text:
Karl Dietrich Bracher

Karl Dietrich Bracher (13 March 1922 – 19 September 2016) was a German political scientist and historian of the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany. Born in Stuttgart, Bracher was awarded a Ph.D. in the classics by the University of Tübingen in 1948 and subsequently studied at Harvard University from 1949 to 1950. During World War II, he served in the Wehrmacht and was captured by the Americans while serving in Tunisia in 1943. Bracher taught at the Free University of Berlin from 1950 to 1958 and at the University of Bonn since 1959. In 1951, Bracher married Dorothee Schleicher, the niece of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. They had two children.

Researching the collapse of Weimar
Bracher was mainly concerned with the problems of preserving and developing democracy. Bracher was consistent in all his works in arguing for the value of human rights, pluralism and constitutional values, together with urging that Germans align themselves with the democratic values of the West. He saw democracy as a frail institution and has argued that only a concerned citizenry can guarantee it. This theme began with Bracher's first book in 1948, Verfall und Fortschritt im Denken der frühen römischen Kaiserzeit which concerned the downfall of the Roman Republic and the rise of Augustus. His 1955 book Die Auflösung der Weimarer Republik (The Disintegration of the Weimar Republic) is his best known book, in which he ascribed the collapse of German democracy not to the Sonderweg ("special path" of German historical development) or other impersonal forces but to human action that followed conscious choice. In that book, Bracher rejected not only the Sonderweg thesis, but also the Marxist theory of National Socialism as the result of a capitalist "conspiracy", the theory that the Treaty of Versailles caused the collapse of the Weimar Republic, and the view that the Nazi dictatorship was simply the work of "fate". Bracher's methodology in Die Auflösung der Weimarer Republik involving a mixture of political science and history was considered to be highly innovative and controversial in the 1950s. The German historian Eberhard Kolb wrote Die Auflösung der Weimarer Republik was "still unsurpassed as a work of research" on the end of the Weimar Republic. Bracher wrote that though almost all Germans rejected the Treaty of Versailles, this dislike of Versailles had nothing with do with the coming of "presidential government" in March 1930 or rise of the Nazi Party starting with the September 1930 Reichstag election. Furthermore, Bracher wrote that under Weimar, the judicial system had already politicized as the judges, almost all of whom had begun their careers in the Imperial era, had a tendency to impose very lenient sentences for political crimes done in the name of the right. In Die Auflösung der Weimarer Republik, Bracher wrote the judiciary was in part responsible for the collapse of the Weimar republic, "contributing to its overthrow by authoritarian and totalitarian movements."

Bracher argued the beginning of the end of the Weimar Republic was the coming of "presidential government" in 1930. Starting with the government of Heinrich Brüning, chancellors sought not to govern via the Reichstag, instead using the "25/48/53 formula", referring to the constitutional articles that gave the Reich president the power to dissolve the Reichstag (25), issue emergency decrees (48) and appoint the chancellor (53). The practice was technically legal but violated the spirit of the constitution since article 54 explicitly stated the chancellor and his cabinet were responsible to the Reichstag. Bracher maintained that the end of German democracy was not inevitable, but instead was due to conscious choices coupled with "momentous errors and failures" made by Germany's leaders, especially President Paul von Hindenburg. In Die Auflösung der Weimarer Republik, Bracher argued the "collapse" of the republic went through several stages: Bracher in writing of a "loss of power" and a "power vacuum" was referring to the decay of the democratic system, not a weakening of the state. Kolb noted in the years 1930–33, the Reichswehr, the bureaucracy, the police and above all President von Hindenburg all saw a dramatic increase in their power, and what was happening in Germany in that period was the gradual collapse of the democratic system with policy decisions increasingly being made by the Reichswehr and the Kamarilla of President Hindenburg instead of the Reichstag.
 * The "loss of power" with Brüning as the cabinet governed only with Article 48, instead of the Reichstag.
 * The "power vacuum" with Franz von Papen and Kurt von Schleicher as democracy was gutted, but neither men could build a new system in their short time in office.
 * The "seizure of power" by the National Socialists in 1933.

Bracher argued that the system of "presidential government" was intended to and had the effect of weakening democracy, and that in no way was "presidential government" forced on Hindenburg and his Chancellors by an unmanageable crisis. Bracher's thesis that Heinrich Brüning and even more so, his successor Franz von Papen had gutted German democracy involved him in a dispute with Werner Conze, a prominent Nazi historian during Nazi rule who emerged as a leading conservative historian in West Germany in the 1950s. In a series of articles published in the 1950s–60s, Conze argued that by 1929–1930 that German politics had become so dysfunctional that Hindenburg had no other choice, but to reluctantly bring in "presidential government" as the only way to provide Germany with any sort of government, and that Brüning's governing via Article 48 was only a temporary measure intended to save democracy from the crisis caused by the Great Depression. In reply, Bracher wrote a series of article documenting that the plans for "presidential government" went back much to 1926 at least, and argued that there was no unmanageable crisis with parliamentary government in 1930 that made "presidential government" unavoidable. Bracher forcefully argued that was no structural crisis in 1929–30 so severe that Hindenburg had to turn to "presidential government" as Conze was claiming, instead arguing that Hindenburg, his kamarilla, and the Reichswehr had been seeking long before the Great Depression to do away with democracy. In this regard, Bracher pointed out that General Kurt von Schleicher and Heinrich Brüning had worked out the plan for a "presidential government" by April 1929, and it was only Hindenburg's desire to have the government of Hermann Müller pass the Young Plan, which its turn was delayed by the Young Plan referendum of November 1929, that gave Müller almost an extra year in office.

Bracher's thesis about the Brüning government as the first step towards dissolving democracy instead of an effort to save it as maintained by Conze, was greatly supported by the posthumous publication of Brüning's memoirs in 1970. Brüning, a conservative Catholic who never married and is not known to had a relationship with any women during the course of his life, revealed himself in his memoirs to be a man with an unhealthy emotional dependence on Hindenburg, to whom he was slavishly devoted and whom he regarded in homoerotic terms as the epitome of German masculinity and strength. Brüning openly admitted in his memoirs that the purpose of the "presidential government" was to do away with democracy and restore the monarchy by bringing back the exiled Wilhelm II, and complained at much length about how unfair it was that Schleicher had turned Hindenburg against him in the spring of 1932, leading to the president to fire him and replace him with Papen. It is noteworthy that Brüning did not object to Papen's policies in his memoirs, but rather to the fact that he would have carried out the same policies if only his beloved Field Marshal Hindenburg had given him the chance, instead of firing him in May 1932. Although Bracher won the debate with Conze, as late as 1971 Bracher deplored the tendency to take "a conservative and all too benevolent view of the presidential regime" as an attempt to save democracy. After the publication of Brüning's memoirs, which largely confirmed Bracher's thesis, Bracher wrote that the coming of presidential government was "not a move to save democracy, but part of a conscious plan to bring about a right-wing regime independent of party and parliament and to keep the Social Democrats out of power...Brüning's policy oscillated between the defense of a bureaucratic version of a state based on the rule of law, and paving the way for a dictatorship...He was not...the last chancellor before the break-up of the Weimar Republic, but the first chancellor in the process of destroying German democracy". In a survey of the historiography of the Weimar republic, Kolb wrote that research since the 1970s has confirmed Bracher's damning picture of Brüning that he had first offered in 1955, when the evidence for it was weaker.

Bracher sharply criticized the Social Democrats for not resisting the Preußenschlag launched by Franz von Papen that saw the Social Democratic government of Otto Braun ousted by presidential decree. Bracher wrote that the Reichswehr would probably have crushed any resistance, but "there remained the possibility of a lasting demonstration, a manifestation of the unbroken will of democracy to assert itself against a temporarily superior force. This might, beyond all justified practical calculations, have make it possible to save the democratic consciousness from the psychological and moral collapse of the republican forces; it made have made the way harder for the new rulers; delayed future developments and lessened their effects."

Bracher wrote that up until July 1932, those Germans who believed in democracy had high spirits and were full of fighting determination to take a stand, and after the Preußenschlag, the same people became demoralized and passive, feeling that they were playing in a game whose rules were rigged against them, losing their fighting spirit. Bracher's views about the "Rape of Prussia", as Papen's coup was also known, involved him in heated debate with Arnold Brecht, who maintained that nothing could be done to oppose the Preußenschlag as that would mean breaking the law. Bracher in his turn argued that Papen's reasons for his coup, namely the Social Democrats and the Communists were about to merge into a "united left" to start a Marxist revolution in Germany were patently absurd, and given that Papen's intention was to dissolve democracy, that there are times when it is acceptable to break the law. Bracher argued that Brecht's thesis that resistance to Papen's coup was impossible because it would have meant breaking the law was just an excuse for passivity. Historians have generally agreed with Bracher's thesis that there are times when in the face of injustice committed by those who hold power that it is acceptable to break the law, and that the Preußenschlag was one of those times when illegality in defense of democracy would have been justified.

1960s
In Bracher's opinion, although it was human choices that led to the collapse of the Weimar Republic and the National Socialist period, the roots of National Socialism can be traced back towards the völkisch ideology of 19th century Germany and Austria-Hungary, which found their fullest expression in the personality of Adolf Hitler. Likewise, Bracher complained that too many Germans were willing during the Weimar-Nazi time periods to subscribe to a "readiness for acclamatory agreement and pseudo-military obedience to a strong authoritarian state". Although Bracher was opposed to the Sonderweg interpretation of German history, he did believe in a special German mentality (Sonderbewusstsein) that made Nazi Germany possible. Bracher wrote that:"'The German 'Sonderweg' should be limited to the era of the Third Reich, but the strength of the particular German mentality [Sonderbewusstsein] that had arisen already with its opposition to the French Revolution and grew stronger after 1870 and 1918 must be emphasized. Out of its exaggerated perspectives (and, I would add, rhetoric) it become a power in politics, out a myth reality. The road from democracy to dictatorship was not a particular German case, but the radical nature of the National Socialist dictatorship corresponded to the power of the German ideology that in 1933–1945 became a political and totalitarian reality'" The Sonderbewusstsein Bracher referred to was the original theory of the Sonderweg, namely the idea of the Prussian-German state as the great Central European power neither of the West nor of the East, but rather was something special and unique; this ideology emphasised opposition to democracy as part of its opposition to "Western civilization".

Another well-known book associated with Bracher was the 1960 monograph co-written with Wolfgang Sauer and Gerhard Schulz Die nationalsozialistische Machtergreifung (The National Socialist Seizure of Power), which described in considerable detail the Gleichschaltung of German life in 1933–1934. In a review of Die nationalsozialistische Machtergreifung, the American historian Walter Laqueur praised Bracher, Sauer and Schulz for their refusal to engage in apologetics, and willingness to ask tough questions about the conduct of Germans under the Nazi regime. In the same review, Laqueur expressed regret that books like William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich were best-sellers, while a book like Die nationalsozialistische Machtergreifung, which Laqueur regarded as infinitely better work of scholarship then Shirer's book was unlikely ever to be translated into English, let alone become a bestseller.

Bracher advocated the view that Nazi Germany was a totalitarian regime, although Bracher maintained that the "totalitarian typology" as developed by Carl Joachim Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski was too rigid, and that totalitarian models needed to be based upon careful empirical research. In Bracher's view, Friedrich's and Brzezinski's work failed to take into account the "revolutionary dynamic", which Bracher argued was the "core principle" of totalitarianism. For Bracher, the essence of totalitarianism was the total claim to control and remake all aspects of society together with an all-embracing ideology, the value on authoritarian leadership, and the pretence of the common identity of state and society, which distinguished the totatitarian "closed" understanding of politics from the "open" democratic understanding. In Bracher's view, "politics is the struggle for the power of the state", and in his opinion, the traditional methods of the historian have to be supplemented by the methods of political science to properly understand political history. Speaking of historical work in his own area of speciality, namely the Weimar-Nazi periods, Bracher stated: "'It was not with Himmler, Bormann, and Heydrich, also not with the National Socialist Party, but with Hitler that the German people identified itself enthusiastically. In this there exists an essential problem, especially for German historians...To identify the sources of this fateful mistake of the past and to research it without minimizing it remains a task of German historical scholarship. Ignoring it means the loss of its commitment to truth.'"

Bracher was highly critical of the Marxist view of Nazi Germany, which sees the Nazi leadership as puppets of Big Business. In Bracher's opinion, the exact opposite was the case with a "primacy of politics" being exercised with business subordinate to the Nazi regime rather than a "primacy of economics" as maintained by Marxist historians. Bracher argued that Nazi actions were dictated by Nazi ideological theory, that business interests were just as much subordinate to the dictatorship as any other section of society, and that since Nazi actions were often irrational from a purely economic point of view, a "primacy of politics" prevailed.

Against the functionalist view of Nazi Germany mostly associated with left-wing historians, Bracher was to write that it was an attempt to: "'turn against the 'old-liberal' totalitarianism theory and talk about a relativizing interpretation, which emphasizes the 'improvisational' politics of power and domination of National Socialism. Leftish interpretations would like to leave behind the questions of guilt and responsibility in favor of a more modern, realistic analysis. But in doing this they slide into the danger of a newer underestimation and trivialization of National Socialism itself. Their analysis also brings with it, in another way, the vague leftist talk about fascism and reaction'"

In the 1960s, Bracher was a leading critic of the theory of generic fascism presented by Ernst Nolte. Bracher criticized the entire notion of generic fascism as intellectually invalid and argued that it was individual choice on the part of Germans as opposed to Nolte's philosophical view of the "metapolitical" that produced National Socialism. Bracher's magnum opus, his 1969 book Die deutsche Diktatur (The German Dictatorship) was partly written to rebut Nolte's theory of generic fascism, and instead presented a picture of the National Socialist dictatorship as a totalitarian regime created and sustained by human actions. In Die deutsche Diktatur, Bracher rejected theories of generic fascism, and instead used totalitarianism theory and the methods of the social sciences to explain Nazi Germany. As an advocate of history as a social science, Bracher took a strong dislike to Nolte's philosophical theories of generic fascism. In a 1971 review, the American historian Lucy Dawidowicz called The German Dictatorship "...a work of unparalleled distinction, combing the most scrupulous objectivity with a passionate commitment to the democratic ethos". In 1989, the British historian Richard J. Evans called The German Dictatorship a "valuable" book

Bracher often criticized the functionist-structuralist interpretation of Nazi Germany championed by such scholars such as Martin Broszat and Hans Mommsen, and decried their view of Hitler as a "weak dictator". In Bracher's view, Hitler was the "Master of the Third Reich". However, though Bracher argues that Hitler was the driving force behind Nazi Germany, he was one of the first historians to argue that Nazi Germany was less well-organized than the Nazis liked to pretend. In a 1956 essay, Bracher noted "the antagonism between rival agencies was resolved solely in the omnipotent key position of the Führer", which was the result of "...the complex coexistence and opposition of the power groups and from conflicting personal ties". Unlike the functionists, Bracher saw this disorganization as part of a conscious “divide and rule” strategy on the part of Hitler, and argued at no point was Hitler ever driven by pressure from below or had his power limited in any way. One area where Bracher is in agreement with the functionists concerns the highly ad hoc nature of decision-making in Nazi Germany. Bracher commented that the Nazi regime "remained in a state of permanent improvisation".

1970s
In a 1971 essay to mark the 100th anniversary of German unification, Bracher rejected the claim that Otto von Bismarck was the "grandfather" of the present-day Federal Republic, and argued that those historians who claimed that there was a line of continuity between Bismarck's German Empire and the Federal Republic were entirely mistaken. Bracher maintained that the founding of the Federal Republic in 1949 was a decisive break with everything had happened before in German history. Bracher stated that the Federal Republic with its democracy, respect for the individual, equality of all citizens, rule of the law and its pluralist, tolerant society owned nothing to Bismarck's vision of a rigidly hierarchical society dominated by a militaristic, authoritarian state that existed to uphold the power of the Junkers. Bracher wrote that the success of the modern Federal Republic had nothing to do with the "Bismarckian tradition" and stated that the "destruction of the state of 1871" was "the premiss and starting point for a new German state altogether". Bracher maintained that "the second, finally successful democracy in Germany is unimaginable, impossible without the ultimate failure of the Reich of 1871".

In an essay published in 1976 entitled "The Role of Hitler: Perspectives of Interpretation", Bracher argued that Hitler was too often underrated in his own time, and that those historians who rejected the totalitarian paradigm in favor of the fascist paradigm were in danger of making the same mistake. In Bracher's opinion, Hitler was a "world-historical" figure who served as the embodiment of the most radical type of German nationalism and a revolutionary of the most destructive kind, and that such was the force of Hitler's personality that it is correct to speak of National Socialism as "Hitlerism". In his essay, Bracher maintained that Hitler himself was in many ways something of an "unperson" devoid of any real interest for the biographer, but argued that these pedestrian qualities of Hitler led to him being underestimated first by rivals and allies in the Weimar Republic, and then on the international stage in the 1930s. At the same time, Bracher warned of the apologetic tendencies of the “demonization" of Hitler which he accused historians like Gerhard Ritter of engaging in, which Bracher maintained allowed too many Germans to place the blame for Nazi crimes solely on the "demon" Hitler. Though Bracher criticized the Great man theory of history as an inadequate historical explanation, Bracher argued that social historians who claim that social developments were more important than the role of individuals were mistaken.

Bracher wrote about the "Hitler Wave" of the 1970s that the obsession with Hitler seemed odd given all of the dramatic events of the last thirty or so years such as the Cold War, the rise and decline of Stalinism, the Hungarian Uprising, the Suez War, the Vietnam War, and the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, where somehow Hitler, despite being dead, remained in "the background" of all these events. Bracher argued that the obsession with Hitler was due to the "inevitable and continuing sensational aspect caused by the excessive features of Hitlerism, which can be taken as a kind of modern Genghis Khanism or an example of that combination of cruel efficiency and superhuman will-power which frequently is identified as typically German, to be horrified or admired, or both simultaneously". Bracher argued that Hitler represented a new type of leader quite divorced from the traditional standards of historical greatness established by 18th and 19th century historians as: "Hitler and, in his way, Stalin represent a new type of the great movement and party leader combining the qualities of fanatical ideological fixation and virtuoso mass demagogy, and replacing the traditional statesmen and warrior as the great type of historical figure". Writing in 1976, Bracher cautioned against a return to the "Great Man" school of history, warning that "Great Man" type histories were typical of totalitarian regimes as this concept of history as the "history of great men" was promoted not only in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, but "...also by communist regimes where, although quite contrary to their dogma of collectivism, it was in keeping with the psychology of mass mobilization by charismatic leadership. The great examples of this cult of leadership and pseudo-religious veneration and adoration are Lenin and Stalin and at present Mao and the North Korean demigod Kim Il Sung". However, at the same time, Bracher argued in totalitarian regimes, the position of the leader by its very definition meant that he had an oversized role in making history, thus making the study of the leader a prerequisite for understanding these regimes.

In Bracher's view, Hitler's rise was not inevitable, and the primary responsibility for the Chancellorship being given to Hitler on 30 January 1933 rested with the Kamarilla of President Paul von Hindenburg. Bracher wrote that had Hindenburg chosen differently from that the path that he did chose by appointing Hitler chancellor on 30 January 1933 that German history would easily gone in a completely different direction, thus meaning that even though Hindenburg died in 1934, he must bear ultimate responsibility for everything that happened between 1933–45, for the appointment of Hitler was a purely a gratuitous act on Hindenburg's part that he did not have to do. However, Bracher argued that once Hitler had obtained power, he used his authority to carry out a comprehensive revolution that politically destroyed both Hitler's opponents such as the SPD and his allies such as the DNVP who sought to “tame” the Nazi movement. Bracher argued that because Hitler was so central to the Nazi movement that it led to the fate of National Socialism being so intertwined with Hitler's fate that it is right, as noted above, to speak of National Socialism as Hitlerism, and hence justifying Hitler's place in history as a person who by their actions decisively brought about events that otherwise would not had occurred. In addition, Bracher maintained that the importance of Hitler derived from his being the most effective exponent of an extremely radical type of racist German nationalism, which allowed for ideas that otherwise would be ignored by historians coming to a terrible fruition.

Though Bracher argued that the work of Ralf Dahrendorf, David Schoenbaum, and Henry Ashby Turner about National Socialism in pursuit of anti-modern goals leading to an unintentional modernization of German society had merit, Bracher felt the question of modernization was too removed from the essence of National Socialism, which Bracher argued were the total revolutionary remodeling of the world along savagely racist and Social Darwinist lines. In Bracher's opinion, the revolution Hitler sought to unleash was besides being one of racism gone mad, was also a moral revolution. Bracher argued that the Nazi revolution sought to destroy traditional values that society had valued such as friendship, kindness, and so forth, and replace them with values such as cruelty, brutality, and destruction. Bracher argued that because Anti-Semitism was so crucial to Hitler's weltanschauung (worldview) and its consequences in the form of genocide for the Jews of Europe were such that this disapproves any notion of generic fascism because Bracher believes that theories of fascism cannot account for the Shoah. Bracher argued that generic fascism theorists were guilty of indiscriminately lumping in too many disparate phenomena for the concept of fascism to be of any intellectual use, and of using the term fascist as a catch-all insult for anyone the left disliked. With respect to the genesis of The Holocaust, he is a confirmed Intentionalist. It is his position that the entire project of the genocide of European Jewry resulted from Adolf Hitler's anti-Semitic hatred.

Bracher argued that the "one basic principle to which Hitler subscribed deeply, blindly and ruthlessly" was anti-Semitism. Bracher noted that the Shoah was so important to Hitler that during World War II, resources that might from a purely military point of view be better devoted to the war were instead turned towards genocide. In 1981, the British Marxist historian Timothy Mason in his essay 'Intention and explanation: A Current controversy about the interpretation of National Socialism' from the book The "Fuehrer State" : Myth and reality coined the term "Intentionist" as part of an attack against Bracher and Klaus Hildebrand, both of whom Mason accused of focusing too much on Hitler as an explanation for the Holocaust.

Bracher believed that totalitarianism, whether from the Left or Right, is the leading threat to democracy all over the world, and has argued that the differences between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were of degree, not kind. Bracher is opposed to the notion of generic fascism and has often urged scholars to reject "totalitarian" fascism theory as championed by the "radical-left" in favour of "democratic" totalitarian theory as a means of explaining the Nazi dictatorship. In particular, Bracher has argued that Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany possessed such fundamental differences that any theory of generic fascism is not supported by the historical evidence. He is pro-American and was one of the few German professors to support fully the foreign policy of the United States during the Cold War. However, Bracher was in no way sympathetic towards Fascist Italy, writing about Benito Mussolini's rise: "Appealing to all classes by a combination of conservative and progressive, anti-communist and state socialist, reactionary and revolutionary aims" and making much use of "direct action", Mussolini "went to war with liberal democracy" in 1919. Bracher was a consistent advocate of the values of the Federal Republic, and its American ally against the values of East Germany and its Soviet patron. In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s he often attacked left-wing and New Left intellectuals in particular for comparing the actions of the United States in the Vietnam War and the West German state to Nazi Germany. For Bracher, these attacks were both an absurd trivialization of Nazi crimes and a sinister attempt to advance the cause of Communism. Bracher argued that the defeatist and uncertain mood of the 1970s–80s in West Germany was not unlike the mood of the 1920s–30s. In 1969–74, Bracher supported the Social Democratic-Free Democrat government of Chancellor Willy Brandt and his policy of Ostpolitik, arguing that it long overdue that the Federal Republic recognize the Oder-Neisse Line. By the mid-1970s, Bracher turned against the Social Democrats, arguing that far too many people in West Germany were naïve and blithely dismissive of the threat by Soviet Communism. Bracher always saw himself as a liberal, opposed to totalitarianism of both left and right, a standpoint that led him to attack both conservatives and Communists.

In his 1976 book Zeitgeschichtliche Kontroversen, Bracher criticized the Marxist-New Left interpretation of the Nazi period under the grounds that in such an interpretation "the ideological and totalitarian dimension of National Socialism shrinks to such an extent that the barbarism of 1933–45 disappears as a moral phenomenon", which Bracher felt meant that "...a new wave of trivialization or even apologetics was beginning". In his 1977 essay entitled "Zeitgeschichte im Wandel der Interpretationen" published in the Historische Zeitschrift journal, Bracher argued that the student protests of the late 1960s had resulted in a "Marxist renaissance" with the "New Left" exercising increasing control over the university curricula. Although Bracher felt that some of the resulting work was of value, too much of the resulting publications were in his opinion executed with "crude weapons" in which "the ideological struggle was carried out on the back and in the name of scholarship" with a corrosive effect on academic standards. Bracher wrote the student protests of the late 1960s had "politicized and often...objectionably distorted" the work of historians. In his 1978 book Schlüsselwörter in der Geschichte, Bracher warned of the "totalitarian temptation" which he associated with the New Left, above all with the Red Army Faction terrorist group was a serious threat to West German democracy, and called upon scholars to do their part to combat such trends before it was too late. Bracher warned against "Peace" and "Green" movements operating outside of the political system offering a radical version of an alternative utopian system which he warned if the crisis in confidence in democracy continued could lead to a gradual undermining of democracy in Germany. In their turn, elements of the West German Left attacked Bracher as a neo-Nazi and branded him an "American stooge". In particular, Bracher warned of the "tendency, through theorizing and ideologizing alienation from the history of persons and events, to show and put into effect as the dominant leading theme the contemporary criticism of capitalism and democracy". Along the same lines, Bracher criticized the return to what he regarded as the crude Comintern theories of the 1920-1930s which labeled democracy as a form of "late capitalist" and "late bourgeois" rule, and of the New Left practice of referring to the Federal Republic as a "restorative" Nazi state.

1980s
In the introduction to his 1982 book Zeit der Ideologien (Age of Ideologies), Bracher wrote: "When the realization of high-pitched political expectations was found to come up against certain limits, there was a revival of the confrontation, especially painful in Germany and one that was generally believed to have been overcome". Bracher attacked Communism under the grounds that its claim to have "scientifically" worked out the laws of history was the source of "its great strength vis-à-vis supporters and sympathizers but also its extremely intolerant and coercive character.” Bracher wrote: “Communist policies are something mystical, something surpassing the rational capability of the individual, something fully accessible only to the collective and its leadership,” which promoted itself as “an exclusively informed elite.” As part of his critique of Communism, Bracher wrote:"'No limits were to that elite’s supranational competence…. It is this moral and intellectual totalitarianism pseudo-scientifically justified and politically enforced, that represents both the strength and the weakness of communist ideology. It was able to bring salvation from doubts in a modern complex world, but it was bound, time and again, to come into conflict with the facts of that complexity.”"

During the Historikerstreit (Historians' Dispute) of the 1986–88, Bracher argued in a letter to the editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung published on 6 September 1986 that nothing new was being presented by either side. Bracher wrote that he approved of Joachim Fest's essay "Encumbered Remembrance" about the moral equivalence of Nazi and Communist crimes, although he remained pointly silent about Fest's support for the theory of Ernst Nolte of a “casual nexus” with German National Socialism as an extreme, but understandable response to Soviet Communism. Bracher argued that "...the "totalitarian" force of these two ideologies [Communism and National Socialism] seized the whole human and seduced and enslaved him". Bracher accused both Jürgen Habermas and Ernst Nolte of both "...tabooing the concept of totalitarianism and inflating the formula of fascism". Bracher complained about the "politically polarized" dispute that was blinding historians to the "comparability" of Communism and National Socialism. Bracher ended his letter by writing that neither National Socialism nor Communism lost none of "...their respective "singular" inhumanity by comparisons. Neither a national nor a socialist apologetic can be supported on that basis".

In the Historikerstreit, Bracher mostly stayed on the sidelines, and took a pox-on-both-houses approach. Writing on 14 March 1987, Bracher stated he regarded the Historikerstreit as typical of the Doppelbödigkeit (ambiguities) that Germans felt towards their recent history. Bracher argued that the Federal Republic was one of two rival German states competing for the loyalty of the German people, the successor state to two regimes that failed, and inhabited by two generations with different memories of the past. Bracher wrote that for Germans: "The present dispute concerns not only the orientation and the meaning of a totalitarian "past", which is not easy to historicize, but does not simply pass away despite temporal distance". Bracher argued that given the "burden of the past", West Germany could all too easily slide into dictatorship. Bracher saw the major threat to West German democracy as coming from the left. Bracher accused the peace and Green movements as hovering "in the borderline between democracy and dictatorship", and warned that the radical left-peace-Green movements could easily become the instruments of a "pseudo-religious concepts of salvation" that would lead to a return to totalitarianism in West Germany. Bracher claimed that the situation in the late 1980s was the same as in the late 1960s "when we critics of an all-too-general concept of fascism were opposed by a front from Nolte via Habermas to the extraparliamentary opposition".

Later in the 1980s, Bracher defined totalitarianism as any state system that featured absolute ideology that allowed no rivals; a mass movement that was hierarchically organized and under state control; control of the media; and state control of the economy. Moreover, Bracher contended that totalitarianism was not just a product of the interwar period, but instead very much a product of modern times with modern technology allowing for greater possibilities for totalitarian control of society than what existed in the 1920s, 30s and 40s. Bracher argued that the essential divining line in the world today was not between left and right or between socialism and capitalism, but between dictatorship and democracy. Bracher criticized those left-wing intellectuals who damned democracies like the United States as for being capitalist while praising those dictatorships that were “progressive” like Communist Cuba as holding morally dishonest values.

Bracher emerged as one of the first proponents of the idea of the Federal Republic as a "post-national democracy" or what become known as "constitutional patriotism", a new definition of what it meant to be German. Bracher argued that in the aftermath of Nazi rule, the traditional German nationalism based on a "blood-and-soil" ideology that defined Deutschtum (Germanness) in racial terms was too morally compromised by its association with Nazism, and the values promoted by the old Prussian-Imperial Obrigkeitsstaat (authoritarian state) were not suitable for a democratic society, thus requiring something new. Instead, Bracher called for a new German nationalism that defined itself in terms of its commitment to democracy and made upholding the humanist values of the 1949 Basic Law (the constitution) the centerpiece of what it meant to be German. Bracher argued contra the traditional "national patriotism" with loyalty to the nation that with "constitutional patriotism" the primary loyalty of Germans was to be towards the Basic Law and its values, creating a new sense of German national identity based upon a sense of loyalty to the Basic Law that would to apply to all regardless of sex, religion, skin color or ethnicity. Many supporters of "national patriotism" like the historian Hagen Schulze argued Bracher's "constitutional patriotism" was too dry and abstract, maintaining that Germans needed a stronger glue than loyalty to the Basic Law to have a sustainable sense of national identity, thus requiring loyalty to the nation. In the 1970s–80s, Bracher published a series of essays calling for "constitutional patriotism" and a "post-national democracy" that redefined Deutschtum in terms of republican belonging to a democratic state and rejected the old definitions of the nation-state. Such was the success of Bracher's efforts that many younger Germans starting in the 1980s embraced his idea of "constitutional patriotism" as a way of affirming one's pride in being German. In 1989–1990, Bracher welcomed the fall of the East German dictatorship and German reunification. Bracher did not feel the East German SED dictatorship was morally equivalent to the Nazi regime, but he argued that the memory of how awful was the Communist regime in East Germany should be preserved to prevent any return to Communism.

1990s
In the 1990s, Bracher argued that even though the prospects of democracy against totalitarianism had much improved, he warned that this was no time for triumphalism. In 1992, Bracher wrote that democracy is a state "of self-limitation and insight into the imperfection of man, just as dictatorship is the rule of man's ideological arrogance." Bracher contended that although there were better chances for democracy in the post-1989 world than in the "short 20th century" of 1914–89, there only was the hard work of building and maintaining a civil society ahead for the world, and this task could never be completed. In his 1992 book Turning Points in Modern Times, Bracher attacked Nolte for his claims that German National Socialism was merely a “mirror image” of the Soviet Union. Bracher wrote that Nolte's work "trivializes" the vicious racism that Bracher stated was at the heart of National Socialism by suggesting that it was just a "copy" of Soviet Communism and thus not as evil as the Soviet original. In a 2003 interview with Der Spiegel, Bracher was highly critical of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s opposition to the Iraq War, and warned against using anti-Americanism to win elections as potentially damaging Germany’s relations with the United States, a development that Bracher much deplored.

He died on 19 September 2016 at the age of 94. The American historian Jeffrey Herf wrote in an obituary: "The complaints about democracy and liberalism that Bracher examined in The German Dictatorship find echoes in our own time. Our institutions are far more stable than those of the Weimar Republic, but the appeal of authoritarianism and conspiracy-theorizing is growing in Western politics. Therefore Bracher’s work on how democracy was destroyed in Germany in the 1930s remains uncomfortably relevant. Moreover, the era of totalitarian ideology and politics did not end with the collapse of Communism in Europe. Using Bracher’s criteria, it continues, most importantly in the Islamist movements that have fueled the terrorism of recent decades. Totalitarianism has changed both its geographical location and its cultural coordinates, but in its inhumanity and irrationality it merits comparison with its 20th-century predecessors. Here, too, Karl Bracher’s work will remain important for years to come both for historians of the Nazi and Communist dictatorships and for advocates of liberal democracy in a world that faces multiple illiberal challenges."

Honors

 * Emeritus of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
 * Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy.
 * Member of the American Philosophical Society.
 * Member of the Historische Kommission zu Berlin.
 * Member of the Deutsche Akademie für Sprache und Dichtung.
 * Member of the Nordrhein-Westfälische Akademie.

Work

 * Verfall und Fortschritt im Denken der frühen römischen Kaiserzeit: Studien zum Zeitgeühl und Geschichtsbewusstein des Jahrhunderts nach Augustus, 1948.
 * Die Aufösung der Weimarer Republik: Eine Studie zum Problem des Machtverfalls in der Demokratie 1955.
 * "Stufen totalitärer Gleichschaltung: Die Befestigung der nationalsozialistischen Herrschaft 1933/34" pages 30–42 from Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, Volume 4, Issue # 1, January 1956, translated into English as "Stages of Totalitarian "Integration" (Gleichschaltung): The Consolidation of National Socialist Rule in 1933 and 1934" pages 109–128 from Republic To Reich The Making of the Nazi Revolution Ten Essays edited by Hajo Holborn, New York: Pantheon Books 1972, ISBN 0-394-47122-9.
 * co-edited with Annedore Leber & Willy Brandt Das Gewissen steht auf: 64 Lebensbilder aus dem deutschen Widerstand 1933–1945, 1956, translated into English as The Conscience in Revolt: Portraits of the German Resistance 1933–1945, Mainz: Hase & Koehler, 1994 ISBN 3-7758-1314-4.
 * co-written with Wolfgang Sauer and Gerhard Schulz: Die nationalsozialistische Machtergreifung: Studien zur Errichtung des totalitären Herrschaftssystems in Deutschland 1933–34, 1960.
 * “Problems of Parliamentary Democracy in Europe” pages 179–198 from Daedalus, Volume 93, Issue # 1 Winter 1964.
 * Deutschland zwischen Demokratie und Diktatur: Beiträge zur neueren Politik und Geschichte, 1964.
 * Adolf Hitler, 1964.
 * Die deutsche Diktatur: Entstehung, Struktur, Folgen des Nationalsozialismus, 1969, translated into English by Jean Steinberg as The German Dictatorship; The Origins, Structure, and Effects of National Socialism; New York, Praeger 1970, with an Introduction by Peter Gay.
 * Das deutsche Dilemma: Leidenswege der politischen Emanzipation, 1971, translated into English as The German Dilemma: The Throes of Political Emancipation, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1975 ISBN 0-297-76790-9.
 * Die Krise Europas, 1917–1975, 1976.
 * Zeitgeschichtiche Kontroversen: Um Faschismus, Totalitarismus, Demokratie, 1976.
 * "The Role of Hitler: Perspectives of Interpretation" pages 211–225 from Fascism: A Reader's Guide, edited by Walter Laqueur, Harmondsworth, 1976, ISBN 0-520-03033-8.
 * Europa in der Krise: Innengeschichte u. Weltpolitik seit 1917, 1979.
 * (editor) Quellen zur Geschichte des Parlamentarismus und der politischen Parteien, Bd 4/1 Politik und Wirtschaft in der Krise 1930–1932 Quellen Ära Brüning Tel I, Bonn, 1980.
 * Geschichte und Gewalt: Zur Politik im 20. Jahrhundert, 1981.
 * “The Disputed Concept of Totalitarianism,” pages 11–33 from Totalitarianism Reconsidered edited by Ernest A. Menze, Port Washington, N.Y. / London: Kennikat Press, 1981, ISBN 0-8046-9268-8.
 * Zeit der Ideologien: Eine Geschichte politischen Denkens im 20. Jahrhundert, 1982, translated into English as The Age Of Ideologies : A History of Political Thought in the Twentieth Century, New York : St. Martin's Press, 1984, ISBN 0-312-01229-2.
 * co-edited with Hermann Graml Widerstand im Dritten Reich: Probleme, Ereignisse, Gestalten, 1984.
 * Die Totalitäre Erfahrung, 1987.
 * "Der historishe Ort des Zweiten Weltkrieges" pages 347–374 from 1939-An Der Schwelle Zum Weltkrieg: Die Entfesselung Des Zweiten Weltkrieges Und Das Internationale System edited by Klaus Hildebrand, Jürgen Schmadeke & Klaus Zernack, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co 1990, ISBN 3-11-012596-X.
 * Wendezeiten der Geschichte: Historisch-politische Essays, 1987–1992, 1992, translated into English Turning Points In Modern Times : Essays On German and European History, translated by Thomas Dunlap; with a foreword by Abbott Gleason, Cambridge, Massachusetts : Harvard University Press, 1995, ISBN 0-674-91354-X.
 * co-edited with Manfred Funke & Hans-Adolf Jacobsen Deutschland 1933–1945. Neue Studien zur nationalsozialistischen Herrschaft, 1992.
 * co-written with Eberhard Jäckel; Johannes Gross;, Theodor Eschenburg & Joachim Fest: Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1994.
 * Geschichte als Erfahrung. Betrachtungen zum 20. Jahrhundert, 2001.
 * co-edited with P. M. Brilman & H. M. Von Der DunkJustiz und NS-Verbrechen, 2008.
 * co-edited with Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, Volker Kronenberg, & Oliver Spatz Politik, Geschichte und Kultur. Wissenschaft in Verantwortung für die res publica. Festschrift für Manfred Funke zum 70. Geburtstag, 2009.

title: Karl Dietrich Bracher


text:
Testimony of integrity

Testimony to integrity and truth refers to the way many members of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) testify or bear witness to their belief that one should live a life that is true to God, true to oneself, and true to others. To Friends, the concept of integrity includes personal wholeness and consistency as well as honesty and fair dealings. From personal and inward integrity flow the outward signs of integrity, which include honesty and fairness. It is not only about telling the truth but also about applying ultimate truth to each situation. For example, Friends (Quakers) believe that integrity requires avoiding statements that are technically true but misleading.

The word testimony is used to refer to the ways in which Friends testify or bear witness to their faith in their everyday lives. In this context, the word testimony refers not to Friends' underlying beliefs about truth and integrity but their committed action to promote and act in truthful and integral ways, which arises out of their beliefs.

Also known as the Testimony of Truth, or Truth Testimony, the essence of the Testimony of Integrity is placing God at the center of one's life. To Friends, integrity is in choosing to follow the leading of the Spirit despite the challenges and urges to do otherwise.

That testimony has led to Friends having a reputation for being honest and fair in their dealings with others. It has led them to give proper credit to others for their contributions and to accept responsibility for their own actions. In those legal systems, if it is allowed, rather than swearing oaths in a court of law, Friends prefer to affirm. In England, that has been the case since 1695.

Among some early Friends, the testimony led them to refuse to participate in drama, and they stated that to pretend they were someone else was to deny their integrity.

Oaths and fair-dealing
Early Friends believed that an important part of Jesus' message was how we treat our fellow human beings. They felt that honest dealing with others meant more than avoiding direct lies. Friends continue to believe that it is important not to mislead others, even if the words used are all technically truthful. Early Friends refused to swear oaths, even in courtrooms, believing that one must speak truth at all times, and the act of swearing to it implied different standards of truth with and without oaths. That doctrine is attributed to Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (specifically Matthew 5:34-37).

Some Friends have accepted the use of "affirmations" rather than oaths, believing that "taking oaths implies a double standard of truth".

Spiritual aspect of truth and integrity
The essence of testimony to integrity is placing God at the center of one's life. Quakers believe that the Spirit is in everyone. Integrity means focusing and spending time listening to the small voice of the Spirit and being open to being led by it, whether the Spirit is speaking within oneself or through another.

Giving testimony to truth and integrity also means refusing to place things other than God at the center of one's life, whether one's own self, possessions, the regard of others, belief in principles (such as rationality, progress, or justice) or something else. It is the understanding that even good things are no longer good when they supplant God as one's center.

Some Quakers believe that to put integrity and efforts to build it at the center of one's life is to put God at the center of one's life.

Examples of testimony to truth and integrity
Since early in the foundation of the Religious Society of Friends, Quakers have refused to take oaths, following Jesus' teaching of. Rather than swearing or taking an oath, Quakers instead answered "yea" or "nay" to questions, believing that swearing oaths was often a way to avoid telling the truth while appearing to do so, and that a person's word should be accepted as truth based on their reputation for telling the truth, rather than any oath sworn or taken. This was embodied in their quote "let your yea be yea and your nay be nay", from.

Later, when many Quakers became successful in business (such as Cadbury, Rowntree, Fry, etc.), they set a fixed price for goods on sale rather than setting a high price and haggling over it with the buyer, believing it to be dishonest to set an unfair price to begin with. By having fixed and reasonable prices, Quakers soon developed a reputation as honest businessmen, and many people came to trust them in trading and in banking. Thus, the Quaker name or image was adopted by business ventures of non-Quakers, such as oats and oil companies, to imply their fair dealing in price and quality.

Other examples of ways in which Friends 'testify' or 'bear witness' to truth and integrity include such practices as:

 * making sure that one's words and actions flow from one's beliefs
 * speaking the truth, even when it is difficult
 * paying people fair wages for their work
 * giving one's employer the right amount of labor for one's pay
 * saying difficult things with grace and tact
 * receiving difficult sayings gracefully
 * guarding one's reputation for honesty, fairness, and fidelity
 * taking responsibility for one's actions and their results
 * fulfilling one's commitments
 * taking care of items entrusted to one
 * being open to the ideas of others but not being too easily swayed by them
 * confronting lapses in integrity in oneself and in others
 * giving credit to others for their contributions
 * assessing people and situations fairly and accurately
 * avoiding spending beyond one's means through the use of credit

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Testimony of integrity


text:
Zoropsidae

Zoropsidae, also known as false wolf spiders for their physical similarity to wolf spiders, is a family of cribellate araneomorph spiders first described by Philipp Bertkau in 1882. They can be distinguished from wolf spiders by their two rows of eyes that are more equal in size than those of Lycosidae.

The families Tengellidae and Zorocratidae are now included in Zoropsidae.

Genera
, the World Spider Catalog accepts the following genera:

 * Akamasia Bosselaers, 2002 – Cyprus
 * Anachemmis Chamberlin, 1919 – United States, Mexico
 * Austrotengella Raven, 2012 – Australia
 * Birrana Raven & Stumkat, 2005 – Australia
 * Cauquenia Piacentini, Ramírez & Silva, 2013
 * Chinja Polotow & Griswold, 2018 – Tanzania
 * Ciniflella Mello-Leitão, 1921 – Brazil
 * Devendra Lehtinen, 1967 – Sri Lanka
 * Griswoldia Dippenaar-Schoeman & Jocqué, 1997 – South Africa
 * Hoedillus Simon, 1898 – Guatemala, Nicaragua
 * Huntia Gray & Thompson, 2001 – Australia
 * Itatiaya Mello-Leitão, 1915 – Brazil
 * Kilyana Raven & Stumkat, 2005 – Australia
 * Krukt Raven & Stumkat, 2005 – Australia
 * Lauricius Simon, 1888 – Mexico, United States
 * Liocranoides Keyserling, 1881 – United States
 * Megateg Raven & Stumkat, 2005 – Australia
 * Phanotea Simon, 1896 – South Africa
 * Pseudoctenus Caporiacco, 1949 – Kenya, Burundi, Malawi
 * Socalchemmis Platnick & Ubick, 2001 – United States, Mexico
 * Takeoa Lehtinen, 1967 – China, Korea, Japan
 * Tengella Dahl, 1901 – Mexico, Central America
 * Titiotus Simon, 1897 – United States
 * Uliodon L. Koch, 1873 – New Zealand, Australia
 * Wiltona Koçak & Kemal, 2008 – New Zealand
 * Zorocrates Simon, 1888 – United States, Mexico, El Salvador
 * Zoropsis Simon, 1878 – Asia, Europe, Africa, United States

title: Zoropsidae


text:
Category:English laws

 * Laws passed by the pre-1707 English Parliament or laws passed by the Parliament of Great Britain and Parliament of the United Kingdom that specifically apply only to England and Wales.

This category is for articles that discuss individual English laws rather than the body of English law as a whole covered in the Category:English law

title: Category:English laws


text:
Hydrogenase

A hydrogenase is an enzyme that catalyses the reversible oxidation of molecular hydrogen (H2), as shown below:

Hydrogen uptake ($$) is coupled to the reduction of electron acceptors such as oxygen, nitrate, sulfate, carbon dioxide, and fumarate. On the other hand, proton reduction ($$) is coupled to the oxidation of electron donors such as ferredoxin (FNR), and serves to dispose excess electrons in cells (essential in pyruvate fermentation). Both low-molecular weight compounds and proteins such as FNRs, cytochrome c3, and cytochrome c6 can act as physiological electron donors or acceptors for hydrogenases.

Structural classification
It has been estimated that 99% of all organisms utilize hydrogen, H2. Most of these species are microbes and their ability to use H2 as a metabolite arises from the expression of metalloenzymes known as hydrogenases. Hydrogenases are sub-classified into three different types based on the active site metal content: iron-iron hydrogenase, nickel-iron hydrogenase, and iron hydrogenase.

Hydrogenases catalyze, sometimes reversibly, H2 uptake. The [FeFe] and [NiFe] hydrogenases are true redox catalysts, driving H2 oxidation and proton (H+) reduction (equation $$), the [Fe] hydrogenases catalyze the reversible heterolytic cleavage of H2 shown by reaction ($$).

Although originally believed to be "metal-free", the [Fe]-only hydrogenases contain Fe at the active site and no iron-sulfur clusters. [NiFe] and [FeFe] hydrogenases have some common features in their structures: Each enzyme has an active site and a few Fe-S clusters that are buried in protein. The active site, which is believed to be the place where catalysis takes place, is also a metallocluster, and each iron is coordinated by carbon monoxide (CO) and cyanide (CN−) ligands.

[NiFe] hydrogenase
The [NiFe] hydrogenases are heterodimeric proteins consisting of small (S) and large (L) subunits. The small subunit contains three iron-sulfur clusters while the large subunit contains the active site, a nickel-iron centre which is connected to the solvent by a molecular tunnel. In some [NiFe] hydrogenases, one of the Ni-bound cysteine residues is replaced by selenocysteine. On the basis of sequence similarity, however, the [NiFe] and [NiFeSe] hydrogenases should be considered a single superfamily. To date, periplasmic, cytoplasmic, and cytoplasmic membrane-bound hydrogenases have been found. The [NiFe] hydrogenases, when isolated, are found to catalyse both H2 evolution and uptake, with low-potential multihaem cytochromes such as cytochrome c3 acting as either electron donors or acceptors, depending on their oxidation state. Generally speaking, however, [NiFe] hydrogenases are more active in oxidizing H2. A wide spectrum of H2 affinities have also been observed in H2-oxidizing hydrogenases.

Like [FeFe] hydrogenases, [NiFe] hydrogenases are known to be usually deactivated by molecular oxygen (O2). Hydrogenase from Ralstonia eutropha, and several other so-called Knallgas-bacteria, were found to be oxygen-tolerant. The soluble [NiFe] hydrogenase from Ralstonia eutropha H16 can be conveniently produced on heterotrophic growth media. This finding increased hope that hydrogenases can be used in photosynthetic production of molecular hydrogen via splitting water. Another [NiFe], called Huc or Hyd1 or cyanobacterial-type uptake hydrogenase, has been found to be oxygen insensitive while having a very high affinity for hydrogen. Hydrogen is able to penetrate narrow channels in the enzyme that oxygen molecules cannot enter. This allows bacteria such as Mycobacterium smegmatis to utilize the small amount of hydrogen in the atmosphere as a source of energy when other sources are lacking.

[FeFe] hydrogenase
The hydrogenases containing a di-iron center with a bridging dithiolate cofactor are called [FeFe] hydrogenases. Three families of [FeFe] hydrogenases are recognized:
 * cytoplasmic, soluble, monomeric hydrogenases, found in strict anaerobes such as Clostridium pasteurianum and Megasphaera elsdenii. They catalyse both H2 evolution and uptake.
 * periplasmic, heterodimeric hydrogenases from Desulfovibrio spp., which can be purified aerobically.
 * soluble, monomeric hydrogenases, found in chloroplasts of green alga Scenedesmus obliquus, catalyses H2 evolution. The [Fe2S2] ferredoxin functions as natural electron donor linking the enzyme to the photosynthetic electron transport chain.

In contrast to [NiFe] hydrogenases, [FeFe] hydrogenases are generally more active in production of molecular hydrogen. Turnover frequency (TOF) in the order of 10,000 s−1 have been reported in literature for [FeFe] hydrogenases from Clostridium pasteurianum. This has led to intense research focusing on use of [FeFe] hydrogenase for sustainable production of H2.

The active site of the diiron hydrogenase is known as the H-cluster. The H-cluster consists of a [4Fe4S] cubane-shaped structure, coupled to the low valent diiron co-factor by a cysteine derived thiol. The diiron co-factor includes two iron atoms, connected by a bridging aza-dithiolate ligand (-SCH2-NH-CH2S-, adt), the iron atoms are coordinated by carbonyl and cyanide ligands.

[FeFe]-hydrogenases can be separated into four distinct phylogenetic groups A−D. Group A consists of prototypical and bifurcating [FeFe]-hydrogenases. In nature, prototypical [FeFe]-hydrogenases perform hydrogen turnover using ferredoxin as a redox partner while bifurcating types perform the same reaction using both ferredoxin and NAD(H) as electron donor or acceptor. In order to conserve energy, anaerobic bacteria use electron bifurcation where exergonic and endergonic redox reactions are coupled to circumvent thermodynamic barriers. Group A comprises the best characterized and catalytically most active enzymes such as the [FeFe]-hydrogenase from Chlamydomonas reinhardtii (CrHydA1), Desulfovibrio desulfuricans (DdHydAB or DdH), and Clostridium pasteurianum and Clostridium acetobutylicum (CpHydA1 and CaHydA1, referred to as CpI and CaI). No representative examples of Group B has been characterized yet but it is phylogenetically distinct even when it shares similar amino acid motifs around the H-cluster as Group A [FeFe]-hydrogenases. Group C has been classified as "sensory" based on the presence of a Per-Arnt-Sim domain. One example of a Group C [FeFe]-hydrogenase is from Thermotoga maritima (TmHydS) which shows only modest catalytic rates compared to Group A enzymes and an apparent high sensitivity toward hydrogen (H2). A closely related subclass from Group D has a similar location on the bacterial gene and share similar domain structure to a subclass from Group E but it lacks the PAS domain. Within Group D, the [FeFe]-hydrogenase from Thermoanaerobacter mathranii (referred to as Tam HydS) has been characterized.

[Fe]-only hydrogenase
5,10-methenyltetrahydromethanopterin hydrogenase (EC 1.12.98.2) found in methanogenic Archaea contains neither nickel nor iron-sulfur clusters but an iron-containing cofactor that was recently characterized by X-ray diffraction.

Unlike the other two types, [Fe]-only hydrogenases are found only in some hydrogenotrophic methanogenic archaea. They also feature a fundamentally different enzymatic mechanism in terms of redox partners and how electrons are delivered to the active site. In [NiFe] and [FeFe] hydrogenases, electrons travel through a series of metallorganic clusters that comprise a long distance; the active site structures remain unchanged during the whole process. In [Fe]-only hydrogenases, however, electrons are directly delivered to the active site via a short distance. Methenyl-H4MPT+, a cofactor, directly accepts the hydride from H2 in the process. [Fe]-only hydrogenase is also known as H2-forming methylenetetrahydromethanopterin (methylene-H4MPT) dehydrogenase, because its function is the reversible reduction of methenyl-H4MPT+ to methylene-H4MPT. The hydrogenation of a methenyl-H4MPT+ occurs instead of H2 oxidation/production, which is the case for the other two types of hydrogenases. While the exact mechanism of the catalysis is still under study, recent finding suggests that molecular hydrogen is first heterolytically cleaved by Fe(II), followed by transfer of hydride to the carbocation of the acceptor.

Mechanism
The molecular mechanism by which protons are converted into hydrogen molecules within hydrogenases is still under extensive study. One popular approach employs mutagenesis to elucidate roles of amino acids and/or ligands in different steps of catalysis such as intramolecular transport of substrates. For instance, Cornish et al. conducted mutagenesis studies and found out that four amino acids located along the putative channel connecting the active site and protein surface are critical to enzymatic function of [FeFe] hydrogenase from Clostridium pasteurianum (CpI). On the other hand, one can also rely on computational analysis and simulations. Nilsson Lill and Siegbahn have recently taken this approach in investigating the mechanism by which [NiFe] hydrogenases catalyze H2 cleavage. The two approaches are complementary and can benefit one another. In fact, Cao and Hall combined both approaches in developing the model that describes how hydrogen molecules are oxidized or produced within the active site of [FeFe] hydrogenases. While more research and experimental data are required to complete our understanding of the mechanism, these findings have allowed scientists to apply the knowledge in, e.g., building artificial catalysts mimicking active sites of hydrogenases.

Biological function
Assuming that the Earth's atmosphere was initially rich in hydrogen, scientists hypothesize that hydrogenases were evolved to generate energy from/as molecular H2. Accordingly, hydrogenases can either help microorganisms to proliferate under such conditions, or to set up ecosystems empowered by H2. Microbial communities driven by molecular hydrogen have, in fact, been found in deep-sea settings where other sources of energy from photosynthesis are not available. Based on these grounds, the primary role of hydrogenases are believed to be energy generation, and this can be sufficient to sustain an ecosystem.

Recent studies have revealed other biological functions of hydrogenases. To begin with, bidirectional hydrogenases can also act as "valves" to control excess reducing equivalents, especially in photosynthetic microorganisms. Such a role makes hydrogenases play a vital role in anaerobic metabolism. Moreover, hydrogenases may also be involved in membrane-linked energy conservation through the generation of a transmembrane protonmotive force.[15]There is a possibility that hydrogenases have been responsible for bioremediation of chlorinated compounds. Hydrogenases proficient in H2 uptake can help heavy metal contaminants to be recovered in intoxicated forms. These uptake hydrogenases have been recently discovered in pathogenic bacteria and parasites and are believed to be involved in their virulence.[15]

Applications
Hydrogenases were first discovered in the 1930s, and they have since attracted interest from many researchers including inorganic chemists who have synthesized a variety of hydrogenase mimics. The soluble [NiFe] hydrogenase from Ralstonia eutropha H16 is a promising candidate enzyme for H2-based biofuel application as it favours H2 oxidation and is relatively oxygen-tolerant. It can be produced on heterotrophic growth media and purified via anion exchange and size exclusion chromatography matrices. Understanding the catalytic mechanism of hydrogenase might help scientists design clean biological energy sources, such as algae, that produce hydrogen.

Biological hydrogen production
Various systems are capable of splitting water into O2 and H+ from incident sunlight. Likewise, numerous catalysts, either chemical or biological, can reduce the produced H+ into H2. Different catalysts require unequal overpotential for this reduction reaction to take place. Hydrogenases are attractive since they require a relatively low overpotential. In fact, its catalytic activity is more effective than platinum, which is the best known catalyst for H2 evolution reaction. Among three different types of hydrogenases, [FeFe] hydrogenases is considered as a strong candidate for an integral part of the solar H2 production system since they offer an additional advantage of high TOF (over 9000 s−1)[6].

Low overpotential and high catalytic activity of [FeFe] hydrogenases are accompanied by high O2 sensitivity. It is necessary to engineer them O2-tolerant for use in solar H2 production since O2 is a by-product of water splitting reaction. Past research efforts by various groups around the world have focused on understanding the mechanisms involved in O2-inactivation of hydrogenases. For instance, Stripp et al. relied on protein film electrochemistry and discovered that O2 first converts into a reactive species at the active site of [FeFe] hydrogenases, and then damages its [4Fe-4S] domain. Cohen et al. investigated how oxygen can reach the active site that is buried inside the protein body by molecular dynamics simulation approach; their results indicate that O2 diffuses through mainly two pathways that are formed by enlargement of and interconnection between cavities during dynamic motion. These works, in combination with other reports, suggest that inactivation is governed by two phenomena: diffusion of O2 to the active site, and destructive modification of the active site.

Despite these findings, research is still under progress for engineering oxygen tolerance in hydrogenases. While researchers have found oxygen-tolerant [NiFe] hydrogenases, they are only efficient in hydrogen uptake and not production[21]. Bingham et al.'s recent success in engineering [FeFe] hydrogenase from Clostridium pasteurianum was also limited to retained activity (during exposure to oxygen) for H2 consumption, only.

Hydrogenase-based biofuel cells
Typical enzymatic biofuel cells involve the usage of enzymes as electrocatalysts at either both cathode and anode or at one electrode. In hydrogenase-based biofuel cells, hydrogenase enzymes are present at the anode for H2 oxidation.

Principle
The bidirectional or reversible reaction catalyzed by hydrogenase allows for the capture and storage of renewable energy as fuel with use on demand. This can be demonstrated through the chemical storage of electricity obtained from a renewable source (e.g. solar, wind, hydrothermal) as H2 during periods of low energy demands. When energy is desired, H2 can be oxidized to produce electricity.

Advantages
This is one solution to the challenge in the development of technologies for the capture and storage of renewable energy as fuel with use on demand. The generation of electricity from H2 is comparable with the similar functionality of Platinum catalysts minus the catalyst poisoning, and thus is very efficient. In the case of H2/O2 fuel cells, where the product is water, there is no production of greenhouse gases.

Biochemical classification
hydrogen dehydrogenase (hydrogen:NAD+ oxidoreductase)
 * EC 1.12.1.2
 * H2 + NAD+ H+ + NADH

hydrogen dehydrogenase (NADP) (hydrogen:NADPH+ oxidoreductase)
 * EC 1.12.1.3
 * H2 + NADP+ H+ + NADPH

cytochrome-c3 hydrogenase (hydrogen:ferricytochrome-c3 oxidoreductase)
 * EC 1.12.2.1
 * 2H2 + ferricytochrome c3 4H+ + ferrocytochrome c3

hydrogen:quinone oxidoreductase
 * EC 1.12.5.1
 * H2 + menaquinone menaquinol

ferredoxin hydrogenase (hydrogen:ferredoxin oxidoreductase)
 * EC 1.12.7.2
 * H2 + oxidized ferredoxin 2H+ + reduced ferredoxin

coenzyme F420 hydrogenase (hydrogen:coenzyme F420 oxidoreductase)
 * EC 1.12.98.1
 * H2 + coenzyme F420 reduced coenzyme F420

hydrogenase (acceptor) (hydrogen:acceptor oxidoreductase)
 * EC 1.12.99.6
 * H2 + A AH2

5,10-methenyltetrahydromethanopterin hydrogenase (hydrogen:5,10-methenyltetrahydromethanopterin oxidoreductase)
 * EC 1.12.98.2
 * H2 + 5,10-methenyltetrahydromethanopterin H+ + 5,10-methylenetetrahydromethanopterin

Methanosarcina-phenazine hydrogenase [hydrogen:2-(2,3-dihydropentaprenyloxy)phenazine oxidoreductase]
 * EC 1.12.98.3
 * H2 + 2-(2,3-dihydropentaprenyloxy)phenazine 2-dihydropentaprenyloxyphenazine

title: Hydrogenase


text:
User:Homestar Lover

Greetings one and everyone! Welcome to me! Homestar! Lover!

Gender: Female

Age: 11 (It's true)

Um... what else?

title: User:Homestar Lover


text:
Waterman Hémisphère

The Waterman Hémisphère is a pen introduced in 1994 by the French pen company, Waterman.

The Hémisphère is a light pen that has a cigar shaped barrel with a beveled top and usual Waterman clip. It comes in many colours (metallic, blue, green, red, cognac), a lacquer finish, or a brushed chrome or gold finish. The clip comes in chrome or 24-karat gold finish.

In Japan, this model is known as the Waterman Metropolitan.

The pen is famous for being used by American horror writer, Stephen King, who has publicly stated that he handwrites his first drafts, using the Waterman Hemisphere.

title: Waterman Hémisphère


text: Category:Middle schools in Louisiana

title: Category:Middle schools in Louisiana


text: Category:Magnet schools in Louisiana

title: Category:Magnet schools in Louisiana


text: User talk:84.135.223.195

title: User talk:84.135.223.195


text:
Wikipedia:Userboxes/Music/Proficiency

User instrument userboxes allow for easy identification of Wikipedians who play musical instruments. They can be incorporated into user pages in the same way as user language templates. You can add individual userboxes to your user page, or add a Wikipedia:Instruments box to your user page by using User Instruments List. A musical instrument is a device constructed or modified for the purpose of making music. In principle, anything that produces sound can serve as a musical instrument. The term "musical instrument", however, is generally reserved for items that have a specific musical purpose such as a piano. The academic study of musical instruments is called organology.

Each userbox is in the form of, where instrument is replaced by the instrument's name or code (see below), and the number # at the end represents the skill level:
 * 1 for novice ability
 * 2 for intermediate ability
 * 3 for advanced ability
 * 4 if you play the instrument professionally

If you play multiple instruments, use User Instruments List to group them into one box that is aligned right. This template takes in parameters in the form of instrument-#, same as above. For example, would indicate someone who is a professional clarinetist, an advanced oboist and viola player, and a novice pianist.

These userboxes add you to the category associated with your level of ability, and to the overall category for that instrument. To browse the variety of instruments, see below or Category:Wikipedians by musical instrument.

To create templates and categories for an instrument not listed below, see /Adding.

For other userboxes related to music, see Userboxes/Music.

title: Wikipedia:Userboxes/Music/Proficiency


text:
Boomerang (1992 film)

Boomerang is a 1992 American romantic comedy film directed by Reginald Hudlin. The film stars Eddie Murphy as Marcus Graham, a hotshot advertising executive who also happens to be an insatiable womanizer and male chauvinist. When he meets his new boss, Jacqueline Broyer (Robin Givens), Marcus discovers that she is essentially a female version of himself, and he realizes he is receiving the same treatment that he delivers to others. The film also features Halle Berry, David Alan Grier, Martin Lawrence, Grace Jones, Eartha Kitt and Chris Rock.

Murphy assisted in developing the story with writers Barry W. Blaustein and David Sheffield, having worked with the writing duo since his days on Saturday Night Live. Murphy hired Hudlin to direct Boomerang, following the latter's success with his debut film House Party (1990). Hudlin and the writers aimed to create a romantic comedy that differed strongly from Murphy's previous comic efforts. Filming took place mainly in New York City, while other scenes were filmed in Washington, D.C.

The film was released in the United States on July 1, 1992, and was the 18th highest-grossing film in North America that year. Boomerang earned over $131 million worldwide during its theatrical run. The film garnered nominations at the BMI Film & TV Awards and the MTV Movie Awards, while its soundtrack became a top-selling album. Entertainment Weekly called it an underrated classic and one of the best Eddie Murphy movies of the 1990s. A 2019 television series based on the film, also called Boomerang, premiered on February 12, 2019, on BET.

Plot
Advertising executive Marcus Graham is a serial womanizer, prone to lying to seduce women but unwilling to commit until he finds the "perfect woman." His friends Tyler and Gerard tell him his standards are too high, particularly his habit of judging women by their feet.

Marcus's company is acquired by cosmetics mogul Lady Eloise, who invites him to her home with amorous intentions; he spends the night with her, believing he will be promoted. The next day, he meets Jacqueline Broyer, who has been made head of his department instead. At a party to celebrate the merger, eccentric fashion diva Helen Strangé is announced as the new face of the company, and Jacqueline introduces Marcus to colleague Angela Lewis, whom he sets up with Gerard. Though they get along fine, Angela and Gerard learn that they're better as friends.

Despite his best efforts, Marcus is unable to woo Jacqueline. Over dinner at his apartment, she ignores his advances and is more interested in the basketball game on TV, leaving him frustrated. On a business trip to New Orleans, Jacqueline unexpectedly invites Marcus into her room, and they have sex. Afterward, he is relieved to find her feet up to his standards.

Marcus begins to fall for Jacqueline, but finds himself on the receiving end of his usual tactics: she ignores his feelings, manipulates him with sex, and keeps their relationship strictly on her terms. Discovering she has bragged about their trysts to Strangé, whose advances he is forced to reject, Marcus confronts Jacqueline, and she ends their affair. Marcus finds himself the subject of office gossip, and his work begins to suffer. After a major business proposal is almost ruined, Jacqueline forces Marcus to take a few paid weeks off as an alternative to being fired.

Marcus spends time with Angela, who tries to bring him out of his funk. He realises he's developing feelings for her when they bond over watching late night reruns of Star Trek. After hosting Thanksgiving dinner with Tyler, Gerard, and Gerard's tactless parents, Marcus and Angela sleep together. Gerard is furious, believing Marcus will mistreat Angela like his past conquests. They move in together, but she is hurt when he downplays their relationship in a phone call with Jacqueline. Marcus, having regained his confidence, proves newly attractive to Jacqueline, and they sleep together again.

Marcus returns home to Angela in the middle of the night, and when she confronts him in the morning, he explains that he is confused by his feelings for her and for Jacqueline. She breaks up with him and takes a promotion at another company. Marcus rebounds with Jacqueline, but realizes his love for Angela; he returns home to find she has moved out. Marcus reconciles with Gerard, and visits Angela at her new job, convincing her that he is truly committed to her, and they get back together.

Development
Eddie Murphy created the original idea for the film, which he took to writers Barry Blaustein and David Sheffield, both of whom he had been working with during his days at Saturday Night Live. After they finished the first draft of the script and were given the greenlight on the project, Murphy offered the directing job to Reginald Hudlin, who had previously found critical and commercial success with his debut film House Party. For Boomerang, Hudlin said that, from a creative standpoint, he really wanted to take Murphy "somewhere where he's never been before," and that he and the writers' goal was to "put Eddie through paces. To have him have an arc like most characters in movies do, where he's not just the Br'er Rabbit character starting trouble," and to put him in a situation that "allows him to have a genuine obstacle."

Woody Omens, the cinematographer of the film, was insisted upon by Murphy, who had previously worked with him on Harlem Nights. Earl Watson worked as the film's main editor, and had previously worked with Hudlin on House Party. Francine Jamison-Tanchuck worked as the film's costume designer.

The intention was to give Murphy's character Marcus Graham a cool, yet sophisticated style. "So typically when it comes to black characters, either you have to be a successful, smart business person, or you're hip, but you're never both," said Hudlin. "And one of the reasons why the movie has had such enduring popularity is because the character is both. He's much more in the Cary Grant mode of business person." While working on the characterization of the main character, Hudlin came up with the foot gag, which was used as a plot device to show the arc of the character's growth. It originated from a joke between the director and his friends about a man who's so picky about women that he even looks at their back teeth. "So it's like, how do we define that Eddie's a back teeth kind of guy? So I came upon the idea of showing feet. That no matter how beautiful this woman is, if she has messed up feet, he's out of there." Also, Hudlin said that "we know he's evolved into a higher level of consciousness when he doesn't even notice what Halle Berry's feet look like." The character Angela's art class was an idea the filmmakers had to put Murphy in a context where he could interact with kids, which he hadn't done prior to this film.

The cast rehearsed for two weeks before production started, which the director said "really created that sense of team, and everyone playing off each other and everyone having that comfort level." Murphy even told Hudlin that he hadn't rehearsed since his days at SNL, and that he was going to rehearse for all of his movies from then on.

The scene in which Marcus changes his mind while with Jacqueline was a major rewrite to the script. According to Hudlin, in the original draft, Eddie's character Marcus "never decides anything, things are decided for him by the different women. So, we finally realized he had to make an affirmative choice. Going through the script with a buddy of mine, we talked about it, and my buddy Tre said 'look, he's got to make a decision.' And I said, 'you're right. He's got to reject her, and choose her.' And it seems so obvious now, I'm like 'what's wrong with me? What was wrong with all of us that it took us so long to figure out what we really needed to do to fix the movie?'"

Casting
Hudlin knew immediately that he wanted Halle Berry for the role of Angela after she came in and did the reading, and was nervous that Murphy wouldn't like her. Berry had appeared in a couple of films prior to being cast in Boomerang. However, after Berry performed her screen test, Murphy told Hudlin "well, that's it. There's no need to see the other two actresses because she's the part." Executives at Paramount Pictures were nervous about Robin Givens being cast in such a major role in the film, as she was disliked by many in the general public at the time because of her past relationship with Mike Tyson. Hudlin however, "thought that actually made her perfect for the role, that she was this formidable person, and a match for Eddie Murphy, who also had an intrepid reputation as a ladies' man. So, I wanted the audience to feel like this would be a fair fight."

David Alan Grier and Martin Lawrence were cast as Murphy's best friends in the film. At the time, Grier was well known for the show In Living Color. About him, Hudlin said, "I think he is an absolutely underrated genius. I think he is Steve Martin-level funny, and it's too bad more people don't know how to use his comic gift, because he is absolutely brilliant." Lawrence was brought on to the project after first working with Hudlin on House Party, which was his first major role in a film. Bebe Drake-Massey and John Witherspoon had played a couple in House Party, and were reunited for the film, this time playing the character Gerard's parents. Tisha Campbell also worked with Hudlin on House Party, and was brought on board to play Murphy's obnoxious, and somewhat obsessive, neighbor. While on the set, Hudlin would always rave about Campbell and Lawrence, and Murphy suggested Hudlin do a film with the two of them. Lawrence, who was developing his television show at the time, overheard the two actors talking, and decided to cast Campbell as his girlfriend and later wife, Gina, for his hit sitcom Martin.

Grace Jones was cast in a role that was essentially written as a parody of herself. Of her work ethic, Hudlin said that "she was always 100% committed, and would do the absolute craziest thing at any given time. She was absolutely perfect for the role. It was written for her, and she came in very humble, very sweet."

Eartha Kitt was the hardest person to cast for the film, as she was somewhat offended by her character's tone in the original script. Eventually she accepted the role, after some of the more tasteless jokes in the script were changed or removed. Hudlin however did say that "she was great to work with," and that "she really got into the spirit of it, and was a lot of fun."

Lela Rochon, who was known for her role in Murphy's 1989 film Harlem Nights, was brought back for a small role in Boomerang. Chris Rock, who was a protege of Murphy's, and had acted in small roles in a few other films at the time, was also given a bit part. The role of Lady Eloise's butler was played by Jonathan Hicks, a friend of the director's, who replaced a sick actor at the last minute. Hicks was a reporter for The New York Times, not an actor, and took the role as a favor to Hudlin.

Three of the actors in this film have starred in the James Bond 007 films. This includes Geoffrey Holder (Baron Samedi from the film Live and Let Die), Grace Jones (May Day from the film A View to a Kill), and Halle Berry (Giacinta "Jinx" Johnson from the film Die Another Day).

Filming
The majority of the film was shot in New York City during the winter. Although it was very cold, the director said that it was still "great to actually be in the city and get that authentic New York flavor." Most of the film was done on location as well. Interior scenes which took place at Marcus' workplace were shot in the old Univision building that had been repainted for production. The scene in Lady Eloise's bedroom was shot at the Boston Park Plaza, in a suite personally redesigned by Ivana Trump, which accounts for the unique styling. The scene of Strangé's introduction was filmed at the Winter Garden Atrium of Brookfield Place.

Although director Hudlin was willing to let his actors improvise, there were boundaries and rules to it, so that the jokes wouldn't lead to nowhere. He explained that once the actors "get a sense that someone will tell them if something doesn't work, or that we're getting too far afield, then they feel comfortable doing what they do. So, that's the balance that we struck."

Production went well, and as expected with so many comic actors and personalities around, was lively. During production, Hudlin said that whenever David Alan Grier and Martin Lawrence worked, the film's crew usually worked a little slower because wherever they were, there would be so much comedy being generated and they were so funny that everyone wanted to hang out near where they were throughout the day. In the scene where the new fragrance is being presented to Strangé, the director said that "what Grace was doing on the set while we were shooting was so funny that I remember Halle crying off camera, cause she was trying to keep a straight face but she couldn't. So whenever she was off-camera, she would just be literally crying because she was laughing so hard. And fortunately, for her reaction shots she was able to recover."

An extra scene, involving Jones taking off her chain-metal dress which is ringing off the metal detectors and walking through them naked, was shot in Newark Airport. However, the filmmakers felt it to be too shocking, to the point where it threw the rhythm of the picture off, so they only used it in the small clip being edited for the approved perfume commercial.

The scene late in the film where Grier, Lawrence, and Murphy hug in front of the Empire State Building was shot around one or two o'clock in the morning, when the lights are usually shut off. If the filmmakers had them shut off at their command, it would have cost them $40,000–$60,000, so instead Hudlin had the three hug, and the lights were eventually shut off as usual. When editing the film, they simply reversed the footage to make it appear as if the lights were being turned on. The filmmakers even thought about ending the movie at this point, deciding instead to go with Marcus attempting to win back Angela's affection. For this, an alternate ending was shot where Angela is teaching the kids at the school and Marcus comes, talks to her and eventually wins her back; the filmmakers thought it was slow and uninteresting, and eventually came up with the released version.

Near the production's end, some scenes that still needed to be shot were done in Washington, D.C., where Murphy was also shooting The Distinguished Gentleman. Originally, some of the film was to take place in the Caribbean, and scenes were to be shot there. However, the setting was changed to New Orleans, and the scenes taking place there were shot in D.C.

Music
Marcus Miller produced the original score for the film, while Antonio "L. A." Reid and Kenneth "Babyface" Edmonds worked on the soundtrack. With such a wealth of new material, director Hudlin said"Sometimes we used score, sometimes we'd use a song by L.A. and Face, or sometimes Marcus would take some of the songs they had written and do score interpolations of it. For example, one of the songs, 'Love Shoulda Brought You Home', is a great example. That came from a line of dialogue where Halle is furious with Eddie, says 'love should've brought your ass home last night,' slaps him. At that time, L.A. leans over to me and goes 'that's a great song title.' I said, 'great idea.' They write a song, 'Love Shoulda Brought You Home'. I said, 'well, who we going to get to sing it?' And they said 'well you know, we've got this great young singer who sang the demo, Reggie. If you like the demo then we can use her.' And I said 'great, let's use her.' So that was Toni Braxton's debut. And I remember when I finally met Toni at Babyface's wedding, L.A. said, 'you owe your career to this guy, he gave you your big break,' which was really sweet."

The soundtrack album reached the number four spot on the Billboard 200, and number one on the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart. It included multiple singles that charted in their own right, the most successful of which was Boyz II Men's "End of the Road", which went to number one on the Billboard Hot 100 singles chart, and stayed there for thirteen weeks, breaking Elvis Presley's previous record of eleven weeks with his version of "Hound Dog".

Design
The production was very demanding, including an expensive wardrobe budget, which Hudlin felt was completely worth the price. "The clothing in the movie is incredible, for both the men and the women. Eddie looks great, Robin and Halle look great. Great hair, great makeup work for all concerned, cause we wanted it to look fantastic. We wanted to give people a level of production value they hadn't seen for Eddie's first foray into true romantic comedy."

Influences
François Truffaut's Jules and Jim was an influence on the story arc between the characters Angela, Gerard and Marcus. Hudlin explained, "I remember when I saw Jules and Jim when I was a kid, and that awkward, awkward feeling of two guys, one has a better time with girls than the other, and they both fall in love with the same woman. And I remember the agony of watching the emotional stakes of that picture. And, this is just a fun movie, not trying to compare myself to Truffaut on any level, but, at least, that's what inspired the moment."

The pacing and rhythm of Howard Hawks' His Girl Friday was a big influence on the pictures style. Woody Allen's Annie Hall was also very influential while Hudlin worked on the project because, according to Hudlin, "if you talk about contemporary romantic comedy, you're really talking about Annie Hall."

Box office
On its opening weekend, the film earned $13,640,706, and ranked number three at the box office. It also ranked number three the two following weekends. By the end of its theatrical run, the film had grossed over $70 million domestically, and $61 million outside of the U.S., making a total of $131,052,444. It was the 18th highest-grossing film in the US in 1992. Compared to its budget, the film was considered a success.

Critical reception
On review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 49%, based on 43 reviews, and an average rating of 5.3/10. The website's critics consensus reads, "Boomerang injects some fresh color into the corporate rom-com formula, but the frothy fun is undercut by off-putting gender dynamics and misjudged gags." On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 45 out of 100, based on 19 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews". Audiences surveyed by CinemaScore gave the film a grade A− on scale of A to F.

Roger Ebert gave the film and its stars positive reviews, calling the movie "predictable but enjoyable all the same." In 2005, the film was ranked number 21 on BET's Top 25 Movies In the Last 25 Years list.

In retrospect, Kristen Baldwin from Entertainment Weekly said: "Though it never received the critical appreciation it deserved, and it is often overlooked in discussions of the rom-com pantheon today, Boomerang still holds up 27 years later."

About the critical response, Hudlin said: "There was one infamous review of the film that summed up the ignorance of many critics. The movie was called a science fiction film, because those writers didn’t know about any successful black companies. They didn’t know about Johnson Products, or Johnson Publishing, or Burrell Advertising, or UniWorld Advertising, or any black law firms or… They were just ignorant, which they tried to pass off as wit. It was also frustrating for (Eddie) because he was stretching out, expanding the range of movies he was doing, but instead of applauding him for doing something different, they sneered. So many people love the film, from Lena Horne to Ice Cube. There are people who watch it with their family every Thanksgiving. But there was this crazy generation gap between the white people who ran Hollywood at the time the film was made, and the white people who grew up on hip hop who are players in Hollywood today. There's a much higher percentage of white executives who at least have a basic knowledge of black pop culture today, thank goodness. That’s why you can't sweat the controversy of the moment. Over time, the true value of a movie is revealed. Which is why it's so nice Boomerang has generations of fans."

About the legacy and the cult status of Boomerang, Eddie Murphy said: "I love that Boomerang has the legs it had. I love that it's still works... I'm proud of that film"

Awards and nominations

 * 1993 BMI Film & TV Awards
 * Most Performed Song from a Film: Antonio "L.A." Reid, Daryl Simmons, and Kenneth "Babyface" Edmonds for "End of the Road" (winner)
 * 1993 MTV Movie Awards
 * Best Breakthrough Performance: Halle Berry (nominated)
 * Best Comedic Performance: Eddie Murphy (nominated)
 * Best Movie Song: Boyz II Men, "End of the Road" (nominated)
 * Most Desirable Female: Halle Berry (nominated)

title: Boomerang (1992 film)


text:
Talk:20 mm Twin AA Machine Cannon

expand
This article is useless as written. Avriette 00:46, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

This site has the same thing that is written in the article. Maybe someone can do something with it. http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/aa.htm --Sourduck 16:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:20 mm Twin AA Machine Cannon


text: Template:Green Line D timeline

title: Template:Green Line D timeline


text:
File:Roger Waters - Flickering Flame front cover.jpg

Front cover of Roger Waters' 2002 album Flickering Flame: The Solo Years Vol. 1.

Fair use rationale for fair use in Flickering Flame: The Solo Years Vol. 1
Although this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
 * 1) This copy of the image is the primary means of visually identifying the album discussed in the entry Flickering Flame: The Solo Years Vol. 1.
 * 2) The use of this version of the CD cover will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original. In particular, copies of the image could not be used to make illegal copies of the album artwork on another CD.
 * 3) It is a low-resolution image.
 * 4) The image is only a small portion of the commercial product.
 * 5) It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.


text: User talk:81.10.234.211

title: User talk:81.10.234.211