assets would be a reasonable cap on bank size — there’s very little evidence that banks get any economies of scale beyond that in any case. If they want to be part of a global or even a national network that would be fine — I’m sure such networks would spring up quite naturally, much as they have in the airline industry. After all, the United States managed to go 200 years without any nationwide banks, it’s unclear why it desperately needs them now.

At the same time, the cap on the balance sheet of broker-dealers should be smaller still: the more interconnected you are, the lower the cap, to the point at which companies like the CME, which are far too interconnected to fail no matter how small their balance sheet, should be barred from issuing any liabilities at all.

As for what happens when lots of smallish banks overleverage themselves and collapse en masse, well, you get an S&L crisis. Which is fiscally painful, to be sure, but which can largely be avoided through good regulation and which more importantly doesn’t have anything like the systemic implications of the current meltdown. So yes, we’re better off with one of those than we would be with Citi and BofA both failing.

Even the free market supporting The Economist has gotten in on the movement.

What’s needed is a force from outside the system to commit the American government to change. Simon Johnson argues in the Atlantic that if America were a developing nation the IMF’s advice would be clear; among other things, America would need to break up the financial oligarchy that created the conditions necessary for a thousand toxic assets to bloom. Of course, the IMF can’t hold America’s feet to the fire in the way that the WTO can. But the WTO achieved that power, in part, because American leaders wanted an outside force to be able to tie their hands, so they could shrug at angry voters and say, “Sorry, them’s the rules”. I wouldn’t be surprised to see national leaders constrained in crisis response by domestic politics seeking to empower the IMF in the near term.

I find this last opinion quite telling.  It specifically says that “a force outside the system must help the American government to change.”  Isn’t that what the we were promised during the election?  We did not get a force outside the system, but of the system.  We are not seeing change in the financial system, but continuation and tax payer subsidy of the very things that created the meltdown from the start.  I agree that we need to question the idea of  ‘too big to fail’ but I go a step further.  I believe we need to question the system that is now allowing these things to get to that point to start with.

Will a cap on bank and financial institution do this?  Yes, of course it will.  Better question though is this:  Why isn’t the Attorney General’s office moving to prevent market concentration and enforce the laws that prevent market monopoly and oligopoly?  Have we progressed from the disfunctional Bush Justice Department to a new era of enforcement of The Sherman Anti Trust Act?  We seem to have reached a point in Washington where we are not even enforcing the laws that we have to prevent the “too big to fail” paradigm right now.  I think it’s worth looking at the size cap, but I’d much rather use the existing laws to prevent the problem.  We need to go back to trust-busting and not trust-enabling.  This may be unlikely to happen in a poltical system that thrives on bundling from the biggest corporations to their congressional indentured servants and their Presidential enablers.

AKA Leffe-Lovers’ Left Bank Lunacy

Bookpacking had the good fortune to find ourselves at a loose end in Paris this Monday evening with a partner in crime; having serendipitously bumped into a fellow vagabond, from the same part of the globe as ourselves, that we see every year or so in France through work.

After a suitably literary event at Shakespeare & Co, we hit the bars of Rue Descartes where the lure of Leffe at only €4 per pint was to prove our undoing. We made our way unceremoniously up Rue Mouffetard to savour the Kwak in The Mayflower, as the full force of Belgian brewing was unleashed on our unsuspecting British bodies.

We were following in the footsteps of some of the biggest names in western literature; such as Papa Hemingway himself. The big man was scathing of F Scott Fitzgerald’s lack of drinking prowess, shamelessly shaming him in his famous Lost Generation memoirs A Moveable Feast. Despite writing the classic ‘Gatsby’, for anyone who’s done a bit of digging, Fitzgerald is publicly pilloried for eternity – thanks to the jugular-targeting judgments found in his competitive ‘friend’s’ diary. We can only be glad that the sole epistolary witness to Monday’s over-hydration is a little more discreet.

     Por fin he podido estrenar mi vasito con una kwak bien fresquita.

     Gracias a los que lo habéis hecho posible…. el que trajo el vaso desde muy muy lejano, y el que me mima cada día y trajo la kwak a casa :*

Kwak
Rating: 2 Habaneros
Verdict: Um, well, umm … let’s just say it is an acquired taste

Straight from the bottle with no typos from me – “An uncomparable belgian top fermentation beer with a unique taste.” I couldn’t agree more – it is definitely a unique taste, and not one I am likely to recommend. This is a strong (8% ABV) beer with all the syrupy textures that go with it surrounded by strong malt and hop flavours – uncomparable uniqueness!!!

Estrella Damm
Rating: 4 Habaneros
Verdict: Proving that the Spanish can make a damm fine brew

What a corker – smashingly good cerveza. None of you namby-pamby, citrus requiring Spanish speaking ales like Corona’s – this is a fine European premium ale. Crisp, smooth and tasty I could go plenty more of these.

Apparently Estrella means star, and this is a star of a beer.

Dr. David Hayward

So I’m watching today’s show and there was David all smug and I hate him.  I wanted to crack him on the head with a vase.  And this is what I’ve been hoping for.  It’s been so long since I’ve seen a true bad guy.  Someone who can skirt the lines of the law (No more people in Jail…it’s boring and hello Orange Jumpsuits…YIKES) but not actually do something so heinous that it requires incarceration.  That little switcheroo that Dr. Evil did with Krystal’s pills was amazingly old time Soap.  Loved it!!!  But I have another hope and that is that Krystal doesn’t become some waifish character.  The part that works for me right now with KWAK is that she’s all vulnerable from her daughter’s death and that’s how David was able to worm into her life.  It all makes sense.  But now that Krystal announced she’s not even taking the pills anymore well there’s hope that she’ll get that fire back and go after David herself.  But like the alcoholic JR she’s in denial of her drug of choice (David).  I’m loving that I’m hating Dr. David.  Thanks Chuck!

This week has been a cornucopia of great joy for me because I saw the glimpse of the old days.  What redeemed Josh’s murder at the hands of Zach was Ryan’s saying on screen what I was wondering myself.  He said (paraphrasing) that wasn’t it an odd coincidence that Josh happened back into town just as Kendall needed the heart transplant and that Zach just happened to shoot Josh in the head was to ironic.  Of course everyone poo-pooed Ryan but it was in that moment that I also liked Ryan a little more.  Could I be rebounding from my Loathing of Ryan Lavery?

Tad and Krystal’s struggle is a great story too.  They married for all the wrong reasons and Krystal tried to play house but this wild woman wanted passion and love and Tad was companionship and security.  And it’s also a great mix of history.  Tad and David’s past has been tapped, as well as, Krystal and David’s past.  Tad doesn’t want to be mean person but he has his daughter’s life is at stake.  David is alone for a very good reason.  Every time he deems someone isn’t loyal to him he cuts them out by destroying them.  Tad’s seen the wake of destruction Dr. Dave has left behind and he’s trying to protect his children.  Also I love seeing Opal…Yeah!

Chuck keep up the good work.  For the first time in along time I actually see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Here Endth My Rant!

You all know I have a love/loath relationship with HW Chuck Pratt.  Right now I love David/Krystal/Tad.  This is a brilliant use of history.  Tad knows what comes next once David has set his sights on a woman.  Just like he knows how Adam would destroy anyone just to possess his family.  And since David has an ulterior motive to what he’s doing with Krystal it makes it even more devious…providing Chuck doesn’t deride from his plan for this trio.  Krystal and Tad were friends when they married.  They loved each other but weren’t IN love with each other.  And remember the reason Krystal married Tad was because he threatened to take Jenny away because she was falling back in love with Adam so this thing with David is so working.  A nice twist to this would be Adam’s intervention to help KWAK as a friend…like he did at Christmas concerning Little A’s gift from David.

Randi and Frankie still aren’t working.  Frankie’s been an uptight bully since he came back to Pine Valley and is one of my least favorite characters but Randi has much potential and like I wrote last time I think it would be perfect if Randi turned out to be David’s daughter.   Although now that I think of it Jake was dating an African-American Doctor back in 2001 so in Soap SORAS’ing fashion she could end up as Jake’s long last daughter…thus adding another Martin to the canvas.  Back story would be easy as the young doctor wanting her career more than a family at that point and her relationship with Jake having ended gave the child up for adoption only instead poor Randi fell into the system only to have had to turn to prostitution to survive.  It would give her a connection to those in town as well has a family connection.  Think of JR standing up for his sort-of-cousin by marriage.   Think about it writers…just think about it!

Now on to the bane of my existence!  My must beloved and much destroyed Dr. Josh Madden returns to Pine Valley only to (According to the Promo I saw yesterday) wield a gun and thus is mowed down in the prime of his life during what I will discern is a psychotic break.  Thus leaving his braindeaded self conveniently available to pass his heart on to his sister.  Also it’s up to Erica to make the decision.  Uh Duh…what do you thinks going to happen?  I wait on pins and needles as Erica decides…NOT!  I loved Josh.  I suffered through the implausible existence of Josh from unaborted fetus to bad guy…to Babe’s rooftop pool splashing lover to good guy who took care of his family to the foolish idiot Chuck turned Josh into before his departure.  I knew that when they wrote that Kendall needed a heart transplant this would happen.  And by this I mean something utterly ridiculous!  Why does everything have to be so violent and salacious?  Why couldn’t  Josh have just left town to join Jamie and Jeff?  Why did Kendall, already in a coma, suddenly need a heart transplant?  It’s over kill and over the top.  Sometimes simplicity is better.  If Josh had gone off to Africa he could still return as a surprise Christmas or Thanksgiving guest.  Or be recast (NOOOOO!!!) at a future date if needed.  Instead you end up with “Back from the Dead” scenarios if they do indeed want him to come back.  And hello Josh is Erica’s only son…why kill him off?

When I was watching Phoebe’s funeral it was sweet and poignant because we got to see all the old faces.  With all the killing on the show the last few years the only faces from the past will be Janet and Annie and that’s cause they are locked up!

Here Endth My Rant!

Eine mir ganz bekannte Kinderserie mit einem sehr schönen Intro ist Alfred J. Kwak. Die gleichnamige Ente erlebt viele Abenteuer zusammen mit seinem Ziehvater Hank der eigentlich ein Maulwurf ist. /dennis