Ode to the zit that has taken residence on my forehead

Having heard some diabolical poetry the other day, i got inspired. Enjoy!

Ode to the zit that has taken residence on my forehead

O cursed pimple borne of grime yet undefined,
Why must thou come to burden my mind?
Arriving as thou has, thou choosest to make thy presence felt,
Expanding at a rate that feels most inclement.

Thou appearst on my forehead in a place I never feel I touch,
Yet thy existence makes it seem like my forehead I clutch.
A spasm of introspection this occurrence has sent me into,
Wondering what expensive quack’s potion I am going to have to resort to.

Days pass, and my vexation refuses to leave me,
The bastard continues to grow as though it plans overwhelm me.
O perfidious pimple, o zealous zit,
Why must thou consume me like some teenage twit?

Three Days of the Condor

Watched a movie that i hadn't seen in many, many years last night. I loved it when i first saw it, was not as convinced this time. Tant pis. Enjoy!

Three Days of the Condor

One of a selection of 70s thrillers made when Watergate paranoia was cruising near its peak, here we have CIA researcher and book worm (apparently his job is to read books and look for messages in there for the CIA – not a bad way to earn a living really) Robert Redford who comes across something that leads to a hit team knocking out the rest of his team and a couple of friends. Along the way he gets rather improbably to screw Faye Dunaway (and by improbably I mean that the way it happens, also: she looks very pretty in this), and gets deep with hit man Max von Sydow.

I cannot say that I fully understood what was going on for the whole film. In part this may have been because I was falling asleep during parts of it (weary as I was as a result of my new arduous exercise regimen), but also because the story is somewhat improbably strung together. I am a big fan of paranoid thriller movies of this ilk, but there were a few too many holes in this one.

First of all, there was absolutely no explanation why Dunaway’s character fell into bed with Redford’s. To give background: having fled a shoot-out with supposed CIA friends, he runs into a clothes store, where he overhears Dunaway saying something to the person at the counter, only to then follow her out of the store, stick a gun in her face and get her to drive him to her house. There he explains his mildly incredible situation, ties her up, threatens her with the gun, gets her to lie to her fiancée, before falling into bed together. Hmmm. I suppose it could just be looks (he is pretty dashing, and she is certainly cute), but then again it could also be the result of her artistic temperament (she is a photographer – half arsed efforts of the sort you see dangling above toilets in the houses of aging yuppies). Once they have screwed he deposits her on a street corner and she suddenly drops out of the film. I either missed something crucial, or this was an example of really bad script writing.

Frankly that is the only major problem that I had with the film (though I never fully understood why the hit took place in the first place). But it really bothered me (and of course I may have snoozed through others). Also: the ending was mildly unsatisfying, but I can get over that (we just watch Redford disappear in the distance). The acting was all good, and it is interesting to see the Twin Towers playing such a prominent role in the film. One can only assume that they had just been built and were being showcased by the movie, as they do appear regularly, and are used as the CIA headquarters in New York (this is in fact true, the Twin Towers were full of government offices, as no-one else could afford the rent or wanted to go there and so the government was obliged to essentially subsidize them).

Survey says: worth watching if you are looking for a 70s thriller. Not the best ever made (see Capricorn One for a good one starring OJ, and I am currently tracking down a copy of the Parallax View which I will review at a later date, so start to get excited now), but nevertheless, a respectable and fun effort. However, the love business really bugged me so I would downgrade this to one that I would wait until you get a chance to catch it on TV.

China offended by baby boiling comments

I am not going to make a habit of this, but this story is too great. I love watching Italian politics.

China offended by baby boiling comments
Tue Mar 28, 10:09 AM ET Reuters

China, which is marking 2006 as the Year of Italy, has denounced comments by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi that the Chinese under Mao Zedong boiled babies.

"We are dissatisfied with this groundless talk," China's Foreign Ministry said in a statement faxed to Reuters on Tuesday.

"Words and deeds by Italian leaders should benefit the stability and development of friendly relations between China and Italy."

Berlusconi, who has been accused of being obsessed with the "communist threat" in Italy, said Sunday that communists had a history of boiling babies.

"Go and read the black book on communism and you'll find that under Mao's China they didn't eat babies but boiled them to fertilize the fields," he told a rally.

Reasons to not remake Basic Instinct

Having caught the trailer for Basic Instinct 2 on TV last night I feel justified in listing ten reasons why this should never have happened.

1. There is enough misery on the planet.
2. Surely the money could have been better invested helping pretentious New York poets finding a real venue to perform in.
3. Sharon Stone did done enough damage with the film Gloria.
4. We barely got to see her minge last time (those who spent the time looking for it), do we really need/want to see it fifteen years later?
5. Joe Eszterhas should not be encouraged.
6. My foot hurts (this is actually a quote from a film – anybody know it?).
7. Does not the fact that they could not drum up any other major actors for the film make you question the value of the script?
8. Because it is going to reinforce the many stereotypes in Hollywood and wider America about Brits (that they’re gay and evil).
9. Because this is really going to screw with my plan to write a novel, about a writer who writes thriller tales that start to get re-enacted in an eerily similar fashion starting with a former lover.
10. Because as a result I am expending an awful lot of time thinking about how awful it will be.

Italians need an aggressive and energetic government

Well, i finally managed to penetrate the august pages of the Financial Times today. Sadly, it is only a letter, but it's a step in the right direction. Now to decide whether i claim this as a publication or not. Any thoughts?

Italians need an aggressive and energetic government
By Raff Published: March 23 2006 02:00 Last updated: March 23 2006 02:00

From Raff

Sir, The headline to Wolfgang Munchau's article "A grand coalition could solve Italy's problems" (March 20) is rather misleading in the context of the rest of the article. Given Italy's history of 59 governments since the second world war, it would also seem improbable. The interim technocratic government that is likely to follow the collapse of Romano Prodi's government may be a temporary improvement, but it will fail to address the leadership problem that is at the root of Italy's troubles.

Italians are in dire need of strong and able leadership. Unfortunately, their current situation has left them with the former over the latter. The reason Italians have allowed this to happen is mostly as a result of the sheer force of nature that Silvio Berlusconi has proved to be. This is the key rationale behind polls that show that almost a quarter of Italians are unsure about whether they really want to vote Mr Berlusconi (a leader whose record of success is certainly questionable) out of office. For all his failings, Mr Berlusconi has shown himself to be a more energetic leader than Professore Prodi.

On top of this, they have yet to match the outside world's obsession with their failing economy. While it has become de rigueur to consider Italy Europe's new "sick man", Italians themselves seem content with the fact that neither Mr Berlusconi nor Mr Prodi has offered a credible economic solution.

The last thing Italians need is a passive government that will stand back and try to mend structural economic failings. What they really need is an aggressive and energetic government that will seize the reins of power and whip labour productivity into shape, control inflation, and force the Italian economy to adapt to the globalising economy.

Sadly, this does not appear to be on the horizon. One can only hope that it does not take the return of a strongman of Benito Mussolini's passion to wake them from their slumber.

Raff

The letter can be found at: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/531348ee-ba12-11da-9d02-0000779e2340.html

The original article can be found at: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a96039ca-b777-11da-b4c2-0000779e2340.html

(though i suspect you may have to pay to read the article - ah the joys of working in an office this is not a concern)

Uses Air

As part of an effort to make the junior staff where i work feel more loved they have instituted a policy of having us each create a brief bio for ourselves that will be posted on the website. While initially a benign concept, i am sure that it will backfire in some way (given the person in charge of it who i will whinge about at a later date). However, i still submitted something (what a little spod i am, eh?), but just thought of an infinitely more amusing way to summarise my contribution to the planet:

"Uses air."

Hence the name of this post. Might even make a good title for a book. Anyhoo - just an amusing thought that occured to me that i thought i'd share. More later on those responsible.

The Battle of Algiers

Here's the second one i promised. Enjoy!

The Battle of Algiers

This is another classic film, but this time, not one that I had seen. Many thanks to Derek who got it out for me on his netflix (otherwise, I might never have watched it – as Blockbuster lost theirs or gave it away). It is the inside story of the French colonial battle for Algiers, told from the ground level from the perspective of both the idealistic young Algerian FLN fighters and the French paratrooper colonel sent in to suppress the rebellion.

As I started to watch the film I was concerned that it would turn into a nightmarish apologist piece of propaganda, eager to portray the French as nothing but evil colonials and the freedom fighters heroic knights. While there was certainly an element of this (and quite rightly so, the French methods were horrific. In one instance they practically tortured their way through an entire neighborhood before they got what they wanted), it was balanced by shots of the miserable human impact of the FLN fighters actions (later actions in the colonial war were even worse, in one instance fighters went through the village of Beni-Messous slitting the throats of at least 87 people). It was certainly weighted against the French, but then again, considering when it was made and the fact that de Gaulle swept to power on the back of extraordinary popular discontent at how France was ruling its colony in Algeria, it seems somewhat appropriate. An interesting angle raised by today’s environment was the background of the FLN as a fundamentalist Islamic group. It was interesting to see how the film handled the spartan, sharia inspired lifestyle that the FLN tried to impose on the Casbah (it was this fundamentalism that led to the Beni-Messous massacre amongst others).

Survey says: an excellent film that surprised me. As a person who has been weaned on color television I am instinctively suspicious of black and whites – this proves that this is a horseshit perspective. A wonderful and insightful history lesson.

All The President's Men

This is going to be the first of two oldies that i watched recently. So check back and enjoy!

All The President’s Men

This is a classic film that I have watched any number of times. I own the video somewhere, and have read both the original book, and the sequel that followed, Final Days. Both are naturally important books, but one should be wary of leaping into them expecting some sort of action-packed jamboree. The truth is that they are both very telegraphic in their style, very good, but at times they read like overlong newspaper articles (note, I say newspaper rather than magazine, a very different kettle of fish. If you don’t know what I mean, go pick up the New Yorker and the Washington Post and tell me if they are written in the same way. Go ahead. I dare you).

But I digress; the film is excellent and you should see it if you have not. Not only is it a tense thriller, but the story is also real. It keeps you excited until the very end, which is impressive considering that it is simply about a couple of guys running around talking to people.

One thing that did strike me as amusing about the whole enterprise, is the reminder that this film is of Bob Woodward’s humble beginnings. Even more amusing is to see where co-writer at the time Carl Bernstein now languishes, i.e. nowhere. One wonders how bothered he is that his former partner has now been elevated to the position of governmental historian of record, while he apparently sits around growing fat. The other interesting thing that I drew from this screening is that we now know that Deep Throat was W. Mark Felt, and it was interesting to see how the FBI was so often the first agency mentioned when Woodward was talking about what Deep Throat had told him to others, and how the FBI friend of Bernstein’s got angry that their reports were ending up in the papers verbatim. There were many other such similar references, though i suppose i could just be reading into things.

Survey says: excellent film. Worth watching every time. Fine holiday fun.

3 Years into Iraq

On this third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, I have my own comments that I would like to add to the general discussion. Since it would be impossible for me to get these published anywhere (since I am in no way an expert on this subject, and there are many far more distinguished people who are infinitely more qualified than me), I am merely offering them as observations here to whoever the hell reads this anyway. Also: this is meant to be the point of this entire exercise, to give me an opportunity to vent my thoughts, and hear any comments/thoughts that anyone out there has.

I never bought the idea that the U.S. went into Iraq solely for the oil. I always thought that it was more a case of rampant hopeless idealism by the Bush administration who were convinced that they were performing some sort of massive act of public good in liberating the country of an evil despot. I think the oil helped push the issue over the edge (as in it gave them an extra incentive to go there), but I do not think it was the only driver. I really do not buy that Halliburton was behind the entire process. If it was just a way of fleecing the nation (either Iraqi or American), well, there are infinitely easier ways of doing it.

So, three years on, does the Bush Iraq look anything like a liberated country that is better off than when it was under Saddam’s jackboot? The only real answer I can come up with is no. Not only is the country still being ripped apart internally, prodded along by nihilistic terrorists eager to wreak havoc for their own means, but now we have the real prospect that the conclusion will be a return to the former state of affairs, except the Shiite’s will enjoy their moment in the sun as leaders of the nation to the detriment of the Sunni minority. The Shiite’s undoubtedly see it as their turn in this superior position, given Saddam’s previous preference towards Sunni over Shiite in the past, and anyway, the demographics favour the Shiite’s who outnumber the Sunni’s (an all-participatory democratic vote would simply strengthen the Shia control, which is why the Sunni’s refuse to participate at all).

Already, we see Shiite’s assembling their own militias, or simply outnumbering the Sunni’s in official military units. Hence, it does not seem sensible to conclude that the Iraqi military apparatus is being strengthened in a bipartisan fashion.

Second, I am unsure whether Ibrahim al-Jafari or Iyad Allawi, can be counted as the sort of democrat that the Americans really envisioned when they went into Iraq (I suppose we all know the kind that they wanted, Ahmed Chalabi, who appears to be clawing his way back into respectability). Yet, even counting Chalabi, these are all Arab strongmen with backgrounds that do not necessarily coincide with America’s interests. Allawi was a henchman in Saddam’s regime before he fell out of favour and fled; Jafari is suspected to have very close links to the Iranian regime, and some have even suggested that he is eager to replicate the Iranian model in Iraq; and Chalabi has turned out to be a nightmarish political liability.

Suffice to say, it seems to me like we are heading to simply finding another Arab strongman to take over the country. On top of that, we are handing him an army that is likely to break up along sectarian lines, and not be the bipartisan dream that the neoconservatives envisioned.

So where is the benefit to anyone? American troops will draw down to safely watch the chaos from bases in adjacent Gulf nations, where American casualties and press interest will drop. Iraq will be turned over to a person who will increasingly find that in order to maintain the Iraqi nation’s structural integrity, they will have to use steadily more draconian measures. Given the current sectarian divides, the chances are high that the Shia will emerge as the dominators, and we will have fully returned to the pre-war state, except now it will be the Shia ruling the roost, and the entire nation’s foreign policy will tend towards supporting Iran.

Iraq is already plagued by sectarian death squads, and the occasional religious site bombing that we hear about in the press in the West does not reflect the reality on the ground where they are in fact more frequent. Given this chaotic background, it will be easy for a hard line leader to rally support for increasingly drastic measures to regain control. Since the Americans have led with such excellent example in Abu Ghirab it will be unsurprising if it turns out that the government is sanctioning atrocities to suppress their opposition.

As foreign troops leave, the media glare upon the nation will die down, and a success of sorts will be quietly declared. The end result will be a full return to the initial power structure of Iraq under Saddam, with the key difference of being the religious affinity of the person in charge.

This negative outlook is by no means a definitive conclusion (after all, what do I know), it just seems the result we are heading towards. The other alternative I see is a continual gradual escalation of the low level chaos, occasionally peaking and then dying down again, until finally (possibly many years down the line – a decade or so) a semblance of peace arises as the people finally grow sick of their lot and start to impose from the grass roots some sort of organic secular power structure. The sad thing is that the only way I see us reaching this outcome at this point is simply leaving the country to rip itself apart in the short run, so that it can rebuild itself in the future, and the problem with this is that this would require the rest of the world to simply leave Iraq alone for many years to figure itself out. And here we return to the oil wealth (or curse), which will mean that there will always be parties willing to support whichever tin pot dictator assumes control.

V for Vendetta

In good consumer fashion i went to see a movie on it's opening weekend. Apparently so did a lot of other people who helped elevate the film to the number one spot in the box office. Here's what i thought. Enjoy!

V for Vendetta

Before I go further in this review, I would like to say that I am a person who has read the comic book upon which this film is based. So, not to sound like some sort of purist dork, but the truth is that this made it a very different experience for me. It would likely be a different experience for those who have not read the book. I guess that prelude does not bode well, but read on anyway – unless you are very eager to see it – as I may spoil it. But you cannot say that you were not forewarned.

The film is set in a futuristic London where a totalitarian government has seized power after some ill-defined catastrophe that came out of an American war that looks suspiciously like Iraq in the few flashbacks that we see. Young Evie (Natalie Portman) wanders through this world until she is picked up by faceless and nameless terrorist V (Hugo Weaving), who takes her under his wing as he wreaks havoc on Adam Sutler’s (John Hurt) totalitarian government and tears it apart from within.

Overall, this is an entertaining film that blends matrix-type theatrics (unsurprisingly really as the script is written by the Warchowski brothers) with some thought provoking left-leaning political thought. My problem is that it does it in a slightly boorish Michael Moore fashion, irritatingly blending the problems of the futuristic imaginary world of the film with today’s problems (this bothers me because it seems somewhat infantile and reductive of issues that are in fact quite the opposite). So we get references to the vague American war that led to the world we see the characters in the film inhabiting, and when we see concentration camps, the images are all pointedly reminiscent of Abu Ghirab.

As a Brit I was also bothered (or amused in a snotty kind of way) by the fact that at the beginning there was a five-minute history lesson, as Americans were taught the importance of November 5th and Guy Fawkes in Britain. On the flipside, I did enjoy the fact that the greeting amongst the party bigwigs was “England prevails.” I may start using this myself.

The acting was universally mediocre, but then again, you are not really meant to concentrate on that. There were a few plot inconsistencies, but one need not linger on them. The biggest irritation I had was the love relationship that the film created between V and Evie, while in the comic book this does exist from Evie’s perspective, it is certainly never seen from V. The fact that they threw it in here made V’s entire enterprise somewhat trite. The other irritations that were lost in translation were ones that I wont go in to as they would spoil the film all together, and I don’t really want to do that as the film is essentially fun.

Survey says: worth seeing at the cinema on the big screen. Big action; while mildly bothersome pretend thought-provoking plot.

Vive Bastille!

I started writing this in an inspired mood with a target in mind. However, i failed to check and discovered that they had already published something about this. Oh well, better luck next time. Let me know if you think of anywhere else that might be interested in it. Enjoy!

Vive Bastille!

As the French riot once again, the pressing question on American’s minds is whether this is merely confirmation of how dangerous the world out there really is, and whether they should postpone that planned visit or year abroad to the sample la vie Française.

The signs are not promising. Unlike the previous rioting that took place in the suburbs of major cities where tourists are unlikely to ever go and by people who the average tourist is only likely to encounter when ordering food in a restaurant, this is happening on the campuses of the nations most prestigious universities and is being carried out by students who will likely one day own the aforementioned restaurants.

Amusingly, the cause of the latest rioting is legislation that Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, passed to try to fix some of the problems thrown up by the first round of rioting, namely the high levels of unemployment amongst the young, mostly Arab, men who live in the suburbs of major French cities (in some cases it is as high as 40%, as compared to the national average that circles at around 9%).

It did this by making it easier for French employers to lay off workers under the age of 26, the logic being that if it is easier to fire people, then companies might be more willing to hire people (this may seem illogical, but French labor costs – pension and healthcare benefits, as well as salary – and current legislation that makes it nigh on impossible for a Frenchman to get fired mean that employers are very wary of hiring new people. Or this is what the government claims at any rate).

Nevertheless, this naturally stirred up some resentment amongst the parts of French youth who were not having the same difficulties getting a job as the part of French youth who had rioted previously. They take exception to the fact that the government has now made it easier for their first employers to lay them off with greater ease.

Hence we come to the scenario today, where riot police have tear gassed students on the august grounds of the Sorbonne. Not very promising for your average American student looking to do a year abroad in France: while he was never going to be visiting Clichy-sur-Bois (or any of the other depressing ghettos where the French dump their immigrant populations), he may find himself attending class in a university building that is being beset upon by jackbooted policemen.

Still, the truth is that these riots are likely to pass. The French have a long and distinguished tradition of rioting when aggrieved at government (one could even say that they exported this notion across the pond to the U.S. who overthrew the perfidious Brits with French aid), they beheaded a queen and toppled a system of absolute monarchy. In a way, the current bout of rioting is their way of expressing themselves against the monarchical rule of President Jacques Chirac and his heir apparent Dominique de Villepin.

Unfortunately, this is not the only threat your spry young visitor to France. He has also to contend with the menace of avian flu and the growing menace of isolationism that seems to be gripping France.

First, let me dispel the avian flu threat. It has been found in France, but it has not been affected people yet. Unlike the previous threats of mad cow disease, this is a disease that kills quickly (mad cow can take up to 10 years to reveal itself – avian flu will have you on your back in a few days) and only kills people who have been in contact with a bird riddled with the disease. So unless you are planning to live on a poultry farm or play with dead/dying chickens, you will be safe. This is in fact a universal statement that should be emphasized to everyone who is swept up in the hysterical panic that we have been wound into by avian flu watchers.

The isolationism threat, however, is a very different sort of proposition. The latest incarnation of this disease is the wave of protectionism of has gripped France. They have fended off Italian approaches to Suez, an energy and water company, by instead pushing for Suez to be merged into the bigger French utility Gaz de France. They have grown cantankerous and angry when American Pepsi approached Danone, and are currently raging that Indian Lakshmi Mittal has the audacity to want to buy their steel company Arcelor. Even worse, they have threatened Hewlett-Packard for suggesting that they might have to lay off some workers in France, and they are still terrified that waves of Polish plumbers are going to storm their shores, raping their women and plundering their lucrative plumbing jobs.

This sort of closed minded isolationism is not good news for France. If you are a foreign company looking for a new place to set up shop, are you likely to want to go to a country that has a track record of favoring national companies, threatening companies that are looking to trim workforces to make savings, and has already made it tough for you to even get rid of people in the first place? France may have great infrastructure and an educated workforce, but so do many other European nations with far less restrictive labor practices.

This is not a cheer for unbridled capitalism, it is however a warning that a nation cannot save jobs by jealously hording the ones that it has. Simply making it hard to fire people may force companies to hold on to staff, but it certainly doesn’t inspire them to hire any more staff.

So what should they do? The new legislation to facilitate hiring and firing amongst youth is a sort of start. It is an acknowledgement of movement in the right direction, but at the same time is not quite the right direction. Ultimately, it was created to address a different problem, the marginalization of young Arabs in France. The real way of dealing with this racism is to promote positive discrimination in France: the current legislation in no way obliges employers in France to hire young Arabs; it simply facilitates their hiring and firing of under-26 year-olds.

The real direction to move in is to improve education. If you make your workforce more intelligent and better trained, they will be naturally more attractive to employers.

How does this all affect your visiting American? Well, very little really. As long as he or she stays clear of rioting hordes, poultry farms and is not planning on making any major investments in France they should be fine. It does not, however, bode particularly well for future visits to France, as it will start to affect France’s position in the globe and its ability to guarantee economic growth. And if France starts to decline, then we will only see more of this protectionism before we see improvement.

Picky People

Well, this should really be: picky person. But there are so many where i work, and frankly, this one proved to be remarkably rational and amicable in the end. Still, i wrote this, and it amused me, and might you. I dunno. Enjoy!

Picky People

So, I wandered in on Monday thinking that everything was resolved. I had gone ahead and figured out a nightmarishly complex itinerary for someone who was not even going to be appearing on the agenda for the meeting.

Of course, this is no way reflected on this person’s sense of personal importance and therefore complicated any arrangements that needed to be made.

My Monday morning optimism and idyll were shattered (not that they are usually very present) as I spent from 8 to 11 on the phone listening to airline phone lines inform me that if I performed my transaction online then I would save money. Once I got to the third language I was screaming with mercy, begging to be put through to a human voice that could help solve the heinous Rubik’s cube of an itinerary that I had to contend with.

Of course, that was the point that someone came on the line.

After some brush explanations I booked all the tickets. For one ticket I had to purchase a return that was never going to get used to lower the price (this would require explanation later – but I figured I could cross that bridge another day). The last nightmare was to get one airline to accept miles on another that it supposedly shared some sort of mile sharing deal with. Of course, they wouldn’t make this simple and I had to phone both airlines twice to get assorted pieces of information that they initially claimed didn’t exist.

“Sir, I am going to be unable to process the request until you have the fine number.”

“Where can I get the fine number?”

“No sir, the fine number.” Her accent was getting thicker.

“OK, yes I get the point, a fine number. Where do I find this?”
“Ess, eye, gee, en, sir. Sign number.”

“Whatever. Where can I find this godforsaken number?”

“Excuse me?”

“Please simply tell me where to find this number. Where the hell are you based anyway?”

“Dublin sir”

Well that was baffling, why the Latin sounding accent?

And so it went. Eventually, I got through only to discover that the person I had previously reserved with had failed to make the reservations. Apparently the moronic employee (if I can call him thus) that I had dealt with on Friday had been making his entire transaction up. I was about to berate the nameless victim on the line (well, nameless is not entirely true. I am sure they had told me their name at some point – Paul or Lisa or some equally vacuous name – however, having once worked in telesales, I know that these names are made up (clever me, eh?) I used to call myself Paul).

In sum, it was hernia-esque. Slow and painful. Finally, by eleven the traction seemed to have passed and I had secured all the necessaries. I sent an email detailing everything. He wrote back asking the price. I told him. Silence.

My response appeared twenty minutes later. He showed up fuming, demanding to know why a transatlantic flight on two different airlines, with one-way upgradeable economy tickets on three different routes could possibly cost a lot of money. I tried to explain. No dice. Then the real reason surfaced.

“Am I going to be the asshole who is stuck in economy while the rest travel in business?”

Ah. Of course.

Suffice to say, I had to redo the whole fandango and will see whether this time it is acceptable. This of course pales in compare to the ticket I once had to organize that ended up costing more than the combined expenses run up by the entire rest of the delegation. But that is for another time.

Wedding Crashers

Saw this film again the other night (have already seen it a couple of times on a plane, though the secoind didn't really count, as i kept falling asleep).

Wedding Crashers

A short review since there is little substance to analyse in this and it is overall a simple and effective comedy. Two friends, Vince Vaughan (who reminds an alarming amount of Patrick, for those who know him) and Owen Wilson (who on the other hand reminds me of that scene in The Brady Bunch Movie where Marsha has a football flatten her nose – except in Wilson’s case, it seems the football is either still hitting him or he repeats the treatment on a regular basis), seemingly crash weddings in and around Washington for a living. They finally crash the mother wedding for the daughter of the Treasury Secretary (Christopher Walken in his usual charming mode) where they both meet the loves of their lives. You can guess the rest.

It is the small touches that make this film amusing. The Treasury Secretary’s son Todd (Keir O’Donnell) is a repressed homosexual artist who resents his father who is equally disliked in return, while the mater familias is a crazy old Grandma who calls her nephew a homo and calls Eleanor Roosevelt “a real dyke.”

Anyhoo – little to really say. Funny film, and a DC one too. Why set here? I have no idea. Do I care enough to think about it? Not really (though my thought is they set it here, since how else would they get the Treasury Secretary involved. Though why he needs to be the Treasury Secretary I have no idea – except that I guess it leaves them open to witticisms about tax returns and the like. Speaking of which, have yet to do mine).

Survey says: worth watching if on. Made an excellent airplane film when I saw it the first time.

Madrid, London….Rome?

To the regular readers, this will see somewhat familiar, as parts of it appeared the other day in the other Italian piece. However, i re-wrote it and gave it a new time peg, and they still didn't run it. Enjoy!

Madrid, London….Rome?

As we pass the two-year anniversary of the 3/11 Madrid bombings, there is a growing sense of anxiety that Italy may be about to face a similar attack. In Washington, there is a parallel sense of anxiety about the possible ramifications to Italo-American relations that such an attack could produce.

While it is premature to write off Prime Minister Berlusconi – he does lay claim to being the first Italian premier since the Second World War to survive an entire term – a terrorist attack on Italy would likely be read by Italians as a reprisal for his government’s involvement in the war in Iraq and the American-led war on terror, and could be the tipping point that secures an opposition victory.

His opponent, center-left former Italian premier Romano Prodi, has largely remained ahead in polls by a 4% margin, but is not currently on entirely stable ground leading a fractious coalition that has teetered towards the brink of collapse a number of times in the campaign so far.

However, the one topic that has guaranteed him universal support from his center-left ticket is stoking the fires of anti-Americanism and stressing the point that he will withdraw all Italian troops from Iraq once he is elected premier. A terrorist attack would galvanize supporters to unite behind him and ensure his victory.

To U.S. policy makers this sounds a great deal like the scenario played out before Spanish leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero’s election in 2003. The ouster of pro-American leader Jose Maria Aznar heralded the current period of tension where Prime Minister Zapatero and President George Bush have yet to communicate with each other.

The reasons for this dramatic cleavage in Spanish-American relations can be directly traced to the impact of the Madrid 3/11 bombings, in the wake of which Prime Minister Zapatero was swept into power. The bombings proved to be the spark that ignited the already bubbling anger amongst Spaniards at former Prime Minister Aznar’s decision to support American actions in Iraq.

It is easy to draw parallels with Spain then and the current situation in Italy, where Prime Minister Berlusconi led the nation into Iraq in support of the American invasion against the wishes of almost 70% of Italians. On the other side of the spectrum, Romano Prodi, like Mr. Zapatero, has vowed that he will withdraw troops from Iraq if he wins.

However, the truth is that Prime Minister Berlusconi is already gradually drawing down troops in Iraq; a move that is in part an acknowledgement of the domestic unpopularity of Italian involvement in Iraq, and in part the result of budgetary constraints. Mr. Prodi has stated that he will withdraw troops in line with Mr. Berlusconi’s timetable, without any Spanish “coups de theatre.”

There is a high chance, however, that this is exactly how a terrorist attack and the subsequent withdrawal could be read in Washington. Thus far, Washington has shown an affinity for Mr. Berlusconi’s leadership, while Mr. Prodi has never masked his allegiances to the European left-wing and their skepticism towards American motives.

Yet to allow Italo-American relations down this diplomatic path is neither necessary nor advisable. Not only will the United States lose another European ally, but Italy will find itself going against the grain of the current gradual warming in transatlantic relations championed by new German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

This outcome could be avoided as long as both sides step back from the heated rhetoric that could follow an Italian withdrawal from Iraq in the wake of a Prodi victory.

On the Italian side, Romano Prodi could emphasize his strategy of a “phased” Italian withdrawal: one that envisages replacing a military force with a civilian presence concentrated on aiding Iraqi reconstruction.

Washington would benefit from recognizing the fact that they can ill afford to lose another ally in Europe in such a manner. While Spain has remained a relatively fringe player in Europe, Italy has been a core member from the days of the European Coal and Steel Community.

The passions that would be stirred up by a terrorist attack may be hard to control. Policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic need to take steps now to institutionalize relations so that no matter who wins on April 9^th, and no matter what happens before then, avenues of communication will be kept open and the Italo-American relationship will remain on a good footing. Otherwise, the United States will needlessly lose another ally in Europe, and Italians could find themselves damaging the gradual transatlantic warming.

Fat Pig

Well, dear readers, i went to the theater last night. It was an OK play, at one of Washington's better theaters and by one of our times brightest theatrical stars, Neil LaBute. Should you decide to not see the play, i would recommend watching Your Friends and Neighbors which is LaBute at his meannest. Enjoy!


Fat Pig

Written by Neil LaBute, of In The Company of Men fame, this is a dark play about Tom, a handsome guy (Tyler Pierce) who works in an office and starts to have an affair with a Rubenesque beauty called Helen (Kate Debelack) that he picks up at a food court (naturally she is eating her third piece of pizza). The two hit it off and a relationship is born, but unfortunately (for this is a Neil LaBute play) all the people around him are jerks about her size and he is unsure whether he can face the peer pressure of dating a “fat pig.”
I am a big fan of Neil LaBute’s work. I find him to be more malicious version of David Mamet. While Mamet examines the world of petty losers, thieves, and other malvivants, LaBute instead turns his beady eye to relationships, and how cruel we all are to each other. These are not scripts for the lighthearted amongst us. Most of the time, his characters are cruelly mistreated by those around them and the society they live in. Fat Pig is no exception, and we watch as the two other characters in the play (co-workers of Tom’s, one of whom he has dated) ridicule him for dating a woman of such magnitude.

The main problem I found with the play was that the acting was not entirely up to scratch (then again, it rarely is in DC). Tom was a tad hysterical, and never managed to take it down a notch at all. The other male character, Carter (Jason Odell Williams), is a little to fey for a part that I feel was meant to be a little more masculine and calculating. The female lead, Helen, is very good and it is very impressive the degree to which she is willing to put herself out there on the stage (she spends the last few scenes in a bikini, a sight that has the desired effect). Yet, it is hard to mask a certain concern for her physical health at that size. On a mean note, the other female lead Jeanne (Anne Bowles) was sporting rather sizeable things herself and you find yourself agreeing with a mean-spirited statement that Carter makes early on (I prefaced that with a warning, you didn’t need to read it. I am sure she is a nice person. In my defense, it is hard not to notice such things when this is exactly what the play is about).

The biggest problem I had with the play, however, was the script. While the two females did their best, they were slightly hamstrung by a script that portrayed them both to differing degrees as Venus fly traps, eager to ensnare the infantile (and I suppose to some degree innocent) man. Jeanne seems to be a poster child for the jilted stalker former girlfriend, and while Helen is meant to be a totally endearing and vulnerable character, there are too many moments when you see her taunting Tom into loving her. The two males are simply sort of blank. The only real moment of depth to them comes when Carter tells a story of being with his incredibly overweight mother in a food store as a child. The story feels very real, and it is surprising that the moment of depth comes from the theoretically least important character. Otherwise, the two of them seem to be pretending and walking through emotional responses (I suppose we never really see any others in Carter, overall he is simply mean), this could be fault of the actors, but it felt more like the script. It could also be the point I suppose if we figure that the male characters are meant to be shallow, but Tom certainly does not react necessarily like a shallow person all the time.

This is not to say that the play is a total dud. It is full of humorous lines and is punchy at times, but it does not quite crackle and there is a lack of tension that should be there.

Mostly, I wonder about what kind of a twisted person Neil LaBute must be, or, more to the point, who the hell twisted him in this way? It feels like he has been rejected cruelly by women at some point in his past and in revenge has turned the full force of his rage upon them in his plays, verging on misogyny at times. Still, he has a great eye for human frailties, and I will still go out and watch his stuff again.

Survey says: not necessarily worth the money I shelled out for it, but sometimes, it is good to support the arts. Worth seeing if you can on the cheap.

How not to live in Washington

Well my mute (and possibly nonexistent) audience. I thought that you might enjoy an old piece that i wrote about my living situation here in DC. I am going to overhaul it at some point in the near future to add what actually ended up happening. In the meantime, i would welcome any feedback you may have. Enjoy!

How not to live in Washington

Like most foreigners in Washington, I got here on solely nepotistic grounds. Abuse of the same nepotistic connection secured me free housing that I managed to milk for the better part of a year.

To start with, in my unemployed intern state, the family friends who had first lured me to this land of milk and honey were willing to put up with me living in their basement rent-free.

As I managed to finagle my way into a paid position and continued to stay, their tempers started to wear thin. Here I was, living at their leisure while I shamelessly squandered my earnings on alcohol and bad literature. It was too good to last, and eventually my repellent hygienic habits caught up with me.

The only solution was to take on the Internet and the challenge of Craigslist.com.

This was a daunting prospect. Countless colleagues and vague acquaintances had warned me that to dabble in the black art of Craigslist was to uncover a dark and usually hidden underbelly to Washington.

I figured I had a British accent, and what more could I really need.

And as it turned out, I was right. While friends told me tales of facing rooms of five or more peers peppering you with questions about the most intimate details of your private life, I found myself shamelessly manipulating my British accent to connive my way into an established boudoir run by three girls.

It all seemed too good to be true. The rent included all bills, and amounted to less than half one months salary. The apartment was fully furnished and came with a television with a truly American amount of channels. The added bonus of the female roommates was a tendency to populate the living room with other nubile young creatures, all equally sweet smelling and tidy.

Sadly, it was all too good to be true. Within a month, I discovered that the landlady was in fact caught in the last throes of a painful separation from a physically imposing husband who had previously harassed my new roommates in the early hours of the morning. He had demanded to be let in to recover his patrimony, they refused, and he would only leave under police escort. The girls had been in turn been called to court to testify against him, and provide witness to his unhinged nature.

As it turned out, they backed the wrong horse, and the restraining order that the landlady had had imposed on her husband was duly lifted. She evaporated to Tennessee. He materialized downstairs with a new, younger bride.

I made a very careful point of not expressing an opinion in the entire matter. The girls took a somewhat different perspective. They were mildly disconcerted by the fact that they were now living, and paying rent to, a gentleman they had testified against in court. They became increasingly skittish, and eventually fled en masse with most of the furniture and the bountiful television channels to a small flat on the other side of the District.

This was an extraordinarily bothersome turn of events. I was now obliged to re-people my kingdom with people that answered advertisements on Craigslist, and was exposed to the darker side of what I had perceived as a benevolent website.

The first batch to answer the posting were a surreal bunch including a gentleman who blankly detailed his love of obscure photographers while he asked whether I minded that he was unemployed. He was swiftly followed by a disparate selection of over-eager youngsters with absurd accents from the nether regions of the United States who didn’t understand that the fact I had flagged the “no pets” box on the website meant their mangy poodle was not going to be welcome.

Eventually I slimmed down my requirements for a roommate to their very barest necessities. I needed a roommate to be able to pay rent (without dealing narcotics or anything else from the household) and not feel some dark desire to chop me up and consume me in some sort of satanic ritual while I slept at night.

Thankfully I had underestimated the desperation of the Washington young professionals, and I was able to locate a group of individuals in dire enough straits to be able pay regularly to move into my dilapidated household.

In the meantime, I spent my time locating a pliable young creature in the district with a television, sofa, and warm bed. Having found all four conveniently located in the same place and near the office, I promptly expended all my charm into persuading her to put up with me, and I shifted to her apartment.

Now I needed to plumb the depths of Craigslist one final time to locate my replacement.

Lord of War

This is finally a good review. Someone i work with who is deeper in the arms industry said that it made him question what he does. I suspect that this is a tad of an exageration, and a case of getting caught up in the fiction. Nevertheless, worth watching.

Enjoy!

Lord of War

Yuri (Nicolas Cage) is an arms dealer. The film opens as we watch him getting into the business when he realizes that the nature of guns and man means that the arms trade will supply him with a captive and constant market comparable to the food industry. He goes into the arms business and drags his younger brother (Jared Leto) into it with him as his “brother in arms.” The two brothers take the arms world by storm and along the way Leto picks up various drug addictions, Cage a model wife, and all the while Cage gradually loses his soul.

The biggest flaw in the film is that it has a very preachy element to it. We watch as Cage buys former Soviet weaponry and then resells it on to whoever wants it: West African despots, Middle Eastern tribesmen, etc. – in a rather cheap throw away line he claims to have never sold Al Qaeda because “back then their checks used to bounce.” We listen as he provides a voiceover that describes what he is doing in an absent fashion. We hear no remorse in this voice for what he is doing, and we do not seeing him intervening when he could try to save people from the misery he is selling to their oppressors.

This is, of course, a cinematic effect employed to great effect by the director and screenwriter intended to emphasize the misery and emptiness of the world that Cage inhabits. Yet, by doing it in this fashion it becomes somewhat grating as it distances us constantly from any of the characters. The main failing of the film is that none of the characters seem very real. The only real characters (maybe intentionally) are the ones who are left dead by arms that Cage deals in; they silently attest to the filmmaker’s message.

This is a shame, as overall the film is intelligent and has an amusing flair to it. The juicy ironies thrown up by the arms trade are dealt with sometimes in a rather too pious fashion, and so rather than mordant sarcasm, we are left with are generalized accusations against the abstract arms trade rather than the individuals who are ultimately responsible for using or trading the weapons of misery. You can walk away from the film feeling that Cage is merely feeding a supply that we will always need, and until we all decide to stand up to guns, then people like him will continue to get fat and rich off misery.

The system may be flawed, but one cannot forgive those who profit off it.

Anyway, this is now becoming a rather pious piece itself. Overall, the acting is good, if a little detached. Ian Holm’s character seems completely unnecessary, except maybe the symbolism of the new violently taking over the old embodied when he dies (see, I carefully didn’t give the plot away). The wife is never really explained as a person, and Leto’s character seems to simply be there to act as Cage’s drugged conscience. One person I have yet to mention is Ethan Hawke who appears as a cop in pursuit of Cage, he is the one moral voice in the film, and his ineffectiveness galls those who may think that salvation is somehow possible. At the same time, I suppose that the character’s morality gives us some hope. Kind of unnecessary, as the film is already steeped in the director’s sense of morality.

Cage himself is good in his part (though no Oscars on the horizon for anyone in this film) and is able to walk through the motions of character that is not really intended to be a complete person.

Survey says: pretty good. However, could have done with a little less morality and maybe a little more reality.

Berlusconi comes to Washington

So, this week Washington was treated to a visit by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. I submitted the below piece for publication, which no-one chose to pick up. Bastards. Oh well, i leave it to you to judge and please comment on as I am hoping to reconfigure it and aim for another time peg that may present itself. If you are very lucky i may add some post-visit analysis that i will do over the weekend.

Enjoy!

Italy’s left-wing lurch?

As Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi heads back to Italy from what may have been his swansong visit to Washington as Italian premier, the question in U.S. policy maker’s minds is whether Italo-American relations are headed into the same chill waters’ that Spanish-American relations currently languish in. Unfortunately, without some care, the upcoming Italian election could produce a similar result.

While it is premature to write off Prime Minister Berlusconi – he does lay claim to being the first Italian premier since the Second World War to survive an entire term – he has yet to pull ahead in any polls, and he remains personally plagued by scandal (Milanese magistrates are currently investigating him on charges of bribing a British lawyer).

His opponent, center-left former Italian premier Romano Prodi, is not on entirely stable ground himself, leading a fractious coalition that has teetered towards the brink of collapse a number of times in the campaign so far. However, the one topic that has guaranteed him universal support from his center-left ticket is stoking the fires of anti-Americanism and stressing the point that he will withdraw all Italian troops from Iraq once he is elected premier.

To U.S. policy makers this sounds a great deal like the rhetoric heard before Spanish leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero’s election in 2003. The ouster of pro-American leader Jose Maria Aznar heralded the current period of tension where Prime Minister Zapatero and President George Bush have yet to communicate with each other.

Yet to allow Italo-American relations down this diplomatic path is neither necessary nor advisable. Not only will the United States lose another European ally, but also Italy will find itself going against the grain of the current gradual warming in transatlantic relations championed by new German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

This outcome could be avoided as long as both sides step back from the heated rhetoric that could follow an Italian withdrawal from Iraq in the wake of a Prodi victory.

On the Italian side, Romano Prodi could emphasize his strategy of a “phased” Italian withdrawal: one that envisages replacing a military force with a civilian presence concentrated on aiding Iraqi reconstruction.

Washington would benefit from recognizing the fact that they can ill afford to lose another ally in Europe in such an acrimonious manner.

Adding to this mixture, there is the ever-present fear that Italy will face a terrorist strike just ahead of polling day. Given Spain’s reaction after the 3/11 bombings in Madrid, and the fact that Italy currently appears to be in a very similar domestic space, there is a fear that a fundamentalist group could decide to capitalize on this and strike ahead of the election with the intention of producing a similar result.

Were a lethal terrorist strike to happen, there is every chance that the left wing would mobilize their vote to elect Romano Prodi into office on a more forcefully anti-American mandate that could result in a too hasty Italian withdrawal from Iraq. Some in Washington might accuse Italians of appeasement, and the scenario could play out in a manner reminiscent of when Spain decided to withdraw from Iraq after their 2003 election.

This conjecture could be rendered moot: Prime Minister Berlusconi could still win the election, and terrorists may not manage to strike Italy.

Even if Prime Minister Berlusconi were reelected he would not be likely to serve a full term, and what shortened term he sat would be occupied organizing his succession. Italian troops would still be out of Iraq by the end of the year in accordance with Mr. Berlusconi’s current schedule.

Nevertheless, should current polls hold out, then Romano Prodi will win and there is a strong likelihood that relations between Rome and Washington will move into a more tense space. The troops will still be pulled out of Iraq, simply on a potentially shorter timeline.

American and Italian policy makers need to take steps now to institutionalize relations so that no matter who wins on April 9th, avenues of communication will be kept open and the Italo-American relationship will remain on a good footing. Otherwise, the United States will lose another ally in Europe, and Italians could find themselves damaging the gradual transatlantic warming.