Re-doing the marital vows. Sunday, Sep 26 2010 

So yes, I’ve vanished.   The summer was odd, interesting, with very little money and quite a lot of excitement, but more than anything — HOT.  Aside from this being the warmest summer in history, Washington DC was built in a marsh, which means extreme heat+high humidity+MOSQUIIIIIIIITOES.  Oh God, no matter how much I get to like this city, the weather is ridiculous.  I was walking home from an event two days ago and it was 85 degrees — at 2 in the morning.  Whatever happened to cooling off in the night, fucking asshole of an excuse for weather.  WHEW!

So aside from the fact that I cannot wear a suit outside because of the heat (and do it anyway, to go to work), this school year begins after a summer working at a think tank, sleeping on my friend’s futon (SHOUT OUT EUGENE YOU BEAUTIFUL PRINCE), and it begins with me receiving a decent scholarship for school, a reasonable job, and a fantastic, beautiful, and uniquely interesting girlfriend, who I’m steadily falling in love with.  Yes.  I’m a man, and I wrote those words ON THE INTERNET.  And I am not ashamed, but for chrissake, if the Council  hears of this, they’ll make me wear a fanny-pack for six months as punishment.  A NEON one, goddamit.

Aside from all those things, it also means this blog is coming back to life.  Put on your best spangled Elvis-impersonator outfit and haul out the pink Caddy, my little darlings:  we’re going to Vegas to renew the wedding vows with one small addition:  This time, with gusto! (and fucking).

Spin the wheels and singe your eyebrows, let's get this bitch on the road!

Tuesday, Mar 30 2010 

So … one of my friends has posted a blog entry regarding constitutionalism of the new healthcare bill.  I happen to believe in a pretty powerful healthcare policy instituted by the fed.gov, something like single payer health care, but I was deeply dissatisfied with the new healthcare package and so had to respond to my friend’s discussion.  His thing is here:

I am not a lawyer. I will never be a lawyer. In fact, barring any catastrophes, I will be the natural prey of lawyers: A doctor. But armed with only a high school background in American history, a healthy interest in current affairs, and a not insignificant possession of reasoning ability, I will attempt to weigh in on the question of healthcare unconstitutionality.

My understanding is that people consider this as an abuse of the interstate commerce clause, which allows the federal government to regulate trade between states and has been responsible for the progressive expansion of federal power. Opponents consider it an encroachment of state and individual rights.

My very sketchy understanding of the argument is that they are formulated in the following ways:

1) Forcing individuals to have health insurance is unconstitutional

2) Forcing individuals to purchase a private product is unconstitutional

3) The regulation of insurance is more or less a matter for states to decide, not the federal government

I feel most comfortable waving away #3. I think it can be demonstrated that because insurance companies operate in multiple states, there should be some federal authority to regulate how they behave. Moreover, the impacts–particularly the negative–of poorly regulated insurance companies largely accrue to the federal government in the form of increased burden on Medicaid and other federally-funded public assistance programs.

I think if #2 were disproved, #1 would become difficult to defend. In my opinion, the constitutional questions that hold some weight, subtlety, and interest, are over mandates. In the next part of this series, Arguments that are worse than mine–Bad points hurt good conclusions, I will take a look at a historical approach that has been made to resolve this issue.

Here’s my answer to this:

Being a right-leaning pro-single payer person (go figure), I have a hard time buying your reasoned opposition. The fact is that the recently passed health care bill is not one that even provides a public option, let alone doing away with health insurance companies altogether.  As a matter of fact, there is a pretty strong structural argument in the constitution and other founding documents for a pure single payer system.

This bill however, does violate the Constitution.  A law that forces Americans to buy healthcare has many common traits to a law that would, say, require all Americans to buy an automobile or a cell phone plan or a nice painting. Yes, you could answer that unlike automobiles, paintings, and iPhones, health care can save your life. But that’s actually not the point. The question here is whether or not this law violates, according to a constitutional definition, the government’s capacity to control people’s purchasing power and freedom.

The answer, quite simply, is yes, it does. The government is not authorized to demand its citizens to buy a commodity. As I said prior, a system in which health care is funded directly by taxes and is run by the government would have some legality, based on section 8 of article 1: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States …” While it would be an un-strict reading of our Constitution, given that the term ‘welfare’ in today’s usage was not the same as how it was used by the documents writers, both the general ’spirit of the law’ approach by the last 30 years of supreme courts would imply that a single payer system provided by government might be constitutional.

However, the individual is protected from imposition of trade or businessby the constitution in article 1, sections 8 9 and 10 in several ways. In article IV, again, it is rejected, in fact by the inter-state commerce clause, which was actually designed to protect intra-state trade from state-imposed tariffs, currency shifts, and different valuations. By the way, that means you shouldn’t be so comfortable ‘throwing out’ allegation #3.

And let’s not even discuss amendment number 10, which denies the federal government (the “United States”) the right to pass laws addressing the entire United States unless those laws are within the parameters named by the Constitution (handily listed in article 1, section 8), none of which include demanding purchase of commodities by the citizenry.

Finally, let’s take a look at the Declaration of Independence.  Pro-singlepayer people have often used the unalienable rights argument … lord knows I have.  You know, the one where you say: ” ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’ is what’s written, so life must be protected by the reasonable government.”  Well here’s the thing. Life, as defined in that language, and as defined now by our government’s national interest, means that the lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness of a state’s citizens must be protected FROM the government, by any means necessary (including another government). And by the way, let’s not forget that Jefferson lifted that from Locke’s ‘First Treatise on Government’, where the unalienable rights were life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. So looking at the intellectual ancestors, if you will, of America’s founding documents, we find that citizens’ pursuits of property (financial gains, purchasing power, economic progress of every sort) actually have to be protected FROM over-voracious government.

Obviously, this is just an intellectual argument, but I figured it might be fun to post it.

Exodus over … and we begin. Tuesday, Feb 23 2010 

Now, everyone (all three of you) who read this blog know that I always stay away from politics.  No, the hell with that.  I’m saying Politics with a capital P.  But the fact is, after just one afternoon at CPAC with the immortal, irreverent, but beautiful Robert Stacy McCain, I have converted to that small, highly elitist school of conservatism known as TheOtherMcCainism.  For those of you that think that there’s only one McCain, there is ANOTHER!!!!!  Robert Stacy (aka McCain 2.0),  says the following:

When you’re a Jet, you’re Jet all the way. Certainly American Jews can disagree over the wisdom of Israeli policy, considering that the Israelis disagree amongst themselves. But to denounce Israel as guilty of “terrorism” for responding forcefully to repeated rocket and mortar attacks by those Hamas thugs in Gaza, to denounce Marty Peretz’s defense of Israel as “uniquely despicable” — this is what Greenwald has done, and in so doing has covered himself with dishonor.

The effect of Greenwald’s discourse is that Israel can undertake no meaningful action against her enemies without being condemned in similar terms. If it were within Greenwald’s power to enforce his policy preferences, Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda and every other half-baked cabal of terrorist crackpots would be able to kill Jews with impunity.

I recommend this blog.  I recommend this blog.  I recommend this blog.  I said it three times.  You know, for Muslims, when you say “There is one God, and Muhammad is his prophet” thrice, you become Muslim.  In following with this tradition, I recommend this fucking blog.

It’s not that Robert Stacy McCain has phenomenally new ideas.  It’s that he’s the only man I’ve met that is, all at the same time, a savage and vociferous critic of stupid people, a purist libertarian, and a force of nature in a social circumstance.  Aside from that, he’s a chainsmoker (already good in my books), a true rabble-rouser at an overall generic event, and a journalist who still understand that words are weapons to be used in every possible confrontation available.

To find a journalist who defends Israel’s right to defend itself  reminds me that America’s conservatives will still lend a hand to Israel in the public forum when Jews won’t do so themselves.  McCain 2.0, if you ever run for PM of Israel, I’ll campaign for you.  That’s because you have a firm understanding of a very basic tenet of government:  criticism may very well be the highest form of patriotism in free society, but when some group of bastards demonstrate their criticism by kicking your nation in the ‘royal perogative’ over and over and over again for years, your government is not only allowed but obligated to kick the ever-living shit out of those people, regardless of the hacking coughs and over-used denunciations of intellectuals living in the relative safety of “far the hell away from there”.  I’d like to thank you, as a loyal American and a Jew, for defending the sovereignty of Israel .

Drinking Songs Friday, Feb 12 2010 

For no reason whatsoever, I will now list off my favorite musical and poetic references to drinking.  I’m not drinking, I’m not planning to drink.  But what can I say …. drinking is on my mind.  Suck it, Nietzsche.

At dawn came a calling from the tavern
Hark drunken mad man of the cavern
Arise; let us fill with wine one more turn
Before destiny fills our cup, our urn.

-Umar Khayyam
Люблю я в полдень воспаленный
Прохладу черпать из ручья
И в роще тихой, отдаленной
Смотреть, как плещет в брег струя.
Когда ж вино в края поскачет,
Напенясь в чаше круговой,
Друзья, скажите, — кто не плачет,
Заране радуясь душой?

Да будет проклят дерзновенный,
Кто первый грешною рукой,
Нечестьем буйным ослепленный,
О страх!.. смесил вино с водой!
Да будет проклят род злодея!
Пускай не в силах будет пить,
Или, стаканами владея,
Лафит с цимлянским различить!

-АС Пушкин

Буря мглою небо кроет,
Вихри снежные крутя;
То, как зверь, она завоет,
То заплачет, как дитя,
То по кровле обветшалой
Вдруг соломой зашумит,
То, как путник запоздалый,
К нам в окошко застучит.

Наша ветхая лачужка
И печальна и темна.
Что же ты, моя старушка,[2]
Приумолкла у окна?
Или бури завываньем
Ты, мой друг, утомлена,
Или дремлешь под жужжаньем
Своего веретена?

Выпьем, добрая подружка
Бедной юности моей,
Выпьем с горя; где же кружка?
Сердцу будет веселей.
Спой мне песню, как синица
Тихо за морем жила;
Спой мне песню, как девица
За водой поутру шла.

Буря мглою небо кроет,
Вихри снежные крутя;
То, как зверь, она завоет,
То заплачет, как дитя.
Выпьем, добрая подружка
Бедной юности моей,
Выпьем с горя; где же кружка?
Сердцу будет веселей.

-тоже самое

Сказал

философ из Совкино:

«Родные сестры —

кино и вино.

Хотя

иным

приятней вино,

но в случае

в том и в ином —

10 я должен

иметь

доход от кино

не меньше

торговца вином».

Не знаю,

кто и что виной

(история эта —

длинна),

но фильмы

20 уже

догоняют вино

и даже

вреднее вина.

И скоро

будет всякого

от них

тошнить одинаково.

-ВВ Маяковский


Yeah o yeah you seen me walk
On burning bridges
Yeah o yeah you seen me fall
In love with witches
And you know my brain is held
Inside by stitches
Yet you know I did survive
All of your lovely sieges

And you know that I’ll pick up
Every time you call
Just to thank you one more time
Alcohol
And you know that I’ll survive
Every time you come
Just to thank you one more time
For everything you’ve done

Alcohol
Alcohol

And I’m sorry some of us
Given you bad name
yeah o yeah, cause without you
Nothing is the same
Yeah o yeah I miss you so
Every time we break up
Just to hit a higher note
Every time we make up

Who’s crawlin’ up my spine – alcohol
I’ve been waiting long long time – alcohol
Now you teach me how to rhyme – alcohol
Just don’t stab me in the back with cartisol

Now we reunite – alcohol
And forever be divine – alcohol
Screw a light bulb in my head – alcohol
may that ceremony be happy or sad..

-Gogol Bordello

Gonna dive into a jive
I’ve dove into before
Gonna haunt a haunt I’ve haunted
Like a million times or more
A familiar joint
Where getting drunk’s the only point
To frequent this place
With any frequency at all
Countin’ on a remedy
I’ve counted on before
Goin’ with a cure that’s never failed me
What you call the disease,
I call the remedy
What you’re callin’ the cause,
I call the cure
Gonna sing a song, a song to you
A song I’ve sung before
Belt out a ballad that I’ve belted out
A million times or more
The words I’m gonna scream
And getting drunk’s the central theme
to the lyrics, if you can
Make the lyrics out at all
Countin’ on a remedy
I’ve counted on before
Goin’ with a cure that’s never failed me
What you call the disease,
I call the remedy
What you’re callin’ the cause,
I call the cure
Just a devotion to a potion
Please no applause
A dedication to a medication
A crutch a cure a cause
What I’ve counted on to pick me up
Has knocked me to my knees
Before I hit the floor once more
I’ll call it the disease.

-Mighty Mighty Bosstones

….. And We’re Back ….. Friday, Jan 29 2010 

So, after a refreshing vacation covering France, Monaco, Italy, and England for winter break, the venerable and oft-distinguished (by whom?) staff of this blog (currently consisting of one venerable, etc. writer) has returned.
Lessons from vacation:

  • Red wine is not a putrid and disgusting drink of demon’s blood.  It’s actually pretty damn good! For demon’s blood.
  • London is pretty fun when you visit with such wacky parents as mine, but it can be even funner when five or six individuals who are generally calm, collected, reasonable and generally normal who become a wild trouble-making microcosm of Genghis Khan’s Golden Horde on crack when they unite, unite.  In London.  And generally meet random people, some of whom join us for revelry.  And some of whom just fall in a heap when we, for no reason whatsoever, jump on them.  And some of them will dance, given multiple invitations, to terrible Brit-pop in the basement of a crowded pub, and some of THOSE people will be obese and wearing purple sweaters that are big enough to be used as a blanket by a moderate-sized Afghan family.
  • Some things can get pretty antiquey.  But if you apply your most smokin’est judgment, and contextualize as necessary, it can be a quite nice set of circumstances.  What kind?  Quite nice.
  • Miy muzzer, she from NAAAHpoli.
  • Rock beaches are really hard on your back when you lie on them, but when the water recedes from them, they make a really nice crackling sound reminiscent to bacon cooking … on a skillet several hundred miles long.  In a nice way.
  • When you meet girls in Paris, they don’t like you because you’re American.  When you meet girls in Nice, they love you because odds are, you’re both Russian.  And Jewish.  Or at very least, you both listen to the Beatles.
  • Italy still does make the best fucking espresso in the world.

Italy was actually interesting … not only because of the beautiful collage-effect of 14th century  homes with carved balustrades, hidden courtyards with beautiful fountains, all decorated with various forms of gangsta or neo-Socialist graffiti.  But also because I have not been back to Italy since 1990, when I lived in Italy awaiting the final organization of documents from America to invite me, as a refugee, into the USA.

At the time, I was extremely sick (yall know about that) and my mum and I had pretty much nothing.  A few dollars, some clothes, no really distinguishable future, and no particularly unique past … just another couple of беженцы from a collapsing/collapsed Soviet Empire.  In the 19 years that had passed since my first arrival, as a bushy haired 4 year old with an adoration of frothed milk, chocolate Kinder eggs, and peanut butter, and with a misplaced sense of Italian nationalism (I beat up a kid after he repeatedly accused me of being a Russian, yelling ‘io Italiano’ (i’m italian!) with each blow), I had grown up, speaking several languages; gone through some pretty tight circumstances with the exact number of wounds on body and soul to still wax poetic instead of sitting, with blank eyes, in the corner of the world; finished university and begun a graduate career at Georgetown SFS; had my heart broken, and repaired by the tight-knit community of friends that luck and circumstance had allowed me to weave.  My mom, who at times had to resort to stealing from the grocery stores and cleaning apartments for money, returned as a renowned professor at Northwestern, with two published books and an international reputation, with an incredible, hard-working, devoted and generous man as her husband (and my glorious, sunny father, although I do miss his piratic mustachio).

Yet as we walked through those streets, all the years fell away … I began, very slowly, to remember Italian, to smile uncontrollably at the thought of drinking coffee (I had hated coffee as a kid … hot, bitter, and makes me hyper?  fuck that).   We walked miles and miles and saw all kinds of interesting things, ate and drank wine, shopped, saw an opera … but it wasn’t the ambling step of a local slick, or the hurried, harried tempo of a tourist, obssessed with seeing and ‘experiencing’ everything: it was a recollection, and a realization that after two decades, we had come full circle, my mum and I.  We had returned to the land that had welcomed us, hesitantly, so long ago, to wait in its north-Roman slums for our papers to come through that ethereal, magical fax machine … we had returned in grace.  Italy welcomed us again, with its worn and effortless charm, like a beautiful woman that’s discovered but not accepted her first gray hairs.  Italy, for my mum and me, wasn’t at all about Italy, really.  It was about us.

In fact, Italy brushed aside a great number of the sad thoughts I’d been thinking throughout the first semester, about life and death and the circumstances of both.  People can persevere, and while we can’t live forever, and we can’t always be happy … we can maintain, we can continue to walk forward at the demanding pace of our life’s clocks with backs straight, and in doing so, we can enrich our past, ragged and poor and difficult and happy, with new times, where our life’s work has given happiness a newer, less desperate face.  Happiness, as an exception to every other thing in life, should always be complacent, unquestioned and unresolved.  Happiness is the only thing that we can laze around in, because its arrival and departure is in fact, the product of life’s difficulties, miseries, and travails.

Now I’m back in Georgetown, eager, hungry for more difficulties, knowing what happiness can do for me.  Yes, I’m still on the prowl for a beautiful, intelligent and loving woman, and yes, my life’s objectives are not always pleasant, nor will be the compromises I will make for them.  But for now at least, the discovery of magic in new places, and the recovery of magic from memory’s catacombs, have suffused me with the joy that is and was and will be my life’s rewards.

The Beatles Wednesday, Dec 9 2009 

Just a quick update:  This is the finals cram season.  I have four papers.  One 10-pager, one 15-pager, two twenty pagers.  I’ve written my 10, outlined one twenty and half-written another twenty.  I’m panicky, stressed, tired, and occasionally a little delirious and retarded.  For example, I just spelled the word “occasionally” ocassionally and then it took me 30 seconds to realize where I was wrong.

Paper subjects:

1.  A new approach to American-Iranian relations:  lessons learned from Nixon’s Detente.

2. Russian-Iranian nuclear diplomacy:  political objectives or financial gains?

3.  The legal structure of Russia’s post-USSR capitalist transition, and lessons to be learned.

4.  Nabucco pipeline diplomacy:  Where have they failed, where have they succeeded, and how?

Yeah, lots of heavy political shit, and three of those subjects have a lot to do with guns, wars, fights, and very very confrontational diplomacy.  The only one that doesn’t just has to do with mobsters and corruption.  What a fuckin’ life.  The really SICK thing is, of course, that I actually enjoy doing this to myself because the work I’m doing is so friggin’ interesting.  But anyway, back to the subject as dictated by the title of the post.

Last night, in a fit of stress and melancholy, I couldn’t fall asleep, at all.  It just wouldn’t happen, though I lay in bed, in the dark, though I was prodigiously EXHAUSTED and ready to drift off into happy sleepy dreamland.  So … I did what every self-respecting slacker ought to do:  instead of doing my veritable mountain of work, I put on a movie called “Across the Universe”.  It’s a musical number about an English kid who sneaks over to America in the late 60s, meets with some American youngsters, experiences the 60s, falls in love, etc. etc.  The point is, it’s a kind of intellectual montage of America’s various major happenings and groovy movements in that early-Vietnam-war time period.  It shows the creativity, the brutality, the protest and the self-discovery (while exposing only a little bit about irrevocable drug addiction, and nothing at all about STDs, destruction of society, and the general ridiculousness of the hippie movement).  It was, I have to say, a beautiful movie, well written and filmed, thoughtful, serious enough not to be some kind of “Almost Famous” clone but un-serious enough to be unpretentious.  It’s just a beautiful movie, I would recommend it to you all.

But probably the reason why I love this movie so much is because its entire soundtrack is from the Beatles.  All of the characters’ names are from Beatles songs, and the characters themselves bear some similarity to the great musicians that occurred during and after (and thanks to) the Beatles.  The landlady/singer Sadie (from Sexy Sadie, but resembles the immortal Janis Joplin), the English kid Jude (do I really need to tell you?), his best American buddy Max (Maxwell’s Silver Hammer), his girlfriend Lucy (again … kinda common knowledge).  And as I watched this movie, and saw how the directors tied the most beautiful songs of the 20th century, the discography of the Beatles, in with the colorful, vibrant, violent turbulent moments of these people’s lives, from running away from England to the foreign shores of America in the quest of regaining love (Hey Jude), to being drafted into the army (I want you/She’s so heavy), to the strange psychadelica of the hippies (I am the Walrus), to the horrible emotional trauma left by the Vietnam War (Happiness is a Warm Gun), I began to remember my own life.

My very best friends (and let’s be honest, on a really good day, they’re the only ones reading this website anyway) know about my feelings towards John, Paul, George and Ringo.  Everyone says that he or she loves the Beatles.  What’s not to love, right?  But for me, the Beatles have been the background music to my life.  I don’t just like or love the Beatles, their music is my conscience, an aid to my memory, and my greatest protector.  Seeing the funeral of a young boy after the 12th street riots set to “Let it Be”, I remembered listening to that song shortly after events in the war in 2006 in Israel.  Listening to “If I fell in Love” as Lucy realizes her love for Jude, I remembered that it was the song Natasha sent me by way of explanation (emphasis on the line: “I would love to love you”) when things started to go bad.  I remember thrashing out for the first time not to AC/DC or Black Sabbath but to I Am the Walrus, with Jesse Curti in my junior year at NU, before we went to a jazz club and plotted our adventures, or how I finally cracked Lalitha, a girl whose PLATONIC friendship I wanted badly (she seemed really cool) and finally won by convincing her to do a similar-to-Sadie performance of “Why don’t we do it in the Road”.   Even the two minute long tune of “Flying” was the song that got me over my very first girlfriend in high school.  The song “Revolution”, which finally snapped my experience as a runaway of the post-Soviet state into place; “I’ve just seen a face”, which was the very first song I ever heard by the Beatles (although I didn’t know it was them at the time) and which thus signified a pivotal moment in and of itself; and the medley of Beatles songs (some of which are in the movie) that guided my reflections of Sergei years after he died.  But the moment that brought tears to my eyes and sobs from my stomach was listening to Hey Jude, the song to which I realized several years ago, after my dad made me listen to it, that the Beatles wrote a song for every possible emotion because aside from being stylish and talented musicians, they were perceptive and empathetic individuals. And their magic has passed, treated as a beloved old grandfather of music by some and like a dusty relic by others, but only by few perceived as pure and naked beauty.  Thank you mom and dad, for forcing me to listen to them when I was about 9.

Incidentally or on purpose, or simply because I’ve come to lean on them, the Beatles have framed the most important and beautiful events of my life, from the most trivial, silly moments of happiness to the points of deepest pain and introspection.  Some of these songs wafted through the background of my life with barely my notice, only to be remembered in memory, and some I used for peace in my own head when there was nowhere else to look for it.  All of them however became an integral part of the memories that have populated my life, my human experience.  I don’t just love the Beatles.  In some ways, I live through the Beatles.

So when say they’re my favorite band, I don’t just mean I have all their CDs.  I wish I could thank the Four for what they did for us youngsters.

Thanks, giving. Monday, Nov 30 2009 

What a trip.  So, Thanksgiving was a strange, beautiful event, in whose honor we (namely my two room-mates, hereby known as N and W) traveled to W’s hometown, a little shtetl in south-east Ohio where the southern twang is prevalent, the second amendment is flaunted, the churches are everywhere, the Ohio State football team was as close to God as Elijah, and the people are solid, hardworking, closed-minded ‘salt-o’-the-earth’ types.

In pictures:

Yeah .....

That's right. GUN, bitch.

 

The entire town!

OSU!

It was a lotta fun.  My friend W’s family includes some of the most interesting characters.  His cousins, four beautiful ladies that have all shot off into different career directions and who all have mighty tough characters.  His father, the owner and ruling champeen of the pingpong table.  His mom, who kept asking if we had enough to eat.  His endless list of aunts and uncles and relations, all of whom welcomed me and N, two strangers, into one of the most intimate family affairs there is:  Turkey day.

It was also a weekend of firsts.  I’ve never gone on a long road-trip with friends.  I’ve never actually been inside a Wal-Mart prior to Thursday, November 28th, 2009, a day that will live in infamy.  I’ve never eaten a sloppy joe, or casserole, before this Thanksgiving.  I have never spent an entire day in Amish country, or bought Amish-made food.  I have also never spent Thanksgiving away from my own family before this.

Will add later.

Combien tu m’aimes Tuesday, Nov 24 2009 

I think I’ve just seen the most interesting love movie in my life.  This film is about a lonely office worker named François, with a weak heart.  He wins the lottery, somewhere around four million euros.  He goes to a hooker  bar and picks up a whore, Daniela, offering her 100,000 euros per month, to live with him as his woman.  She stays with him, leaves him to return to whoring, comes back when he wins her over again.  She is neither the prostitute of old lore, professionally anonymous, who fucks for money and who’s story becomes irrelevant (if it was relevant in the first place); nor is she the poor girl, destroyed by early love or other traumas, resorting to whoredom.  It’s interesting that her character is developed as carefully as the main persona, our poor lonely clerk, to fall into absolutely none of the classical clichés.

She reawakens his life, this woman.  Though he pays her, though she doesn’t love him, though, as she says, he should never dare to dream that she would cry over him … he comes to life by falling in love.

We meet other characters, some of whom, to be honest, I find more likeable than the two main personages.  For example, his neighbor, a southern French woman, a writer, hard as nails, sarcastic, mean, beautiful in a tired and overworked way.  She confronts Daniela for moaning too loud, disturbing her work, and when Daniela challenges her as a sexless woman, she suddenly releases a roar of passionate phrases of how her lovemaking shakes the very stones of the earth.  And then mocks her for singing operas and rolling her eyes back like some kind of stage performer instead of a woman in the truest throes of passion.

Or his only friend, a doctor who’s in love with his cancer patient.  Or should I say, an ex-cancer patient, as she died five years before the movie’s plot begins.  Or Daniela’s pimp, played by the legendary DePardieu, who refers to himself as “a true old-fashioned prick”

Even François’ apartment is a character, in a strange way.  It is, in fact, the very best kind of apartment … small, sequestered, covered in books, drowned in various cheap and marginally expensive wines, draped in paintings and crumbling plaster walls.  It is built to store love but even when she is there, the apartment, which changes not at all (unusual, when a woman moves into your home, don’t you think?) seems to demonstrate the true value of the woman’s love.  Yet this puritanical definition of love, whether it is in fact true or not, seems almost confining in the rest of the movie.  The apartment tells the truth, yet the movie renders this truth irrelevant … thought the woman does not love him, the man experiences love because he himself feels it.

The soundtrack is phenomenal … a strange combination of classical music and jazz, with marches in what seem to be the most inopportune moments (when François makes all of his decisions) and jazz whenever he’s around a woman.  It’s by itself worth watching the movie, to turn off the screen and listen just to the music and the words.

So many questions asked:  is there such a thing as a straight answer to a question about love?  Is the purpose of love to achieve lasting happiness, or is the terrible price which love exacts (maybe here symbolized with the money of the lottery) worth even the shortest taste of this emotional phenomenon?  And if either one is the objective, what is the price?  And more than anything else, must love have a price?  or can it be given freely?

I understand this man, although I’ve never been in his position.  Lonely throughout his life, left solitary by his weak heart, he seeks more than anything else, companionship.  He loves Daniela, but in his mind, the battle between love (which is uncertain) and great sadness (which is, remarkably, always certain) rages throughout the film.

Rubaiyyat Monday, Nov 23 2009 

My 8 rubaiyyat may have been over-read.  By me, I mean, since the vast majority of my usual poetry-reading body has not had access to what I’ve been writing ever since the gang split up and left Chicago.  But they’ve been up so long in a forum that didn’t belong to me, I decided I wanted them somewhere where the rest of my writing will be.  So, on a totally different note from the last post, enjoy the 8 rubaiyyat of August:

1.
there were silver lines in the red sky
the welded beast fell to earth, unsettled by the wind,
eyes fluttered, tired voices spoke,
the fear passed, the sky returned to grey.

2.
i was rich there, i’m poor here.
there i had rustling trees, old lights,
songs, friends, memories, time.
here i have empty hollow freedom only.

3.
in the morning, though the sky is white,
all below the horizon’s in the dusk.
the floor is white, the walls are white,
and the color is swallowed in ashes.

4.
look through the wine glass full, friend,
and the horizon swirls like blood.
look through the wine glass empty,
and you see, as though thru tears.

5.
inside these stained walls,
underneath this concrete roof,
between the open windows,
i will make a home for love.

6.
where can love live, my friends ask?
not in a home, not in a word,
not in the sun, not in the moon,
it lives in the heart, and it sleeps.

7.
there was a girl today, with golden eyes.
she swayed in the heat, like a birch tree.
her hair was dark, her smile sincere,
but silver in her skin, my friend.

8.
the poem of an artist is a drop of amber,
the poem of the wise is the song of the river,
the poem of the frightened always misses a line.

Jimmy Giffen: One Helluva Guy … ? Monday, Nov 23 2009 

Look at that face.  That slicked-back hair, that pathetic forehead.  The unmitigated arrogance in his eyes, the softness of the really important features (chin and nose), his thick, smirking lips, like a camel that shits every time you prod him, his hand curled around in a little pose, imagining himself to be a matador/energy-powerbroker.  What a douchebag.  You can smell it, can’t you, even from the totally neutral silicony smell of your computer, you can smell that self-entitlement, that cockiness, that “i’m the big shit and you better not mess with me” attitude.  It smells like horse shit, or my kitchen prior to last night’s four-week-postponed cleaning.  Oh, sweet leaping Jesus, what a douchebag.  One look at his face, with the books about perestroika scattered under that WASPy tie and any self-respecting person would want to slap him across the face so hard, his left cheek starts frontin’ all up in his right cheek’s bidness.

Of course, that’s if you plan NOT to explore, develop, extract and then transport oil or natural gas from anywhere in the East Caspian basin, especially the great land of Kazakhstan, home of Nursultan Nazarbayev, President, steward of Kazakhstan’s massive natural gas reserves (Tengiz anyone? Kashagan anyone? Believe me, potassium doesn’t mean SHIT compared to this stuff, Borat), and as every Kazakh will tell you, #1 sexiest man in the country.  If you would like to be a successful international energy corporation, then you will join the long line of oil’n'gas execs that for like, 10 years queued up to suck off this smarmy bastard’s shriveled fig.

So basically, this guy was a Berkeley grad whose objectives were very similar to the author’s: namely, to travel a lot, make a lot of money, and do it all by being pretty involved in politics.  He got into the business by apprenticing at a Turk-run import-export company running products between the USSR and the States.  At the same time, he began to develop contacts in the CIA, telling them all that he gathered about the Reds’ economic situation (clearly not enough for them to figure out that the Soviet Union’s economic structure was about as functional as an umbrella made of crackpipes and asbestos-filled insulator).  He became pretty close with some members of the Russian leadership, including a young buck named Mishka Gorbachev.  Yeah, that dude with the weird thing on his forehead that became the leader of the Soviet Union and then watched it collapse right under him.  He started exploring potentials for oil deals and, along with another incredible international robber-baron-bastard John Deuss (who is, unlike Giffen, not a piece of shit even if he’s a shitty guy) helped international companies tap into the Caspian basin’s sizeable reserves (among the largest oil and gas reserves on Earth) during Gorbachev’s relative loosening of the CPSU’s economic and social controls.

Eventually, after the USSR failed and companies like Chevron and BP realized that they didn’t need some senile old apparatchik from Moscow to confirm deals made in newly-independent states like Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan (led by Saparmurat ‘Turkmenbashi’ Niyazov … I can’t do this man’s unique form of rule justice, so here you go), and Kazakhstan, Giffen fell out until Mr. Nazarbayev called him back in from hiding under a rock and sweating tears of regret as a personal advisor.  You see, BP, Chevron, and all of the other countries planning to invest in Kazakhstan were really good at striking deals while the Kazakhs were amateurs at it.  Giffen played both sides of the field, forcing the Kazakhs and the companies to pay him money while he negotiated kind of between the two parties and sometimes between himself … and … himself … ?  He became the Nazarbayev’s darling, and the go-to guy for any oil company planning to work in one of the three SUPERGIANT energy reservoirs discovered in Kazakhstan around that time.  Basically, if you so much as wanted to make a tin of shoe-polish in Kazakhstan, you’d have to beg Giffen’s permission to do it.

Recently, Mr. Jimmy “I eat shit for breakfast and like it” Giffen was caught for basically having bribed the Nazarbayevs somewhere to the tune of 78 million dollars, drawn from a variety of companies and government reservoirs, pieced apart and distributed across several Swiss bank accounts, and then sent along to Kazakh ruling figures, ostensibly to butter them up for oil deals.  The accompanying “Kazakhgate” scandal has gotten Monsieur Giffen, the so-called “King of Kazakhstan” into some pretty deep shit.  He’s defending himself with a variety of legal, political, and just low-down dirty ways.  Read all about it, on your own time.  I’m not giving you a goddam bibliography.

The guy illustrates a pretty serious ethical question for the author: on one hand, this man did exactly what I want to do.  He gave post-Soviet states the ability to choose their own destiny, prosper or fail while stepping out of the suffocating embrace of Russia’s sphere of influence.  By bringing in companies from Europe and the States, and despite all of the concessions made to Russia in the process, countries like Azerbaijan and the Central Asian states finally got to use their resources to do what THEY wanted to do, without consulting a mother nation that very often didn’t exactly mother them, or more precisely, care even a little about their national interests.  Giffen made that possible, or at least played a big role in that.  At the same time, Giffen did all this while being a very, very, VERY VERY shitty guy.  From physical threats, to tiny personal affronts ballooned into Kazakh national scandals, to betraying personal friends and business partners left and right and then shmoozing away the consequences, to quite honestly intimidating and bullying both Kazakhs and oil companies to do what he wanted, not for any reason except that he wanted it that way, James Giffen is a bad man, in a very non-’i'm a bad mothafucka’ way.  In essence, he’s  a multi-million dollar, international energy-brokering douchebag.

Now, the question is:  was it worth it?  I mean, he has an awesome life, an interesting job, and hey, good man or not he did some damn good for the state of Kazakhstan fo’ sheezy.  But does the fact that he did it all while being a total bastard matter?  Maybe the bastard character was necessary?  Maybe it was a liability?  But outside of questions of utility, could the author pull off this kind of life oeuvre without being a colossal prick?  and if not, is the inability to sleep at night because the author believes himself to be a … well, a Jimmy Giffen a sufficient sacrifice for doing good in the world?  How much does humanity have to compromise to do what needs to be done?

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.