The Queen

What a great movie. This is the kind of film that invariably rekindles my love affair with motion pictures.

The story is simple: after the sudden death in a car accident of Lady Diana, who, at that point, wasn't part of the royal family anymore, because she and Prince Charles had already divorced, how were the Windsors affected? How did they react? What did they feel?

At first, as expected, their reaction is of contained shock paired with an alarming efficiency in dealing with the upcoming funeral services.

Then, however, pushed by the reaction of her people and, in no small measure, by her new Prime Minister, Tony Blair, Queen Elizabeth, slowly but surely, begins to realize that the world has changed, and she must adapt to it, or risk see the monarchy succumb to those in the country who see it as obsolete.

And so she gives in, forced at first, but by the end, almost relieved that she has.

The Queen is played masterfully by Helen Mirren, one of my favorite actresses, who should start in earnest to find a place for a little golden statue called Oscar, the last of the many awards she has or will surely win this season for her portrayal.

She is, in one word, superb. She plays the Queen as a fierce and stubborn head of state who believes she's been put in her place by God himself, and therefore cannot and will not lower herself and, by extension, the crown, to worry about the funeral of the very person who labored so hard to undermine what she had built.

Her views are slowly changed by the realization that maybe, just maybe, her opinions of Diana and of her people had been shrouded in a traditional view of the crown and of royalty that wasn't shared by her current countrymen anymore.

In the end, the Queen opens up her armor just a tiny bit, enough to salvage her legacy (and possibly the crown itself) and to show us that she is, after all, a person, raised to be a monarch, and who has done so to the best of her abilities.

The whole cast does a great job, including James Cromwell as her husband, Sylvia Syms as the Queen Mother, Alex Jennings as Prince Charles, and Michael Sheen as Tony Blair.

It was very interesting to see a portrait of the early Prime Minister, who was seemingly adored when he took power and who is widely reviled right now. How right was the Queen in her final exchange with him.

Lady Diana's death was very emotional for me. I can still remember when it happened as if it were yesterday. I obviously didn't know her, but her public persona had done so much good in the world, I felt like her loss was everybody's loss. The movie re-evoked some of those feelings, and that's partly why I liked it so much, but, besides the great acting, the screenplay is very well written and the score is nice too.

But there's more. I, like just about anyone else, disapproved of the way the royal family reacted to Diana's death. This movie put that reaction in perspective, and allowed me to see it from the Queen's point of view, helping me understand how this looked to her in her world, which, understandably, is light years away from where we all live.

All considered, one of the best movies I've seen this year. Don't miss it.

Grade: 9

There goes the neighborhood

For the first time an inhabited island has been swallowed by the rising waters caused by global warming:

Rising seas, caused by global warming, have for the first time washed an inhabited island off the face of the Earth. The obliteration of Lohachara island, in India's part of the Sundarbans where the Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers empty into the Bay of Bengal, marks the moment when one of the most apocalyptic predictions of environmentalists and climate scientists has started coming true.

As the seas continue to swell, they will swallow whole island nations, from the Maldives to the Marshall Islands, inundate vast areas of countries from Bangladesh to Egypt, and submerge parts of scores of coastal cities.

Eight years ago, as exclusively reported in The Independent on Sunday, the first uninhabited islands - in the Pacific atoll nation of Kiribati - vanished beneath the waves. The people of low-lying islands in Vanuatu, also in the Pacific, have been evacuated as a precaution, but the land still juts above the sea. The disappearance of Lohachara, once home to 10,000 people, is unprecedented.

More islands surrounding Lohachara are expected to be gobbled up in the coming years, and besides humans (70,000 are projected to become homeless), animals are in danger as well, including some 400 tigers living in the area.

Skipping Christmas, by John Grisham

My first novel by John Grisham was not of the kind you'd expect from watching the famous movies based on his books, like The Firm, The Client, or The Pelican Brief.

This was a comedy and at times pretty funny, although quite often the characters made choices that were so stupid or unreal that I found myself shaking my head in disbelief or even screaming at them to pick the other choice.

That's never a good sign.

The story is all in the title, as a middle age couple decides to skip Christmas and take a cruise instead. All sorts of complications ensue, as one might expect.

This book has been turned into a movie as well, and although I never saw it, it doesn't seem to have received very good reviews. I'm not surprised, given that the story on which it's based treads water here and there.

However, I checked out the cast for the movie and I have to say that the actors picked to play the different roles were perfect, based on the mental image I had created of them. I'll watch it someday, although I'm not a fan of Tim Allen, who plays the main character.

Anyway, all considered, the book isn't that bad, and it's short too, so if you're in the mood, give it a try.

Grade: 7

Compensation

I didn't know that gays in Spain had been treated, under Franco's brutal regime, as bad as the Nazis did in their internment camps. The Spanish government is apparently going to compensate the few survivors for their suffering:

The Spanish government may offer money to those who were sent to mental hospitals, tortured, imprisoned or who suffered a lifetime of persecution. The Spanish Justice Minister, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, is considering granting victims a pension of €800 (£540) a month, plus a one-off €12,000 payment for what they suffered under the regime. It could be introduced in two months.

Many homosexuals were prevented from working under the Franco dictatorship because of their "criminal" records, meaning they never contributed enough money to receive more than the minimum pension.
[...]
During Franco's homophobic dictatorship, gays were jailed or locked up in sinister mental institutions known as "correction camps". With echoes of the Nazi atrocities against gays, they were given electric shocks in the belief that this would rid them of their homosexual urges. Inmates were forced to watch pornographic films featuring women in an effort to show them a sex life that was deemed "natural" by the conservative authorities.

More on the treatment they received:

Homosexuality was designated as an offence under the "law against delinquency and criminals" introduced in 1954. But towards the end of Franco's regime, it was increasingly viewed as an illness rather than a crime. In 1968, the psychologist Lopez Ibor said: "Homosexuals should be seen more as sick people than as criminals. But the law should still prevent them proselytising in schools, sports clubs and army barracks." Jail terms of up to three years were imposed under laws covering "public scandal" or "social danger".

And this was a shocker to me too, since I always thought Spain was a fairly liberal country after Franco died:

Even after Franco died, persecution of gays continued. They could be jailed until 1979. And although thousands of political and other prisoners were pardoned in 1976, gay people were made to serve their sentences. In 2001, Spain finally pledged to wipe clean the criminal records of gays convicted under Franco.

Unbelievable.

I'm glad the government is finally doing something to right the many wrongs these people had to suffer.

Too bad many haven't lived to see this day.

The 40 Year Old Virgin

A moderately funny comedy that delivers on the expectation of a few easy laughs, this Steve Carell's vehicle is mildly satisfying.

The worst I can really say about this movie is that the whole outcome is totally predictable, but you know that as soon as you read the movie's title.

Speaking with Vittorio after I saw it, he told me that he barely laughed at all because he had already seen most of the funniest jokes in the movie's trailer, which I religiously avoid watching precisely for that reason.

Carell has clearly found mainstream success with this movie, allowing him to join current comedic powerhouses as Jim Carrey and Will Ferrell.

The rest of the cast was ok, although I've seen Catherine Keener in other films and she's totally wasted here.

All considered a very forgettable movie, but enjoyable the first time around.

Grade: 6

A Quote By:

Scottish-American actor John Barrowman, who stars as Captain Jack Harkness in the BBC Doctor Who spin-off Torchwood, tied the knot with Scott Gill, his partner of 16 years, in a civil partnership ceremony:

"Our relationship was legitimate for us a long time ago. We have been spending most of our time together. The ceremony is because we have the right to be recognised as a couple. It forces people who don’t want to recognise same-sex relationships as legitimate, it forces them to do so."

Dangerously annoying developments

This CNN article talks about a couple airlines worldwide that have decided to allow its passengers to use their cell phones in flight. I hope the decision doesn't spread too fast to other airlines:

In January, Emirates airline plans to launch mobile phone usage in its planes, making it the first airline to allow passengers to make cell phone calls on its flights.

And Australian carrier Qantas plans to start evaluating technology that lets fliers use their cell phones and PDAs during flight early next year.

There's nothing more annoying than a stranger sitting next to you, loudly yapping his nonsense into a cell phone. At least, however, on a train or bus, you can switch seat, or the ride might end soon enough. On an airplane? Not so lucky. You're stuck next to the bastard for the entire length of the flight, from 3 to 11 or more hours.

I met one of those assholes on my last flight back from Ohio. He was sitting in front of me and was screaming so loudly in his phone before take off that I wanted to scream. I had to do breathing exercises to keep my blood pressure from blowing an artery. If I had to sit next to him for a 9 hour flight to Italy, I could very likely have murdered the sicko.

I seriously regret this decision by airlines. Surfing the web is one thing, since it can be done in silence, but no activity that disturbs your neighbor should be allowed. Airlines even started equipping individual seats with headphones first and small monitors next to avoid disturbing travelers with a show or movie they didn't like, and now they want to allow people to call their aunt in New Mexico to tell her to feed the cat, do the laundry or tape a show for them?

That's just crazy, and I'm not the only one who thinks so:

A majority of business travelers (61 percent) oppose the idea of being able to use their phones in the sky, according to a global survey conducted by travel management company Carlson Wagonlit Travel early this year.

But if the technology is there, the service will eventually make its way to the skies, said Chris McGinnis, editor of Expedia Travel Trendwatch.

"Whether people like it or not, in-flight cell phone use is going to become a reality," he said.

Chillingly foreboding advertisement

The latest Diesel advertisement campaign gives us a glimpse of our possible future.

Sleek and cool models for sure, but look carefully at the backgrounds:

The rise of the machines

Interesting article from CNN about one day robots being smart and independent enough to demand civil rights for themselves, and the consequences of such an occurrence:

Robots might one day be smart enough to demand emancipation from their human owners, raising the prospects they'll have to be treated as citizens, according to a speculative paper released by the British government.

Among the warnings: a "monumental shift" could occur if robots were developed to the point where they could reproduce, improve or think for themselves.

"Correctly managed, there is a very real possibility for increased labor output and greater intelligence to be provided by robots that will ultimatly lead to greater human prosperity and an improvement of the human condition," it said.

However, it warned that robots could sue for their rights if these were denied to them.

Should they prove successful, the paper said, "states will be obligated to provide full social benefits to them including income support, housing and possibly robo-healthcare to fix the machines over time."

I just have one request. Could gays' civil rights be recognized before we give them to machines, or at least at the same time? At the rate we're going, they might see them before we do.

I wonder if robots can be gay... Would gay robots earn their civil rights before human gays?

Senator Brownback's latest delusion

This NY Times editorial about Senator Brownback's absurdly ridiculous attack of a judge's nomination to the federal bench simply for her attendance of a neighbor's daughter's same-sex commitment ceremony made an excellent point:

Mr. Brownback says that although he will allow Judge Neff’s nomination to come to a vote, he is still likely to vote against her. If he does, he should be asked to explain his vote if he hits the presidential campaign trail. Whether someone has attended a same-sex commitment ceremony is not a worthy litmus test to impose on someone seeking an important office. Whether someone holds hateful views toward gay people certainly is.

What business does this man have into what a person does with her personal life? Hell, this was a girl who lived next door to the judge and whom she saw grow up and whom she loved. Why shouldn't she attend her "marriage" even if to another girl? I could understand Mr. Brownback's outrage if Ms. Neff had officiated the ceremony, but attending? C'mon.

And this guy wants to run for the presidency? God help us all if he get elected.

A Quote By:

Gerald Ford, former US President, on George W. Bush's policy to spread democracy around the world, particularly in the Middle East:

"I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security"

Is it worth the price?

So the total number of US military casualties in Bush's oil/vengeance-war with Iraq is now 2,978, five more than the number of people who perished in the 9/11 attacks on the US.

There is no end in sight, and the total will soon pass the 3 thousand mark. Was is really worth it? Or rather, is it really worth it, since the carnage is, unfortunately, ongoing?

This morning I heard 3 different news on the radio:

• One was about the fact that today people will scour stores looking for bargains after Christmas, this after having already spent $8 billion the day before Christmas.
• One was about the total number of American deaths in Iraq surpassing those of 9/11.
• One was about the death of music icon James Brown.

Thankfully, James Brown's death, newsworthy as it may be, came in last, but sadly, the troops' deaths didn't make top billing. That honor went to the more closely guarded American consumer-spending index for Jesus' birthday, clearly this being much more important than the deaths of their countrymen.

How sad.

2006, the year that was

Nuckin' Futs! The JibJab Year in Review | Send To Friends | Funny Animations at JibJab

Would they upgrade if recommended?

Reading an article about the signing into law of the civil union bill in New Jersey today by the Governor, I found this interesting tidbit:

The bill creates a commission that will regularly review the law and recommend possible changes.

A similar commission is something that, to my knowledge, doesn't exist neither in Vermont nor in Connecticut, the only other two states were civil unions are legally performed, nor anywhere else were gays have some legal recognition, like in California (and apparently, judging by the map, Maine, which was a surprise to me).

It will be interesting to see what the findings of this commission are and what their recommendations will be.

And if the commission finds that there's no reason not to change the name of civil unions to "marriage," will the politicians have the courage to follow its recommendations?

Same-sex marriage at a glance

Very interesting map I found on the A&E website of the Wedding Wars movie. It shows the situation of same-sex marriage in the US and in the world, but also the legal standing of homosexuality in the world. Click for a larger view.

Very interesting, and a whole scary yellow/red stain spat right in the middle of the world. What's the matter with those people?!


And, by the way, today civil unions became legal in New Jersey after the Governor signed the bill into law.

They'll have to update their map :)

Wedding Wars

I'll premise this by saying that we, again, weren't expecting this to be Oscar material. We watched it for the gay theme.

Given the premise and the fact that it was a made for television movie, I won't even go into the many ridiculous scenes or pathetic developments.

Anyway, it was nice to see that the topic of legalizing same-sex marriage is finally, albeit slowly, entering the mainstream consciousness and that two actors who already work on other shows, and therefore didn't need this just for the money, agreed to star in a movie with such a topic.

Times have changed if a ladies' man like John Stamos agrees to play gay and repeatedly kisses another man (the gorgeous Sean Maher) on prime time.

The story is simple. Stamos is the (gay) wedding planner for his brother's impending marriage to the Governor's daughter, until the Governor, running for re-election, comes out against gay-marriage and calls for a constitutional amendment to ban it.

Stamos decides to go on strike to protest what he sees as a clear injustice: the fact that his brother can get married but he cannot. His stance, unexpectedly, gathers a lot of support (across the nation), further intensifying the animosity between him and his brother (the unbelievably hot Eric Dane).

Like I said, the movie has to be taken for what it is and overall isn't really so bad as much as improbable. It does have its share of stereotypes and doesn't try to hide them either, but it's watchable. Overall.

Grade: 5.5

National Treasure

We picked this movie with very little expectations that it would be anything more than a silly caper with very little aspirations. And we were right.

The movie isn't so bad as much as somewhat uninteresting and at times predictable, but we watched anyway. We just weren't in the mood for anything else.

Nicolas Cage plays the youngest in a family of historians/scientists who claim to be the heirs to one of the largest treasures ever assembled. His family name has been ridiculed for years because of such assertion and he's hell bent on proving everyone wrong.

His father (Jon Voight, back to his annoying self and barely attempted acting), is the only one in the family tree who never believed in the legend and who disapproves of his own father's and his son's useless quest.

The whole movie is just that, the son's last latest attempt at finding the treasure and avenge the family name.

The biggest problem I have with the movie, is actually with the title itself, which subtly gives away the ending of the movie as if there was no need for the filmmakers to keep it under wraps and let the viewer be at least a little surprised. I wonder why producers and directors would ever do such a disservice to their own creations.

Let's not even get into the many ridiculous, overblown or simply unbelievable scenes in the movie that just leave you shaking your head. They're expected, almost required, in a movie of this caliber, and one could argue that we were in for it.

Anyway, you know what you're getting into now, so beware.

Grade: 6

The Chumscrubber

I'll start by saying that we decided to watch this movie because we saw that Glenn Close and Allison Janney were in it and that after the first 5 minutes we were wondering if we should keep at it or bolt to a new title.

Then, a shocking scene happened, and we kept watching. I'm glad we did, because in the end the movie wasn't bad at all, except maybe for the extreme stereotypical characters depicted in it, which, one might argue, were half the fun themselves.

The story is about a loner kid, played well by the handsome and very promising Jamie Bell, who, because of an unforeseen turn of events, ends up being forced to do what the school bully wants him to.

In spite of being seen by everyone around him as a loser and a weirdo, he seems to be the only sane and balanced individual in the whole town.

The cast is what you'd consider all star. Besides the already mentioned, and excellent, Close and Janney, there are Ralph Fiennes, William Fichtner, John Heard, Carrie-Anne Moss, and Rita Wilson. The casting was, I'd venture to say, superb, and the actors all do a very good job.

And let's not forget two other promising young actors, Rory Culkin, brother of the more famous Macaulay, and the very sexy Justin Chatwin.

For a light night of entertainment, I'd definitely suggest The Chumscrubber.

Grade: 7

For the first time, humans bring a mammal species to extinction

This is so sad. We've brought many species to extinction, especially in the last decades, because of our way of live and our entrenchment into nature's realm with no regard for other animals' needs, but this is the first time we actually caused a mammal, that is an animal belonging to our own species, to simply disappear:

The Baiji Yangtze Dolphin is with all probability extinct. On Wednesday, in the city of Wuhan in central China, a search expedition, under the direction of the Institute for Hydrobiology Wuhan and the Swiss-based baiji.org Foundation, drew to a finish without any results. During the six-week expedition scientists from six nations desperately searched the Yangtze in vain.
[..]
«It is possible we may have missed one or two animals», said August Pfluger, head of Swiss-based baiji.org Foundation and co-organizer of the expedition on Wednesday in Wuhan. Regardless, these animals would have no chance of survival in the river. «We have to accept the fact, that the Baiji is functionally extinct. It is a tragedy, a loss not only for China, but for the entire world», said Pfluger in Wuhan.
[...]
The fate of the delicate dolphin is attributed to the destruction of their habitat, illegal fishing and collisions with ships. Regarded in China as the "goddess of the Yangtze", the 20 million year old river dolphin was one of the world's oldest species. The Baiji is the first large mammal brought to extinction as a result of human destruction to their natural habitat and ressources.

In the beginning of the 1980s the Yangtze still had around 400 Baiji cavorting in its waters. However, the river dolphin became a victim of China’s rapidly growing economy. A 1997 survey still showed 13 confirmed sightings.
[...]
Alongside the search for the Baiji, the scientists surveyed also the population of the endemic Yangtze Finless Porpoise, and the total was less than 400. «The situation of the finless porpoise is just like that of the baiji 20 years ago», sais Wang Ding, deputy director of the Institute of Hydrobiology Wuhan. «Their numbers are declining at an alarming rate. If we do not act soon they will become a second Baiji», said Wang Ding, deputy director of the Institute of Hydrobiology of the Chinese Academy of Science in Wuhan.

Let's see if we'll be able to spare this other species the fate of the Baiji.

At First Sight, by Nicholas Sparks

My second book by Mr. Sparks didn't start up as interestingly as the first, but soon caught up and ended up as yet another excellent reading.

I have another one of his books already lined up (but it's an autobiography, so it won't be the same thing), and I can safely say that I really like this author.

This book is about a young couple who falls in love suddenly and completely. Will their love survive the close scrutiny of friends and family and the everyday hiccups life throws at us?

I can't really say anything more about it, lest i reveal some very important and critical details, something I'm not prone to do.

The book is read very well by David Aaron Baker and has left me with a fuller understanding of my own life and my relationship with my kids.

I guess that's what I love most about watching movies and reading books, that they can leave you with something important enough that it lingers with you long after the last image has dimmed or the last page has been turned.

At First Sight was just that kind of book.

I'm looking forward to reading more of Mr. Sparks' works.

Grade: 8.5

The slow advance of same-sex marriage civil unions

New Jersey has now become the third state in the nation after Vermont and Connecticut (Massachusetts allows gay marriage) to legalize civil unions for gays and lesbians, giving them all the rights of married heterosexuals but the word "marriage" on their license:

Under pressure from New Jersey's highest court to offer marriage or its equivalent to gay couples, the Legislature voted Thursday to make New Jersey the third state to allow civil unions.

Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine said he would sign the measure, which would extend to same-sex couples all the rights and privileges available under state law to married people.
[...]
Among the benefits gay couples would get under New Jersey's civil unions bill are adoption rights, hospital visitation rights and inheritance rights.

Gay rights advocates welcomed the legislation as a step forward but said they would continue to push for the right to marry.

The bill was drafted in response to a landmark New Jersey Supreme Court ruling in October that required the state to extend the rights and benefits of marriage to gay couples within 180 days. The court, in its 4-3 ruling, left it up to the Legislature to decide whether to call such unions "marriages" or something else.

Gay rights groups have argued that not calling such unions "marriage" creates a different, and inferior, institution.

Steven Goldstein, director of the gay rights advocacy organization Garden State Equality, said he expects gay couples to be able to get married in New Jersey within two years.

I hope he's right, but for the time being, civil unions will do. I do think that by not calling it marriage we're given a "separate but equal" status, which is not right, but this way, we start getting "civil unionized" and our opponents, or at least the moderate ones among them, have the time to realize that there's no negative effect on society.

Once we get there, making the next step toward full marriage equality will be faster and easier than it is now.

New Jersey, well done! And welcome to the club.

Voting by mail

That's such a smart idea. Imagine not having to drive to the polls, stay in line waiting for your turn, maybe with your kids in tow, being late for dinner or work or whatever, possibly in bad weather.

Who needs that? Especially when you can just receive a card in the mail, make your picks, and send it back with other regular mail? It's so easy, and apparently cheaper, you'd think we'd be doing it already, right?

Since Oregon adopted Vote by Mail as its sole voting option in 1998, the state's turnout has increased, concerns about fraud have decreased, a complete paper trail exists for every election, recounts are non-controvertible and both major political parties have gained voters. Moreover, in doing away with voting machines, polling booths, precinct captains and election workers, the state estimates that it saves up to 40 percent over the cost of a traditional election.

Vote by Mail could offer real advantages if it were adopted nationwide. Voters would not need to take time off from work, find transportation, find the right polling station, get babysitters or rush through reading complicated ballot initiatives.
[...]
Perhaps most important, given the concerns about voting machine security, mail ballots cannot be hacked. Tampering or interfering with mail is a federal crime, and the United States Postal Service has its own law enforcement arm, which works closely with a variety of enforcement authorities including the F.B.I. Trained election clerks can take the time to check signatures without delaying or discouraging voters. And the advantages of a paper trail outshine the glitter of black box electronic gadgetry.
[...]
Public confidence in the accuracy of vote counting is at an all-time low. The Election Assistance Commission estimated that as many as 850,000 votes were not counted in the 2004 elections, and a recent report warned that electronic voting machines cannot be made secure. Fortunately, a remarkably sophisticated and effective technology exists for solving these problems, and it is ''old-fashioned'' mail.

Hard to argue with that. I hope the current Congress will take this matter seriously and act on it swiftly. Certainly, electronic voting machine's makers will spend millions in lobbying efforts to keep widening the spread of their faulty product, but hopefully reason will prevail.

In the end, all that really matters in a democracy is the right of everyone to vote. If you doubt your vote counts, you won't vote, and that's the end of democracy, because an ever decreasing number of people end up electing, and therefore making decisions, for the rest of the population.

The US already has a very low turnout at the polls, especially for midterm elections, so striving to better the system by making it more user-friendly should be a priority of every politicians.

A carrot for those African leaders too eager to use the stick

An Egyptian businessman has set up a prize for African leaders who promote democracy in their countries and relinquish their power peacefully at the end of their tenure, instead of becoming dictators and brutalize the population in order not to lose their grip on money and power:

A $5m prize for Africa's most effective head of state is being launched by one of the continent's top businessmen.

UK-based mobile phone entrepreneur Mo Ibrahim - who was born in Egypt - is behind the plan to rate governance in 53 African countries each year.

The contest, launched in London, will award winning leaders $5m (£2.7m) over 10 years when they leave office, plus $200,000 (£107,000) a year for life.

"We need to remove corruption and improve governance," Mr Ibrahim said.
[...]
The award will go to African heads of state who deliver security, health, education and economic development to their constituents.

In an interview with the Financial Times newspaper, Mr Ibrahim, 60, said leaders had no life after office.

"Suddenly all the mansions, cars, food, wine is withdrawn. Some find it difficult to rent a house in the capital. That incites corruption; it incites people to cling to power.

"The prize will offer essentially good people, who may be wavering, the chance to opt for the good life after office," said Mr Ibrahim.
[...]
It will be available only to a president who democratically transfers power to his successor.

Harvard University will assess how well the president has served his or her people while in office.

I think this is a really smart idea. I never realized how gloomy an outlook on their future these African leaders must have. These guys get to live cushy lives in countries where everyone else struggles to make ends meet, so how inclined can they be to leave mansions, food, and money and join their countrymen on the other side of the golden gates? Very little I guess.

And if you think about it, it's not that different from any other democracy in the world. In Italy, for instance, former Presidents becomes Senators for Life, a position that allows them to still live a lifestyle they're accustomed to. In the US, the President (like anyone ever elected to Congress, and this is shocking) gets a pension for the rest of his life and gets to keep his security detail and even his clearance, allowing him to receive daily CIA briefings. In the comfort of his home.

I hope Mr. Ibrahim is successful and the situation gets better in Africa. They need it more than any other continent in the world, that's for sure.

Separate Lies

I really like both Tom Wilkinson and Emily Watson, and this movie gave me yet another reason to do so. They are such talented actors that any movie they star in deserves to be watched.

In Separate Lies, they play husband and wife living in the London countryside. He is a respected lawyer who carries on with his everyday routine as if nothing were wrong with the world. She is a housewife who looks more bored or anxious than happy.

We find out why soon after a hit-and-run leaves behind the dead husband of their cleaning lady. Everyone seems to have something to hide, and many lies ensue, including from the anti-hero, played here in a laid-back fashion by the always attractive, albeit aged, Rupert Everett.

The action is slow and occasionally jerks off on a new tangent, but it's always very interesting, just as the unexpected decisions made by some of the characters.

Separate Lies is quite the thrilling drama.

Grade: 7.5

It's already happening, and faster than we thougth

I feel so bad for the millions of animals that we're forcing into extinction because we refuse to take action against global warming:

Animal and plant species have begun dying off or changing sooner than predicted because of global warming, a review of hundreds of research studies contends.

These fast-moving adaptations come as a surprise even to biologists and ecologists because they are occurring so rapidly.

At least 70 species of frogs, mostly mountain-dwellers that had nowhere to go to escape the creeping heat, have gone extinct because of climate change, the analysis says. It also reports that between 100 and 200 other cold-dependent animal species, such as penguins and polar bears are in deep trouble.

"We are finally seeing species going extinct," said University of Texas biologist Camille Parmesan, author of the study. "Now we've got the evidence. It's here. It's real. This is not just biologists' intuition. It's what's happening."
[...]
Parmesan reports seeing trends of animal populations moving northward if they can, of species adapting slightly because of climate change, of plants blooming earlier, and of an increase in pests and parasites.

Parmesan and others have been predicting such changes for years, but even she was surprised to find evidence that it's already happening; she figured it would be another decade away.
[...]
"I feel as though we are staring crisis in the face," Futuyma said. "It's not just down the road somewhere. It is just hurtling toward us. Anyone who is 10 years old right now is going to be facing a very different and frightening world by the time that they are 50 or 60."
[...]
Parmesan said she worries most about the cold-adapted species, such as emperor penguins that have dropped from 300 breeding pairs to just nine in the western Antarctic Peninsula, or polar bears, which are dropping in numbers and weight in the Arctic.

The cold-dependent species on mountaintops have nowhere to go, which is why two-thirds of a certain grouping of frog species have already gone extinct, Parmesan said.

What will it take for this buffoon of a President and his administration to finally admit that there is a problem and do something to try and solve it?

Damn! Worst President Ever!

Will I be proven wrong?

A while back I was talking to some friend from Italy about gay marriage in Europe, where it's starting to pop up in some nations, and in Italy, and I remember saying that I believed I wouldn't have seen it legalized in that country in my lifetime.

Two article I saw this morning are making me think I might have spoken too soon. First I read that the northern city of Padova became the first in the nation to set up a domestic partner registry for unmarried couples. Then I read that a resolution to allow civil unions has been introduced in the Senate.

I thought wow!! I doubt the Senate measure has any good chances of passing, but the town's decision is final. Gay couples can already register there as a family.

The Church, as expected, was up in arms, denouncing the decision as a first step toward legalization of same-sex marriage and allowing gays to adopt children, and it will most certainly do everything it can to stop the Senate measure and stop the domestic partner registry in Padova, if possible.

But at least someone finally acknowledge the (pink) 800 pound gorilla in the room, and, as we've seen happen in the US time and time again, visibility ultimately is our most formidable weapon, because heterosexuals are just scared of us and feel threatened because they don't know us. Visibility shows them that there's nothing to fear, no threat, and ultimately just exposes our enemies' hatred and bigotry.

It'll be interesting to see what happens next.

From the Herald Tribune:

The city of Padua has become the first in Italy to allow gay couples to have their partnerships legally recognized, prompting swift criticism from the Vatican's official newspaper.

Padua's city council voted Monday night to allow unmarried cohabiting couples — including gays — to obtain official certificates recognizing them as "a family founded on bonds of affection."
[...]
However, a city spokeswoman sought to distance the move from family politics, saying it was intended to simplify bureaucracy for those living nontraditional lifestyles.

"This is for couples who don't want to get married, couples who are living together who want to register that they are cohabiting. It could be useful for a number of things," city spokeswoman Donatella Gasperi said Wednesday. "It's not necessarily for gays, but if two gays come in, they will be registered."

From 365gay.com:

Italy's Senate on Thursday passed a motion calling on the government of Prime Minister Romano Prodi to bring in legislation creating civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.

It said it wants the bill by the end of next month.

The motion cited "the growing debate within politics and public opinion concerning common law unions and the rights and duties stemming from them," and said that the bill should "recognize the rights, including regarding taxes, of persons in de facto relationships".
[...]
The coalition has been working on a bill that would be similar to Britain's civil partnership law which grants all the rights of marriage but not the name.

And this was our Holy Father's usual gracious and loving reaction:

Pope Benedict warned Prodi's government on Thursday that the Vatican will use all of its power to thwart any move to recognize same-sex couples.

Such a charmer the Pope, isn't he.

The situation is getting desperate -- let's make it worse

The weather is going crazy, that's a fact, and even though we don't have any indisputable scientific proof of it, reasonable individuals attribute the changes in the weather patterns to global warming, mostly caused by us slowly pumping toxic waste in the atmosphere in the first place.

Well, now some scientists (and politicians opposed to curbing global warming will soon follow, I'm sure) are starting to seriously take into consideration the idea of trying to buy us a few more decades (I assume so that we can keep on raping the environment) by, listen to this, pumping a huge amount of toxic gases directly into the atmosphere, so that it could create something like an umbrella, deflecting the solar rays hitting the planet, and therefore cooling the temperatures and, by extension, easing the effects of global warming.

That's insane.

Prominent scientists, among them a Nobel laureate, said a layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere could act as a "shade" from the sun's rays and help cool the planet.

Thing is, the scientist who first proposed such a solution, didn't think it would be taken seriously. He thought people would be outraged and spur into action to fix the problem so that we don't have to resort to such drastic measures. And in that context, it made sense. How wrong was he:

The Nobel Prize-winning scientist who first made the proposal is himself "not enthusiastic about it."

"It was meant to startle the policymakers," said Paul J. Crutzen, of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. "If they don't take action much more strongly than they have in the past, then in the end we have to do experiments like this."
[...]
When he published his proposal in the journal Climatic Change in August, Crutzen cited a "grossly disappointing international political response" to warming.

The Dutch climatologist, awarded a 1995 Nobel in chemistry for his work uncovering the threat to Earth's atmospheric ozone layer, suggested that balloons bearing heavy guns be used to carry sulfates high aloft and fire them into the stratosphere.

While carbon dioxide keeps heat from escaping Earth, substances such as sulfur dioxide, a common air pollutant, reflect solar radiation, helping cool the planet.

Other scientists are more cautious. They say to go on with the research, but that if we were to do such a thing, we'd have to be extra super certain that there aren't any side effects.

However, side effects are a certainty:

A massive dissemination of pollutants would be needed every year or two, as the sulfates precipitate from the atmosphere in acid rain.

Acid rain is one of the main killers of trees. I remember seeing pictures of entire forests in Germany where trees were getting sick and dying because of the acidity of the rain blanketing them. More acid rain = less trees = less oxygen production + less carbon dioxide absorption = more global warming. How's that gonna help?

Plus, who would ever think that increasing the amount of acidity in our rain is better than increasing the temperature in the air?

Silly me, our politicians:

American geophysicist Jonathan Pershing, of Washington's World Resources Institute, was also wary of unforeseen consequences, but said the idea might be worth considering "if down the road 25 years it becomes more and more severe because we didn't deal with the problem."

Disgusting. Sometimes I really wonder what kind of world we're leaving behind to our kids.

The Manchurian Candidate

I'm not a big fan of remakes, since I feel like they often don't improve on the original, which casts a "been there, done that" aura on the new film from the get go.

Mostly, however, I dislike them because it makes me lose hope in the current crop of filmmakers, screenwriters and above all studio execs, who have to resort to reheating old material instead of cooking something fresh.

Do they mean to tell us that there aren't enough good new scripts around Tinseltown that they need to serve us repeats or they'd be out of work? Seems hardly possible to me.

Anyway, I was pleased, for once, to come across a remake that, whether really needed or not, didn't turn out looking like an ugly carbon copy or the 1962 original starring Frank Sinatra and Angela Lansbury.

The new take only updates the settings of the original and doesn't really change anything in the plot, leaving me to having to judge only the performances, since the story is absolutely brilliant.

The remake stars a dark and confused Denzel Washington and an achingly sweet, coldly robotic Liev Schreiber as two of the men from the American platoon trapped by the plot's conspiracy. Meryl Streep, is a strong willed Senator all too knowledgeable of the dangerous mingling of politics and business. Her acting is as strong as ever, but this is hardly a part I will remember her for, maybe because her role is important but not that big.

Washington and Streep were the two names on everyone's lips when the picture came out, but I found that Schreiber was exceptionally good and I actually liked Jon Voight, an actor I'm not particularly fond of, quite a bit. I thought he was well cast in the minor role of a Senator who dares to entrench into Streep's plans for her son's future.

Director Jonathan Demme creates a dark tale of intrigue, conspiracies, betrayal, friendship, and loyalty that entertains but doesn't seem to want to take too many chances, almost as if saying, The original was good, I'll follow its lead. However, the movie is enjoyable and certainly worth viewing.

Grade: 7.5