Friday, April 27, 2007


The multinational food giant, Bunge, has 60 days to inform the public in Brazil what kind of transgenics it uses and the quantity of transgenics used in each of its food products. In a civil action suit, Brazilian federal judge Regis de Souza Araújo also ruled that the federal government should ensure that the company complies with the ruling.
According to a law passed in 2003, companies that use at least 1% of genetically modified organisms in their food products are required to state as such on their food labels. In this suit, the judge went so far as to say that Bunge should label its products no matter how much transgenic material they use.
Though this is a clear victory for environmentalists and consumer groups, many are still suspicious of the decision. Gabriela Vuolo, a coordinator for a Greenpeace campaign in Brazil, considers the suit a victory for the consumer, but has doubts about its implementation.
"Now we need to know how this decision is going to be implemented, because actually this law concerning labeling products was supposed to be implemented beginning in 2004. But today we still do not see one label in the supermarket that has information about transgenics, even with the 1% stipulation," said Vuolo.
Vuolo goes on to point out that besides the resistance of companies who do not want the labels, fearing consumers will reject their products, there is a lack of political will on the part of the government to actually enforce this law.
The state government of Paraná created a law about labeling last year, but complains that there is a lack of support on the part of the federal government to help with the enforcement.
"Anvisa (Agency for Sanitation) inspects only the products that are already there in the supermarket. All processes before that - the soy that leaves the farm, that goes through the silos, is processed and becomes a product - is under the Ministry of Agriculture. But the Ministry of Agriculture does not do the inspections, nor do they let anyone else.
The governor of Paraná, for example, asked for authorization from the Ministry of Agriculture to let his state do the inspections. But his request was denied. So you see, the federal government doesn't do anything, nor let anything be done.
"Soy cooking oil is the more serious issue because we use this in the kitchen almost every day. The majority of people do not know from where this oil comes. And most companies have not made the commitment not to use transgenics, as is the case with Bunge and Cargill, who make Soya, Liza and Primor, the biggest brands of oil in the market," said Vuolo.
Brasil de Fato

After Watching Give Your Opinion About It


April 27, 2007
MOVIE REVIEW 'NEXT'
Glimpsing the Future (and a Babe)
By MANOHLA DARGIS
In “Next,” a crummy action and speculative-fiction hybrid, Nicolas Cage plays a guy who can see into the future two minutes at a time. It’s too bad that Mr. Cage couldn’t tap into those same powers of divination to save himself from making yet another inexplicably bad choice in roles. Once one of the more enthralling actors in Hollywood (“Leaving Las Vegas”), Mr. Cage these days seems all too content to waste his and the audience’s time in tacky genre throwaways, not that “The Wicker Man” or at least the hilarious highlights reel of same that eventually made it onto YouTube didn’t provide some serious yuks.
What’s bittersweet about all this is that Mr. Cage remains an insistently watchable screen presence, as even this dopey movie proves. In his day job, Mr. Cage’s Cris Johnson works in a low-rent Vegas casino as a no-frills magician pulling doves out of his coat sleeves and modest factoids out of the minds of his audiences. He supplements his earnings by playing the slots and blackjack. Allergic to trouble and the overly curious, he keeps his profile low by betting only against the house, trying to cash out before he attracts too much attention. Ah, but there’s trouble afoot in the form of a pushy F.B.I. agent named Callie Ferris, played by Julianne Moore, yet another performer who seems intent on breaking the hearts of the faithful.
Jaw locked, Ms. Moore seems terribly unhappy to be here, and it’s no wonder. Her character is working the anti-terrorism beat, which requires her to be at once expert at her job, because she’s one of the stars of the show, and a political straw woman who freely doles out cruel and unusual punishment while talking about the greater good, mostly because the screenwriters are obviously bored. She may not be nice, but, dammit, she is on the side of might and right. You see, there’s a Russian nuclear device gone missing, and Agent Ferris knows, despite the eyeball-rolling of her superiors and underlings, that the only thing that stands between humanity and annihilation is a Las Vegas magician with a taste for martinis and blondes.
There’s more, barely. Directed by Lee Tamahori and written by Gary Goldman, Jonathan Hensleigh and Paul Bernbaum, “Next” is based on a nifty short story by Philip K. Dick titled “The Golden Man.” First published in 1954 in the science-fiction magazine If, the story imagines a world in which mutants are rounded up and destroyed. The title character, a literally golden-hued mutant said to resemble a god, but whose intelligence comes nearer to that of an animal, can see far enough into the future to evade capture. Mr. Dick explained that the story was written when the trend in SF literature was to glorify mutants, which he saw as a self-serving, “dangerous hunger for power on the part of neurotic people.”
Mr. Dick’s story and “Next” have so little to do with each other that the writer’s die-hard fans can relax: the great man’s reputation has not been tainted by yet another knuckleheaded adaptation. Mr. Cage and Ms. Moore have it worse, since the spectacle of these two grimacing through so much risible dialogue and noisy action seems as wearing to them as to us.
About the only performer who comes out unscathed here is Jessica Biel, who plays Cris’s love interest, a honey-dipped blonde named Liz Cooper. Ms. Biel enters in a gauzy light and sticks around to make goo-goo eyes at Mr. Cage in an itty-bitty towel, delivering a vision of gilded perfection that comes tantalizingly close to Mr. Dick’s original conception.
“Next” is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). Among the palpitating distractions are gun violence, explosions and the sight of Ms. Biel in a low-cut shirt, a sheet and that towel.
NEXT
Opens today nationwide.
Directed by Lee Tamahori; written by Gary Goldman, Jonathan Hensleigh and Paul Bernbaum, from a screen story by Mr. Goldman based on the short story “The Golden Man” by Philip K. Dick; director of photography, David Tattersall; edited by Christian Wagner; music by Mark Isham; production designer, William Sandell; produced by Nicolas Cage, Norm Golightly, Todd Garner, Arne L. Schmidt and Graham King; released by Paramount Pictures. Running time: 96 minutes.
WITH: Nicolas Cage (Cris Johnson), Julianne Moore (Callie Ferris), Jessica Biel (Liz Cooper), Thomas Kretschmann (Mr. Smith), Tory Kittles (Cavanaugh) and Peter Falk (Irv).

Monday, April 23, 2007


March 26, 2007
A Conversation With Ronaldinho
By JACK BELL
Ronaldo de Assis Moreira, known to the soccer world simply as Ronaldinho, is one of the most recognizable players in the world. The Brazil star has led his club, F.C. Barcelona in Spain, to two straight La Liga titles and last season's European Champions League crown.
Jack Bell of The New York Times spent a tightly scripted 30 minutes with 27-year-old Ronaldinho at his palatial home in Castelldefels, a holiday village about a 20-minute drive outside Barcelona. The March 12 interview, conducted through a Spanish interpreter, took place two days after Ronaldinho helped 10-man Barcelona tie Real Madrid, 3-3, in a pulsating match at the team's Camp Nou Stadium.
Q: The game against Real Madrid was truly an incredible experience, at least it was for me. How important was it for you and Barcelona?
A: It was extremely important especially at this moment, when we needed some points to stay on top of the Spanish league.
Q: Did you feel there was more pressure on you and the team in light of the results of the past week? (In the week before the match, Barcelona had lost to rival Sevilla and had been eliminated from the Champions League by Liverpool of England.)
A: No, there was not more pressure. We didn't have more now than ever before, but it was an especially important moment. We had no margin to let any points go any more we can't fail right now because it is really important to hang on to the points.
Q: Barca gave up the first goal against Real Madrid, but I thought it helped to make the game more open and more exciting. How do you see it?
A: It is always complicated when you concede a goal first and you're behind. I never felt we couldn't win. I always felt we could turn it on until last minute and were even in a position where we could win, not just draw.
Q: You felt confident to the last minute?
A: To the last minute, yes, to the last minute. That is why we fought so hard. It is the way we have to keep going from now on.
Q: Is it hard to stay focused and hungry after winning two straight La Liga titles?
A: [It's] not hard to stay enthusiastic. Actually, once you have lived it once and have feeling of winning you want it even more. You want to repeat. Yes, it is difficult to keep playing up to that level, but you want to go back and have the same feeling of what was achieved before.
Q: What else is there for you to accomplish in the game?
A: Actually, my goal is to conquer again titles. In what I have achieved, I have been lucky to win a lot of most important championships. I know how magic the moment is when you win. That is why I would like to do it again, to live it again. Winning more is always my goal. To win as many trophies as is possible.
Q: So after winning the league title and the Champions League last season, you went to the World Cup with Brazil and things did not turn out well. Was the failure in Germany hard for you to deal with?
A: Yes. It was a big disappointment, especially bearing in mind that the team met all the conditions to win the title, great players, great coach, high expectations. Bearing that in mind, we have to learn from what happened and go back and win it.
Q: I have been told that you are a big fan of Michael Jordan. Is that true? And if it is, what is it about him that you find appealing?
A: Yes, I am and was a big fan. I always admired the way Michael Jordan played basketball and when I was growing up watching his games I loved the way he played. He took responsibility for the team always. I dreamed of being able to bring what I saw him doing in basketball into football and do it myself, to play soccer like he played basketball. I was able to meet him and we shook hands. It was special for me. I felt lucky to meet him in person. I might be as well known around the world, but it was still a really special moment for me. No doubt about it up to this day still a fan think every kid of my generation who follows sports has been a fan.
Q: Now like Michael Jordan, Nike has just come out with your own signature line of gear and shoes, called 10R. How much influence and advice did you give them? Do you like the stuff? It all has a real retro look, from the shoes to the leather ball.
A: I participated almost in all aspects of the project. Nike was asking me my opinion about the boots, how they should be done. My opinions were important every step of the way, especially since it's my name and signature on all the gear. I have to thank Nike because they worked to make me feel more comfortable in what I was wearing and in how the boots turned out. I hope people around the world feel as good about the boots as I do.
Q: And then there's the leather ball. Can you actually make that ball dance on free kicks as much as the balls you play with during official matches?
A: To me, the ball is no different than the officials ones we play with. When I kick the ball in my house it is no different. I play around with it with my dogs and kick around in the yard.
Q: The past few years Barcelona has toured the United States before the start of the Spanish season. I'm wondering what your impressions were of the football, the country and the people.
A: I was really surprised by all the attention and especially by all the big crowds because people have always told me that football is not popular in the U.S. But we saw a lot of people interested and very into it. Many, many people recognized me wherever I went. So I can only think that the game is getting bigger in the U.S.
Q: Last season, one of your teammates, Samuel Eto'o, nearly walked off the field in Zaragoza after being taunted by racial slurs from the fans there. How did that incident affect you?
A: It was a terrible thing that happened, yes. But after that there were lots of campaigns being done [by] people to combat racism and make people more aware that these things are not acceptable. People are little by little becoming aware, doing those things and believing those things are not the way to go. I think some very positive things came out of the incident. At least I hope so.
Q: My wife, who is a casual soccer fan, says she loves watching you play because you seem to be truly enjoying yourself. You have that big, big smile and play with such joy. Where does that come from?
A: I just think each person has [their own] personality and that I'm lucky to be doing what I like most in life - playing football. I am happy to be doing this. It is true some people have different a character, but I have a happy personality. The way I am, I hope I will keep being like this for many years.
Q: I have to ask you how you felt a few weeks ago when there were many articles written in Spain saying that you had put on weight. Have you.
A: (Laughing) … Do I look fat?

April 22, 2007
The Way We Live Now
You Are What You Grow
By MICHAEL POLLAN
A few years ago, an obesity researcher at the University of Washington named Adam Drewnowski ventured into the supermarket to solve a mystery. He wanted to figure out why it is that the most reliable predictor of obesity in America today is a person’s wealth. For most of history, after all, the poor have typically suffered from a shortage of calories, not a surfeit. So how is it that today the people with the least amount of money to spend on food are the ones most likely to be overweight?
Drewnowski gave himself a hypothetical dollar to spend, using it to purchase as many calories as he possibly could. He discovered that he could buy the most calories per dollar in the middle aisles of the supermarket, among the towering canyons of processed food and soft drink. (In the typical American supermarket, the fresh foods — dairy, meat, fish and produce — line the perimeter walls, while the imperishable packaged goods dominate the center.) Drewnowski found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of cookies or potato chips but only 250 calories of carrots. Looking for something to wash down those chips, he discovered that his dollar bought 875 calories of soda but only 170 calories of orange juice.
As a rule, processed foods are more “energy dense” than fresh foods: they contain less water and fiber but more added fat and sugar, which makes them both less filling and more fattening. These particular calories also happen to be the least healthful ones in the marketplace, which is why we call the foods that contain them “junk.” Drewnowski concluded that the rules of the food game in America are organized in such a way that if you are eating on a budget, the most rational economic strategy is to eat badly — and get fat.
This perverse state of affairs is not, as you might think, the inevitable result of the free market. Compared with a bunch of carrots, a package of Twinkies, to take one iconic processed foodlike substance as an example, is a highly complicated, high-tech piece of manufacture, involving no fewer than 39 ingredients, many themselves elaborately manufactured, as well as the packaging and a hefty marketing budget. So how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of these synthetic cream-filled pseudocakes for less than a bunch of roots?
For the answer, you need look no farther than the farm bill. This resolutely unglamorous and head-hurtingly complicated piece of legislation, which comes around roughly every five years and is about to do so again, sets the rules for the American food system — indeed, to a considerable extent, for the world’s food system. Among other things, it determines which crops will be subsidized and which will not, and in the case of the carrot and the Twinkie, the farm bill as currently written offers a lot more support to the cake than to the root. Like most processed foods, the Twinkie is basically a clever arrangement of carbohydrates and fats teased out of corn, soybeans and wheat — three of the five commodity crops that the farm bill supports, to the tune of some $25 billion a year. (Rice and cotton are the others.) For the last several decades — indeed, for about as long as the American waistline has been ballooning — U.S. agricultural policy has been designed in such a way as to promote the overproduction of these five commodities, especially corn and soy.
That’s because the current farm bill helps commodity farmers by cutting them a check based on how many bushels they can grow, rather than, say, by supporting prices and limiting production, as farm bills once did. The result? A food system awash in added sugars (derived from corn) and added fats (derived mainly from soy), as well as dirt-cheap meat and milk (derived from both). By comparison, the farm bill does almost nothing to support farmers growing fresh produce. A result of these policy choices is on stark display in your supermarket, where the real price of fruits and vegetables between 1985 and 2000 increased by nearly 40 percent while the real price of soft drinks (a k a liquid corn) declined by 23 percent. The reason the least healthful calories in the supermarket are the cheapest is that those are the ones the farm bill encourages farmers to grow.
A public-health researcher from Mars might legitimately wonder why a nation faced with what its surgeon general has called “an epidemic” of obesity would at the same time be in the business of subsidizing the production of high-fructose corn syrup. But such is the perversity of the farm bill: the nation’s agricultural policies operate at cross-purposes with its public-health objectives. And the subsidies are only part of the problem. The farm bill helps determine what sort of food your children will have for lunch in school tomorrow. The school-lunch program began at a time when the public-health problem of America’s children was undernourishment, so feeding surplus agricultural commodities to kids seemed like a win-win strategy. Today the problem is overnutrition, but a school lunch lady trying to prepare healthful fresh food is apt to get dinged by U.S.D.A. inspectors for failing to serve enough calories; if she dishes up a lunch that includes chicken nuggets and Tater Tots, however, the inspector smiles and the reimbursements flow. The farm bill essentially treats our children as a human Disposall for all the unhealthful calories that the farm bill has encouraged American farmers to overproduce.
To speak of the farm bill’s influence on the American food system does not begin to describe its full impact — on the environment, on global poverty, even on immigration. By making it possible for American farmers to sell their crops abroad for considerably less than it costs to grow them, the farm bill helps determine the price of corn in Mexico and the price of cotton in Nigeria and therefore whether farmers in those places will survive or be forced off the land, to migrate to the cities — or to the United States. The flow of immigrants north from Mexico since Nafta is inextricably linked to the flow of American corn in the opposite direction, a flood of subsidized grain that the Mexican government estimates has thrown two million Mexican farmers and other agricultural workers off the land since the mid-90s. (More recently, the ethanol boom has led to a spike in corn prices that has left that country reeling from soaring tortilla prices; linking its corn economy to ours has been an unalloyed disaster for Mexico’s eaters as well as its farmers.) You can’t fully comprehend the pressures driving immigration without comprehending what U.S. agricultural policy is doing to rural agriculture in Mexico.
And though we don’t ordinarily think of the farm bill in these terms, few pieces of legislation have as profound an impact on the American landscape and environment. Americans may tell themselves they don’t have a national land-use policy, that the market by and large decides what happens on private property in America, but that’s not exactly true. The smorgasbord of incentives and disincentives built into the farm bill helps decide what happens on nearly half of the private land in America: whether it will be farmed or left wild, whether it will be managed to maximize productivity (and therefore doused with chemicals) or to promote environmental stewardship. The health of the American soil, the purity of its water, the biodiversity and the very look of its landscape owe in no small part to impenetrable titles, programs and formulae buried deep in the farm bill.
Given all this, you would think the farm-bill debate would engage the nation’s political passions every five years, but that hasn’t been the case. If the quintennial antidrama of the “farm bill debate” holds true to form this year, a handful of farm-state legislators will thrash out the mind-numbing details behind closed doors, with virtually nobody else, either in Congress or in the media, paying much attention. Why? Because most of us assume that, true to its name, the farm bill is about “farming,” an increasingly quaint activity that involves no one we know and in which few of us think we have a stake. This leaves our own representatives free to ignore the farm bill, to treat it as a parochial piece of legislation affecting a handful of their Midwestern colleagues. Since we aren’t paying attention, they pay no political price for trading, or even selling, their farm-bill votes. The fact that the bill is deeply encrusted with incomprehensible jargon and prehensile programs dating back to the 1930s makes it almost impossible for the average legislator to understand the bill should he or she try to, much less the average citizen. It’s doubtful this is an accident.
But there are signs this year will be different. The public-health community has come to recognize it can’t hope to address obesity and diabetes without addressing the farm bill. The environmental community recognizes that as long as we have a farm bill that promotes chemical and feedlot agriculture, clean water will remain a pipe dream. The development community has woken up to the fact that global poverty can’t be fought without confronting the ways the farm bill depresses world crop prices. They got a boost from a 2004 ruling by the World Trade Organization that U.S. cotton subsidies are illegal; most observers think that challenges to similar subsidies for corn, soy, wheat or rice would also prevail.
And then there are the eaters, people like you and me, increasingly concerned, if not restive, about the quality of the food on offer in America. A grass-roots social movement is gathering around food issues today, and while it is still somewhat inchoate, the manifestations are everywhere: in local efforts to get vending machines out of the schools and to improve school lunch; in local campaigns to fight feedlots and to force food companies to better the lives of animals in agriculture; in the spectacular growth of the market for organic food and the revival of local food systems. In great and growing numbers, people are voting with their forks for a different sort of food system. But as powerful as the food consumer is — it was that consumer, after all, who built a $15 billion organic-food industry and more than doubled the number of farmer’s markets in the last few years — voting with our forks can advance reform only so far. It can’t, for example, change the fact that the system is rigged to make the most unhealthful calories in the marketplace the only ones the poor can afford. To change that, people will have to vote with their votes as well — which is to say, they will have to wade into the muddy political waters of agricultural policy.
Doing so starts with the recognition that the “farm bill” is a misnomer; in truth, it is a food bill and so needs to be rewritten with the interests of eaters placed first. Yes, there are eaters who think it in their interest that food just be as cheap as possible, no matter how poor the quality. But there are many more who recognize the real cost of artificially cheap food — to their health, to the land, to the animals, to the public purse. At a minimum, these eaters want a bill that aligns agricultural policy with our public-health and environmental values, one with incentives to produce food cleanly, sustainably and humanely. Eaters want a bill that makes the most healthful calories in the supermarket competitive with the least healthful ones. Eaters want a bill that feeds schoolchildren fresh food from local farms rather than processed surplus commodities from far away. Enlightened eaters also recognize their dependence on farmers, which is why they would support a bill that guarantees the people who raise our food not subsidies but fair prices. Why? Because they prefer to live in a country that can still produce its own food and doesn’t hurt the world’s farmers by dumping its surplus crops on their markets.
The devil is in the details, no doubt. Simply eliminating support for farmers won’t solve these problems; overproduction has afflicted agriculture since long before modern subsidies. It will take some imaginative policy making to figure out how to encourage farmers to focus on taking care of the land rather than all-out production, on growing real food for eaters rather than industrial raw materials for food processors and on rebuilding local food economies, which the current farm bill hobbles. But the guiding principle behind an eater’s farm bill could not be more straightforward: it’s one that changes the rules of the game so as to promote the quality of our food (and farming) over and above its quantity.
Such changes are radical only by the standards of past farm bills, which have faithfully reflected the priorities of the agribusiness interests that wrote them. One of these years, the eaters of America are going to demand a place at the table, and we will have the political debate over food policy we need and deserve. This could prove to be that year: the year when the farm bill became a food bill, and the eaters at last had their say.

April 22, 2007
Affordable Europe Budget Airlines
Adventures in Low-Cost Travel
By MATT GROSS
UNRESTED and unshowered, I arrived at Luton Airport, in suburban London, around 5 a.m., and did not expect my situation to improve. I’d been up all night, wandering around London with friends, and now I was about to fly to Morocco on an airline whose reputation for rock-bottom prices was surpassed only by its reputation for rock-bottom service. Bleary-eyed, I slapped my passport on the check-in counter, picked up the boarding pass (no assigned seating, of course), and began the long, long march to my gate.
Normally, I would have shrugged off the looming discomfort as I did the attendant’s warning about my overweight baggage. But I was halfway through a weeklong jaunt around Europe, traveling solely via low-cost carriers, the budget airlines that have multiplied across the Continent like unnecessary E.U. regulations, and the perpetual motion was getting to me. Where had I just been? Where was I going? I wasn’t really sure anymore — all I knew was that getting there wouldn’t cost much more than my sanity.
Every country or region has at least one budget airline: easyJet and RyanAir, the pioneers in this industry, operate out of the Britain and Ireland, while Air Berlin and HLX ferry the shallow-pocketed in and out of Germany. Spain has Vueling, Scandinavia has Sterling, and Italy has a host of tiny carriers that focus on random, disparate cities — Evolavia, for example, flies between Ancona, Paris and Moscow.
What unites these small airlines is a devotion to cheap fares. Flights routinely are less than 20 euros (about $27 at $1.36 to the euro), and can even drop to the low, low price of ... zero. How can the airlines afford that? By cutting out frills and tacking on fees. Fuel surcharges, airport taxes, excess-baggage fees and the ever-popular miscellaneous charges help make up for the seemingly unprofitable ticket prices.
Despite this sneakiness, these airlines remain the best way to bounce around the increasingly borderless superstate known as Europe — faster than railroads, more comfortable than a bus (if you’re lucky), and far cheaper than the major carriers.
This winter, I set out to test the network. The plan: seven flights in seven days, mixing established and off-the-beaten-path destinations, staying in modest hotels and never taking the same airline twice. Along the way, I would even try to enjoy myself wherever I landed.
At first, mapping out a route late last November drove me crazy. Not all budget airlines fly every route every day, and plugging schedules into Web sites took hours. Then I discovered Flylc.com, a booking engine that streamlines the process. Its page shows three columns: the first contains a list of every airport in Europe; click one and the second column displays every destination you can reach from there, while the third shows which airlines fly that route. One more click brings up a timetable showing every flight from, say, Dublin to Bratislava on SkyEurope. Neat!
Soon I had a drawn a viable route around Europe. From Geneva — a central location served by many budget airlines — I’d fly to Prague, then to Copenhagen, London, Fez (Morocco is around Europe, right?), Paris and Budapest, and back to Geneva. At each stop, I’d have a day, more or less, to get oriented before rushing off to the next far-flung city. Lather, rinse, repeat.
And so, early one January Monday in Geneva, I checked into Flybaboo Flight 75. Founded in 2003, the improbably named airline generally ferries passengers to warmer climes — the French Riviera, Ibiza, Sardinia — but for a mere 10 Swiss francs (about $8 at $1.24 Swiss francs to the U.S. dollar, but the equivalent of $59 with taxes), it also goes to Prague. As I walked to the farthest reaches of the airport, where Flybaboo’s gates lay, I wondered what I was getting into.
Then I arrived at the Flybaboo lounge — the slickest non-business-class waiting area I’d ever seen. Men in good suits sat on the red-leather banquettes, checking e-mail on complimentary iMacs. I picked up a copy of Baboo Time, a smart, stylish magazine, and read an interview with Dita Von Teese. I was in no hurry to board, because I worried that things could only get worse.
They got better. The plane was a cute twin-prop Dash 8-300, and as we sat shivering on the runway, waiting for the wings to be de-iced, the sole flight attendant — a young guy whose nice gray wool trousers and black V-neck sweater were accented by a red tie and a red nylon belt — kindly handed out blankets. A few minutes later, we took off, cruising up through the darkness to the clear sky, where the gray quilt of clouds stretched out before us, punctured by the peaks of the Jura Mountains, glowing in the first light of dawn. I gazed out the window till breakfast arrived — strong coffee and airy, just-sweet muffins — then snuggled under my blanket till we touched down, on time, in Prague.
A bus and a subway took me to the heart of Prague’s old town, where after a few wrong turns I arrived at my hotel, the Jerome House. I had a big, clean room, and I made the most of my 24 hours in the Czech capital, wandering the ancient streets and bridges, eating and drinking with friends of friends, and popping into the Kafka Museum for a peek into the life of the writer whose work is all about disorientation.
Too soon, it was back to the airport for Sterling Flight 564 to Copenhagen (7 euros, or 31 euros with taxes and fees). After Flybaboo, Sterling was a disappointment: service was efficient but impersonal, and the flight attendants wore brown pantsuits with tight brown gloves — the corporate dominatrix look. Worse, the Boeing 737-800 was filthy. The dark blue seat fabric hid ground-in grime, fingerprints smeared the windows, and the unmistakable smell of body odor lingered in the stale air. A flavorless chicken sandwich and a Diet Coke cost 8 euros. Luckily, the in-flight magazine provided distraction with an article on eco-friendly Danish fashion and an interview with Lars von Trier.
Less than an hour after we touched down, I arrived by speedy train at Copenhagen’s main station. Climbing up from the platform, I spotted an ad for my hotel that included directions. I turned right, then left, then right again — and promptly found myself nowhere near the Cab Inn. Instead, I was circling around the dark gates of Tivoli, the grand amusement park smack in the middle of downtown. The ad’s directions had seemed so clear — but where was I going?
Though the sky looked ready to pour at any minute, I pulled my MacBook from my messenger bag, found a public Wi-Fi signal and loaded the Cab Inn Web site: The hotel had moved from one side of Tivoli to the other; the train-station ad had not been updated. Fifteen minutes later I was in my room, designed to look like a ship’s cabin.
That evening, I reunited with Egil, a friend since childhood, and along with his girlfriend and his brother, we ate at Det Lille Apotek, which claims to be Copenhagen’s oldest restaurant. In the quaint little tavern, where Egil’s grandfather, the painter Asger Jorn, used to hang out, we reminisced over old times and devoured roast beef, gravy and way too many potatoes. I’d been lost; now I was found.
The sensation did not last long. The next day, Air Berlin was waiting to whisk me off to London via Berlin (31 euros, 65 euros with taxes and fees). The flight began on Air Berlin’s code-sharing partner, Fly DBA. The quarter-full 737-300 exuded shabbiness — tray tables opened crustily, and the color scheme was white and inconsistently green, with shades ranging from yellowish to kellyish to simply soupy, as in the shirts the flight attendants wore under black polyester jackets. The snacks, however, were great — breadsticks flavored with olive oil and rosemary — and as we approached Tegel Airport, we skimmed the clouds in a wide circle, the silhouette of our craft projected against the frothy white surface. Ah. ...
The next segment was on an actual Air Berlin plane, a spanking new Airbus A320 that was all computer-designed curves, with a gray color scheme that whispered sophistication. The air was so clean I could smell the high-tech filtering system, and for the first time I had a personal flat-screen, on which I watched “The King of Queens” and followed our westward progress across an ultra-detailed satellite map, all the way to Stansted, one of the London area’s four airports.
We landed around 8 p.m., and since my next flight was leaving out of Luton Airport at 6:30 a.m., a hotel room was pointless. Instead, I planned to prowl the streets all night with my friends Vincent and Weiting. Fortified with fish and chips, we set out across London from Vincent’s Bloomsbury town house, walking first to the Barbican Estate — a marvelous, messy, modernist apartment complex and arts center that is almost a town unto itself — then through the stately, lonely City and over the Thames to the Tate Modern. Maybe it was the threat of rain, but we saw no one else until we reached Waterloo Bridge, where a voluminously afro’d young woman was comforting a friend who’d had a lovers’ quarrel. They hugged and smiled for us, and at 3 a.m. we returned to Bloomsbury by cab.
Arriving at the airport tired and dirty is bad enough, but when you’re flying on RyanAir, it’s enough to make you suicidal. This was the airline friends had warned me about — not just the cheapest but the chintziest, not just no-frills but inhabiting a frill-free alternate universe. Still, when the London-Fez route is £1.39 (£38.32 with taxes and fees; $76.64 at $2 to the pound), who can complain?
I can. Boarding the 737-800, again at a distant gate, was absurd: seats on RyanAir are not assigned, and everyone made a mad dash for a good spot; all the while a flight attendant — in a blue uniform so crisp it seemed like she’d never worn it before — kept everyone out of the first six rows. They remained inexplicably empty the whole flight.
I settled in Row 7, then began to wish I’d never sat down. The cramped seats did not recline, and were made of molded blue plastic, as if they would be hosed down after the flight. Luckily, I’d been awake all night and fell instantly asleep.
RyanAir got me to Fez on time, however, and I even befriended my seatmate, a Canadian named Matt who said he was “studying terrorism” at a university in Wales. We shared a taxi to Fez’s medieval medina and spent much of the day exploring the labyrinthine marketplace together.
If I was going to get lost anywhere, I thought, it would be here, amid the high khaki walls and shadowy passageways to nowhere. Even before we entered, kids offered to guide us, warning, “La casbah est difficile!” I said I preferred difficulty — and plunged in. But though the market was enormous, with dead-end alleys and vegetable stands and near-identical knickknack vendors and swarms of schoolchildren who rioted with joy every time I pulled out my camera, I never quite lost my way. Even better, I felt comfortable — this was my kind of place, and I could have spent days or weeks drinking espresso with hash-smoking teens and stumbling upon the hidden ruins of pashas’ palaces. I left only out of exhaustion, but invited Matt to my hotel, a gracious courtyard house called the Riad Zamane, for a dinner of the best chicken tagine ever.
Next morning I was back in the air, this time on a 737-400 operated by Jet4you. My ride out of Fez, this tiny low-cost carrier — it flies between Morocco, France and Belgium with just two jets — had the highest fares (134 euros, or 144.09 euros with taxes and fees) and the oldest plane. The seats were threadbare, a chunk of my armrest was missing, and let’s not even talk about the stained fabric. The in-flight magazine was low-budget and unimaginative, and one of the French tourists on the nearly full flight was a middle-aged woman in a leopard-print top and tight black-leather Versace jeans. I closed my eyes and woke up at Paris Orly.
Ah, Paris! Now this was a place I knew well. Ever since I walked across the city one wintry night in 1994, my feet had developed an instinctual sense of the Haussmannian boulevards. I checked into my hotel, a cute, affordable Latin Quarter boutique called the Five, and headed straight for the Marais, where I found a pleasant surprise: winter sales! Virtually every store was offering deep discounts, and I took full advantage, picking up a Mandarina Duck suitcase to replace my venerable Briggs & Riley, which had lost a wheel under RyanAir’s care.
Getting to my flight the next day was a hassle. I was leaving not from Charles de Gaulle nor Orly, but from a little-known airport called Beauvais, about 50 miles north. (Colonizing third-tier airports is how many budget airlines offer such low fares.) To get to Beauvais, I took the Metro to Pont de Neuilly, wandered in a light drizzle until I found the bus depot, then rode an hour out to the airport, again befriending my seatmate, Gabriella, who like me was bound for Budapest on Wizz Air (6.99 euros, or 39.11 euros with taxes and fees).
“Oh, Wizz is the worst,” she said.
Not quite true, but Wizz, based in Poland and Hungary, was no Flybaboo. First, I had to pay an extra 35 euros for my overweight bag, now laden with 10 pounds of in-flight magazines, then the plane almost left without me. Inside, the air was overpressurized, and the flight attendants as confused as the color scheme, a mix of white and “magenta” that ranged from borscht to spilled zinfandel. At least Wizzit, the airline’s magazine, was entertaining: “The World’s Worst Food” was one cover line, and contributors included the travel editor of Wallpaper*.
Around 11 p.m. I checked into my hotel, but did not go to sleep. Instead, Bernadett, a friend of a friend, picked me up and we roamed the Hungarian capital in search of food — stacked crepes stuffed with mushrooms, tomatoes and cheese, and slathered in sour cream — and drink: Borsodi beers at Szimpla, a shabby but wonderful bar in what was once someone’s house.
The next afternoon, Bernadett and I drove up to Buda Castle, which looms gloriously over the city, and then to the airport. It was time for my final flight.
O easyJet, how I love thee! You may be a big shot, but in your Airbus A319, you treated me like a human being (for 5,950 forints, or 12,350 after taxes and fees, about $68 at 182 forints to $1). You looked the other way at my excess baggage, and though you don’t assign seats, you keep them spotless and roomy. Your flight attendants wore chic open-necked orange-and-gunmetal-gray shirts, and your in-flight magazine was professional and informative, with articles on percebes, the Spanish delicacy, and up-and-coming neighborhoods in Toulouse. “Come on,” winks your magazine, “let’s fly!” With you, baby? Anytime.
Alas, easyJet and I parted ways in Geneva. I grabbed a shuttle to NH, an airport hotel, and tried to sleep. I couldn’t. After a week of constant motion, I was buzzing with memories and inertia — I’d sampled so many places, so quickly, I wanted to revisit them all. Yet here I was at the end, in Switzerland on a desolate Sunday night. The adrenaline rush of disorientation was fading. Still, there was one ray of light: In the morning, I would be flying to Bulgaria. On Lufthansa. It was no low-cost carrier, but as I drifted off, I decided it would have to do.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

This Week We, from IFS Decided to Change!!!!!!!!


The Name
E.E. Cummings' publishers and others have sometimes echoed the unconventional capitalization in his poetry by writing his name in lower case and without periods. Cummings himself did not approve of this rendering.

Education
From 1911 to 1916 Cummings attended Harvard, from which he received a B.A. degree in 1915 and a Master's degree for English and Classical Studies in 1916. While at Harvard, he befriended John Dos Passos, and roomed in the freshman dormitory Thayer (room 306), that was named after the family of one of his Harvard acquaintances, Scofield Thayer.[2] Several of Cummings' poems were published, beginning in 1912, in the Harvard Monthly, a school newspaper on which Cummings worked with fellow Harvard Aesthetes Dos Passos and S. Foster Damon, and in 1915 in the Harvard Advocate.
From an early age, Cummings studied the classical languages of Greek and Latin. His affinity for both can be seen in his later works, such as XAIPE the title of one of his collections and Rejoice! in Greek, Anthropos (the title of one of his plays and "mankind" in Greek, and "Puella Mea" (the title of his longest poem, and "My Girl").
In his final year at Harvard, he came under the influence of the works of avant garde writers, such as Gertrude Stein and Ezra Pound. Cummings graduated magna cum laude from Harvard in 1916, and delivered a controversial commencement address, entitled "The New Art". This speech gave him his first taste of notoriety as he managed to give the impression that he thought the well-liked imagist poet, Amy Lowell was "abnormal," when his intention was to praise her. Cummings was chastised in the newspapers. In 1920, Cummings' first published poems appeared in a collection of poetry entitled Eight Harvard Poets.

Life
In 1917, Cummings enlisted in the Norton-Harjes Ambulance Corp, along with his college friend John Dos Passos. The novelty of automotives, and thus ambulances, made driving acceptable to young, well educated men in the US. (World War I saw more well-known writers in medical service than any other war in history because of this. At least 23, including Hemingway, were enlisted in ambulance corps, an interesting and unusual percentage). Due to an administrative mix-up, Cummings was not assigned to an ambulance unit for five weeks, during which time he stayed in Paris. He became enamored with the city, to which he would return throughout his life.
On September 21, 1917, just five months after his belated assignment, he and a friend, William Slater Brown, were arrested on suspicion of espionage (the two openly expressed pacifist views on the war). They were sent to a concentration camp, the Dépôt de Triage, in La Ferté-Macé, Orne, Normandy, where they languished for 3½ months. Cummings' experiences in the camp were later related in his novel The Enormous Room about which F. Scott Fitzgerald opined, "Of all the work by young men who have sprung up since 1920 one book survives- 'The Enormous Room' by e e cummings....Those few who cause books to live have not been able to endure the thought of its mortality."[citation needed]
He was released from the detention camp on December 19, 1917, after much intervention from his politically connected father. Cummings returned to the United States on New Year's Day 1918. Later in 1918, he was drafted into the army. He served in the 73rd Infantry Division at Camp Devens, Massachusetts, until November 1918.
Cummings returned to Paris in 1921 and remained there for two years before returning to New York. During the rest of the 1920s and 1930s he returned to Paris a number of times, and traveled throughout Europe, meeting, among others, Pablo Picasso. In 1931 Cummings traveled to the Soviet Union and recounted his experiences in Eimi, published two years later. During these years Cummings also traveled to Northern Africa and Mexico and worked as an essayist and portrait artist for Vanity Fair magazine (1924 to 1927).

I carry your heart with me

I carry your heart with me (I carry it in my heart)

I am never without it (anywhere I go you go, my dear; and whatever is done by only me is your doing, my darling)

I fear no fate (for you are my fate, my sweet) I want no world (for beautiful you are my world, my true) and it's you are whatever a moon has always meant and whatever a sun will always sing is you here is the deepest secret nobody knows (here is the root of the root and the bud of the bud and the sky of the sky of a tree called life; which grows higher than the soul can hope or mind can hide) and this is the wonder that's keeping the stars apart

I carry your heart (I carry it in my heart)

ee cummings