Flyyyyyy

No news = good news? I don't know, but while I work at the next post, I'll let you read the latest answer I got on www.flyertalk.com to one of my stupid question (the question doesn't matter, really). The worst might be that I understood half of it :-)

Re: 2500 miles in a middle seat

The best is $110 from BWI to PVD, both Southwest markets, but that is a "TL", not a Y. You can note that it STILL goes VIA EWR, so that is 4 segments at 500 miles a piece, minimum, and 500 for booking online. Do that 3 separate times, or better yet BOOK EACH ONE WAY on separate PNRs, for a separate 500 miles per online booking. .
BWI-IAH full Y is $310, so that is another method: 1235 miles + 150% bonus 618 + 500 CO.com EACH WAY on separate records.

From Galil to Beyrout, an amazing, human internet discussion...

Dovster lives in Israel, in a Kibbutz on the border with Lebanon. BEYFlyer lives in Beyrout.
They're both veteran members of an internet forum, Flyertalk.com, where frequent flyers from around the world meet, chat, and exchange their best tips to earn miles, and the best way to use them.

They've never met and have "a long standing agreement" to meet for a drink sometime on the Lebanon-Israel border. Then on the morning of July 12, Dovster writes:

"Within the last few minutes eight Katuysha rockets were shot in my general direction (they sounded like they were very close). [...] (The Army just sent us SMSs telling us to go to our bomb shelters. It was followed by a second SMS telling us that they are now shooting at Hizbollah outposts.) No news as to whether my ex and her dog will be coming to my house."

What Dovster was then reporting live was the very beginning of the current Middle-East crisis, the rockets he heard being the diversion Hizbollah needed while they killed many israeli soldiers, and kidnapped 2 others. The IDF retaliation soon followed.

The way he describes it, a mixture of live event and personal life reporting, is what makes the conversation that followed extraordinary. BEYFlyer jumped in with his own comments, live from Lebanon (such as "Woke up this morning to the sounds of rockets exploding on the airport runway"), and both exchanged wishes of safety and peace.

Another example, by BEYFlyer, as he hides in the mountain of Beirout:
"Well, I don't know what's better and easier on the nerves; staying in Beirut with all the bombs falling around me or having to endure hours with my nieces as they destroy the living room around me??? Aggghhh... I need to get out of here for sure..."

Soon, the whole Flyertalk community and many more having heard about it by word-of-mouth, were riveted by this incredible thread, where (almost) no political comments appear. People all over the world are now reading it, amazed by the humanity that those two brought to the crisis, a welcomed heaven of peace and friendship in the middle of an escalating war.

As the moderators of the site put it:
"Both members are providing timely and quality information, and through their efforts are putting a human face on these dramatic world events. But beyond that, these two FTers -- one of whom is posting from his home in Beirut, the other from his home in Northern Israel --are demonstrating a level of caring and thoughtfulness toward each other that is at once remarkable, given the circumstances, and inspiring."

You can follow it by clicking on the following link. There has been almost 900 posts already, and it will take you around 4 hours to read it. I suggest printing it and reading it in the subway.
Click here

Or you can go directly to the last page and jump in the conversation.
Here

I believe this is a prime example of the human power of the Internet, so go experience it yourself...
Ben.

Another proof of Internet power

I've discovered recently FlyerTalk where people all around the world, frequent flyers, give advice on plane travel.
One of them lives in a Kibbutz, on the Israeli-lebanon border. Another in Downtown Beirout. They've started a thread giving people news about where they are and what's up.
The thread turned into an incredible exchange of messages between friends, where you realize people live there who only wish for peace. It gives a incredibly human side to a horrible situation.

It's all here: Go and read.

Unforgivable

[If you're only interested on my comment on Zidane's headbutt yesterday, skip directly to the 5th paragraph, starting with "back with the story".]

In the world of soccer, French captain Zinedine Zidane is somebody.
Lots have already been said, and a lot more will, about last night's game, the 2006 FIFA World Cup Final between France and Italy. In the world's most watched event, in front of more than a billion people, Zinedine Zidane head-butted an italian player in the chest, and Italy won the World Cup, in this order.

First, congratulations to the Italians, for a beautiful victory. Was it deserved? In yesterday's game, certainly not, but overall, without a doubt. They were the most stable and complete team in the tournament. They might have not beat amazing teams on their way to the final, Germany being the lone exception, and a penalty-shoutoot might not be the fairest way to decide of an outcome, but this is soccer.
Yesterday, France dominated the game. A lot of people said the turning point in the game was at the 103rd minute, when a header from Zidane was saved by the amazing Italian goalkeeper, Buffon. I disagree. I don't believe there was any huge turning point in that game. France had missed a lot of other opportunities, and truth is, they just couldn't finish. Realism has always been their weakness, and after an amazing series of 3 games against Spain, Brazil and Portugal, it came back to haunt them.
We wouldn't be talking about turning point, and fairness, and who deserved what, if France had dominated the whole game. Yeah, sure, the second half and overtime were entirely theirs, but so much happened in the first half-time, when was France was playing so poorly! Had they shown their talent and class right away, I have no doubt they would have taken it.



But let's get back a second on that Zidane header, the one he placed on the ball, on a cross from Willy Sagnol. You need to see it to believe it: the way Zizou was placed, right in front of the goal, the way he soared through the air to kick that ball, and the way he placed it right below the pole was pure genius. As many know, this was Zidane's last game. The best player of his generation signing off with a World Cup Final... This goal was the kind of stuff that creates legends, and in his case, it could have sealed his carreer with the stamp of greatness. But Buffon was there, and he proved he was the best goalkeeper in the world. The hand he placed on the ball changed, I'm sure of it, the fate of two countries, and the life of one man.
Had Zidane scored then, France would have won. He would have taken, for sure, his rightful place among soccer bests, maybe behind Pele and Maradonna, but standing high above Beckenbauer, Platini and Ronaldo. He would have lifted that golden trophy himself, as the french captain, and that picture would have been the front page of every newspaper in the world this morning.

But History is not what you wish, it's merely a succession of facts determined by a hand, a foot, a word, a thought... or a head. After Buffon stopped that goal, Zidane's frustration became apparent. He had been fouled countless times, and the italian players became more and more agressive towards him. Finally, in the 110th minute, as we was arguing with Materazzi, Zizou suddenly turns around and headbutts the italian player in the chest. A minute later, the referee showed him a red card, and just like that, Zinedine Zidane's carreer as a soccer player was over.
It's important to point that, according to different witnesses, no FIFA official saw the incident. The "4th man" had to watch a replay on a tv-monitor, by the side line, to let the main referee know what happened. This might be the strangest part of the story. Video replay is not authorized in soccer. And so, I believe, however obviously guilty he was, Zidane should not have had a red card.

Back to the story, though. Early reports say the french son of algerian-immigrants was called "a terrorist", others that his mother was insulted.
It doesn't matter. However grave might have been Materazzi's insults, it does not explain such a violent, physical response, and it certainly does not excuse it.
Explain, first. I'm not sure anyone can. Sure, we always knew we was short tempered. It wasn't Zizou's first red card for violent behavior. But in previous occasions, he merely acted in the heat of the moment, fighting for the ball or on impulse. Yesterday, images show he clearly had all the time in the world to think. To think that more than 30 cameras could catch him, would catch him. That a billion people were watching. That this was his moment to shine. Not to mention that "thou shall not headbutt a fellow player in the chest". He did it anyway. That's why we cannot explain it.



We can't excuse it because with his act, he let three categories of people down. First, himself. I already said how he tarnished, maybe forever, his legendary status. The images of him assaulting Materazzi are so clear, so poignant, so breathtaking you can trust TV network all over the worlds (except maybe in France) to replay it countless times. Like with 9/11 and the collapse of the twin towers, we can not take our eyes away from the screen, and yet at the same time we wish they'd stop replaying it again, and again, and again. Will people only remember his last world cup final, and not the first? Time will tell.
He then let down his teammates. Without him, the key midfielder, France was enable to score against the italians. Without him, the captain, they did not keep their composure. Without him, the great penalty-shooter, they didn't win the shoot-out. Would anything have been different had he been on the field? Nobody knows.
Finally, and this is the most serious charge, he let everyone else down (except this time, maybe, the italians). Soccer players are role models. They are the children of the world's idols. In schoolyards in Europe and Latin America, on dirt fields in Africa, kids play soccer. It's never red against green, or 5th grade against 4th grade: it's always England Vs Brazil, Juventus Vs Manchester United, France Vs Italy. And you bet there's always one Zidane. You gotta be pretty fast to call dibs on Zidane.
And so I imagine one of the kids watching the game yesterday, as they probably counted for half the billion viewers in front of their TV screen. That kid tuned in to see Zidane, he tuned in to see his idol. And he saw him commit the unforgivable. It doesn't matter what prompted it, what he saw was Zidane being violent, Zidane being mean, Zidane being someone he fears, rather than someone he adores. For him, it was like seeing his parents fighting, his best friends turning his back on him, his headmaster burning his own school.
Will he understand? Will he forgive? In the end, that's what only matters.

I have to say, before signing off, I do feel bad for him. I'm sure he didn't want it, he didn't mean it. But his actions have already had consequences, and he has to assume, and apologize.

Too bad, Zidane could'a had class. Yesterday, he was barely a contender...
Let's face it.

ENORME!

Once again, this is not pop-culture related, but then, the world cup dominates the world's stage, and should invade even the most remote and unread blogs.

Today, France beat Brazil to advance to Semi-final against Portugal Wednesday (the other semi is set to take place Tuesday between Germany and Italy).
Even if you're American and don't care much about soccer, you should know that this win is enormous, Brazil being the absolute favorite to win it all when entering the tournament, and France being deamed an old team (Zidane, arguably the greatest french player ever, is 34 and was tonite absolutely genial).
But this screenshot of a one-way AIM chat with my friend Nico who's back on our beloved Michigan State University campus says it all. To you non-french speaker, the first part reads: "I'm in the international center. It's on a big screen". The second part is self-explanatory.



And as ESPN puts it: "Zidane, Ronaldo and Ronaldinho have won eight of the last 10 FIFA world player of the year awards. Only Zidane displayed those skills Saturday."

My personal predictions: A blow-out of Portugal 3-0 tuesday, then a 1-0 loss to Germany Sunday...
To be continued.

Monopoly

The question of the objectivity of art has been asked for centuries, and never really answered. I used to be very careful to say "I didn't like it" instead of "It was bad" to make sure not to offend people who liked "it" (whatever "it" is - you can find it on ebay). But then, I also used to seat during credits at the end of movies.

Let's face it, nobody really wants to seat during those credits, and all we really want to yell is "I hated it, it was bad". Tonight, I finally saw Rent (the musical on Broadway), and yes, I thought it was really, really bad (I just heard my friend Karen scream all the way from Avenue I). Of course, people will argue "no, you really can't say that. If people liked it, it can't be bad". Well, can't people like bad things?
Tell me, have you never seen a big blue square, hanging in a museum in the painting section? And when you cross someone walking in the street wearing yellow pants and a white t-shirt with purple vertical stripes, do you say "I don't like it" or "Oh-my-god-how-could-she-do-that-it's-so-fucking-ugly?" I thought so. (Also, how often do you tell people "You can't say it was good, you have to say you liked it. You're offending people who didn't".)
To be really clear, I'm just arguing about the fact that I have every right to say so. Whether I'm right or wrong is another matter.

The truth is, writing (whether music or words) is a skill, it has to be mastered, and you can fail at it.

But let's get to our subject, and let's put aside a few things first. I thought the music was ok, if you like that sort of cheesy, a-thousand-times reused pop music. So if you're a huge fan of the music, listening to the CD all the time, I understand, you're probably not the only one. The performers were neither good or bad, certainly not of Broadway-caliber; but then, it didn't stop hundreds of spectators to yell and applause at the end of each song like they've just witnessed a reunion of the Beatles. So to the people who will tell me Rent is only as good as the actors in it, I say "I guess this time, Rent-fans thought it was a good one." I didn't. Overlapping dialogue is great in a Robert Altman movie, not in a musical. In fact, if I hadn't read the plot before, I probably wouldn't have gotten it. The 50-year old choir director from Michigan seated next to me agreed, and so does the management of the theatre, apparently, since the whole story is explained in the "Playbill" - which is a first.
A short word about the set and the dancing: I found both pretty simple but powerful. All in all, the strong side of the musical.

But beside the acting, beside the music and the dancing there's a play. And so we get to the plot and to the lyrics and dialogue, which are really at the heart of my argument. My guess (once again, as a disappointed spectator to a cult-musical, I can only guess what appeals to the fan) is that rent-followers admire that it deals with never-before dealt-with issues. AIDS, being poor in a big city, being a lost soul in the 80s/90s. In three words: "la vie boheme". Great. Chapeau bas. That doesn't make the play good.

The characters are extremely simplistic, the already mentioned impossible-to-understandable plot, once you get it, is in fact inexistent (which wouldn't be a problem if the musical numbers were entertaining), the dialogues of the kind that wouldn't grant you admission to a high-school creative-writing class ("I missed you so much! - Me too!"). As a matter of fact, the writing is so poor that the main character, Mark, has to come forward and explain to us what we're looking at. Obviously, Jonathan Larson had never heard of exposure. Mark, by the way, is a would-be filmmaker. He owns a camera that's supposed to look cheap, but is in fact so expensive it could pay last year's, this year's, and next year's rent (yes, I happen to know this camera, and you can also find it on ebay). His credo, and everyone else's, is art and creativity, but the way he uses his tool, shooting asses and buildings, he looks more like a Dawson or that guy from American Beauty with his plastic bags, than the Spike Lee he so fondly refers to.
Another interesting character is Maureen. You hear about her for most of the first act before she actually appears. She's supposed to be an incredibly intense girl, attracting every eye, sending shivers to every spine. But when she finally shows up, she's boring, empty and shallow. Actually, I'm sure I've seen her profile on a dating site the other night.
Talking about Maureen, I don't know what to make of Rent's crudeness. Yes, sex references are mandatory with this kind of subject, but did they really need to go as far as showing us her bare ass?

Let's take another example! Oh, how do we love examples, they're so great and easy to use when you want to make a point. (But be careful, I will divulge important points of the plot, so if you haven't seen it, skip this paragraph).
My example tonight will be Angel, a tall black guy who arrives in Alphabet City - the New York neighborhood where Rent takes place - at the beginning of the musical. Now, if you know anything about narration, you know that such a character is supposed to be our friend. Just like him (and just like Dorothy in Oz), we know nothing about the world he enters and the people that inhabit it. That's why in theory, he's the most important character. But apparently, Larson hadn't heard of that either, since Angel doesn't serve here as a narrator (Mark does), and is in fact nothing like the average spectator. He has AIDS (as do others) and likes to dress as a woman. In the second act, he dies and all the characters mourn him. This is supposed to be a very emotional moment. There's just one problem: that guy we were supposed to love and side with, we know nothing about him: therefore, we don't care. In fact, we learn more about his personality when others talk about him after his death. Mark tells us how Angel used to go talk to people in the street, and they'd be stunned cause they've never talked to a drag-queen. Such a fun story... Wait, no, actually it sounds exactly like one I overheard in the subway the other day.
Oh, and while we're at it, being a drag-queen is a complex art that involves performance and entertainment. When you cross-dress, you're simply a transvestite. Honestly, for a play that sees itself as the symbol of "La vie boheme", they could at least have gotten that right.

Some people say Rent is not what his creator, Jonathan Larson, intended it to be, because he died, age 36, before opening night. This strangely reminds me of Stanley Kubrick and Eyes Wide Shut. Except that Kubrick had a few masterpieces behind, and I still think Eyes Wide Shut was genius.
Larson had just written a few off-Broadway plays before Rent, and cited "Jesus Christ Superstar" as a reference.

I'd like to advance my own reference: the movie "Les nuits fauves" by Cyril Collard, who died of AIDS before his movie was released. It deals with the same issues, but you'll have a good example of smart writing, emotional scenes, and depth of story.

In a way, it's very sad. If you care about an issue, wouldn't you like its most popular vehicle, the one that gets the most exposure, to be good? Truthful? Witty and smart? It looks to me like the masses, instead of asking for better and denouncing a cheap representation of their values, settled for what was there. It is, really, a pity.

In the meantime, in this beginning of millennium, I find Rent to be cheap, and Broadway tickets expensive.

A 2-minute review of Crash

So, after 6 months of delaying it, I finally saw Crash (by Paul Haggis). I already wrote about why it got best picture (in a few words, it takes place in LA), now I know it didn't deserve it.

This is the perfect example of a mediocre movie, of a wasted good idea. It should be shown to movie students, to illustrate how you can use lots of good actors, writing, not to mention money, to go absolutely nowhere, and create a movie that doesn't advance anything. Not ideas, not art, and certainly not the state of racism in LA.

Cause as you might now, that's what Crash is about: racism in LA. Oh sure, you see plenty of it. Anti-black cops, anti-white black men, anti-latino Persian shop-owners, anything you want: it's here.
During the course of the movie, most characters change, whether they go from racist to tolerant, or from tolerant to racist. And you see lots of reasons. Some of them obviously stupid (because a latino has a tattoo, he's a gang-member), some of them that make you think twice about it (a white men employing 20 black employees loses his company because of some affirmative action law).
But it never tells you who's right and who's not. The characters never speak about their racism, never apologize or even defend their ideas. The movie doesn't judge them: it is no more than a reality-check.

I don't like reality checks, not in American cinema. Give me the state of poverty or AIDS in Africa, show me minors working in mines in South America. I'll take it. But if you're an American filmmaker dealing with an LA issue, you'd better do something about it: because you can. Tell me: "yes, he lost his company because of affirmative action, but it doesn't prove anything. You can not generalize." Or: "Maybe he's a gang member, then why don't you show him how to get out of there". You Paul Harris, say something for god's sake!

A woman get successively molested, then saved from certain death by the same man the next day. Then walks away crying, obviously confused. What does she think? What process of thought goes through her mind? We'd like to know, but the movie says nothing. It barely states, shows, and walks away. Pity.