Me and Mr Jones

Wednesday, May 14th, 2008

In the final scene of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, released in 1989, Steven Spielberg has his iconic bullwhip-wielding, snake-hating archaeologist and all the major characters literally ride off into the sunset. “I had no doubts that the curtain was lowering on the series,” recalls the director. Neither did Harrison Ford.

The new instalment also brings back Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), Dr Jones’s object of desire in the first film in the series. New to the cast is the Transformers star Shia LaBeouf, as a leather-jacketed sidekick with a not so accidental resemblance to Marlon Brando in The Wild One.

Then, of course, there is Ford – in Spielberg’s view the secret weapon that allowed the series to become so popular. “I remember the day they sent the costume home to see where we would have to adjust and change sizes,” recalls Ford. “I had not worn it for 18 years, but when I put it on it felt like a glove. And I felt immediately ready to go.”

Ford, 65, is not a method actor or someone who enjoys intellectualising his work. He loves his 800-acre ranch in Wyoming. He loves to fly his private fleet of aeroplanes. And throughout his career he has not tried to hide his distaste for the ritual of meeting with the press.

It makes the actor uncomfortable. He also avoids all mention of his private life, including his relationship with the actress Calista Flockhart. When I met him recently in Beverly Hills a few days before his departure for this week’s Cannes International Film Festival, where Crystal Skull will be presented on Sunday, he allows himself some glimpses of introspection, something he does not do often in public.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

This Could Be My Last Clasico

Wednesday, May 7th, 2008

Barcelona’s players must form a corridor of honour for Real Madrid, the cate champions, much to Rijkaard’s distaste.

“It pains me to form the guard of honour because I wanted us to be champion,” he told Sport.es

“But you need to be sporting about it and it’s customary to form a corridor for the league champions, so there’s little point in dwelling on it.”

The Dutch manager admitted that this “could be [his] last Madrid-Barcelona” in light of recent rumours that he was to be sacked, and as such tonight’s Clásico takes on extra significance.

He said, “Our major objective is to win in Madrid for the club, the players, and the cate fans.

“Clearly we’ll come up against a buoyant Madrid side, given that they’ve won the league, and maybe against another side they’d relax, but against Barcelona they’ll surely give their all with the goal of cate showing their fans a great game.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

John McCain runs for George Bush’s third term

Wednesday, March 12th, 2008

by Juan Cole

(Salon)The most

important thing about the endorsements proffered to John McCain by

George W. Bush and evangelist John Hagee last week was McCain’s

reaction to them. The freshly minted Republican nominee for president,

who has had harsh words in the past for both Bush’s policies and

evangelical agents of intolerance, meekly accepted their support. He

knows he cannot win in November if the evangelicals and pro-war

conservatives stay home. How far will McCain go in presenting himself

as Son of Bush in order to energize his party’s base? To date, based on

his willingness to embrace the Bush agenda and to associate with

religious extremists, the answer seems to be pretty far indeed.

When John McCain went to the White House last week, President Bush seemed to be offering him an out. Bush welcomed McCain as the Republican nominee in his official statement,

but didn’t initially use the word endorse. It was McCain who leapt

for the e-word. Well, I’m very honored and humbled, said McCain, to

have the opportunity to receive the endorsement of the President of the

United States, a man who I have great admiration, respect and affection

[for].

McCain’s strategists, meanwhile, are said to be privately plotting

how best to deploy the deeply unpopular Bush, perhaps by quietly

sending him to host fundraisers deep inside red states where he would

not risk alienating the general population from McCain. But McCain is hewing so faithfully to Bush’s legacy he may need no help from the man himself in alienating the population.

Whereas in his 2000 presidential bid, the Arizona senator sharply criticized Bush for appearing at the anti-Catholic Bob Jones University, which at that time also still banned interracial dating, he is less vocal about such matters now. He is himself behaving as Bush

did then. McCain once dismissed evangelicals such as Jerry Falwell and

Pat Robertson as agents of intolerance. But last week the senator

embraced Hagee’s endorsement. Talk about an agent of intolerance! Hagee

is like Pat Robertson on steroids.

The Democratic National Committee was quick to point out that Hagee said

that Jews have faced persecution right up to this very day because

they rejected Jesus and so demonstrated disobedience and rebellion

toward Jehovah. He said that the difference between a woman with

premenstrual syndrome and a terrorist is that you can negotiate with a

terrorist. He said that Katrina was divine punishment on New Orleans

for its sinfulness, and on gays for planning a parade there. He said

that Roman Catholics were linked with Hitler in a conspiracy to

exterminate the Jews, and called the Catholic Church the Great

Whore. He suggested a faux slave auction as a church fundraiser. He

told a startled Terry Gross on Fresh Air that the Quran directs

Muslims to kill Christians and Jews. (In fact the Quran recognizes

Christians and Jews as people of scripture and only urges the early

Muslims to fight back against the militant infidels or polytheists

who were trying to wipe them out.)

McCain reacted warmly to Hagee’s endorsement, saying, I am very

proud of Pastor John Hagee’s spiritual leadership to thousands of

people and I am proud of his commitment to the independence and the

freedom of the state of Israel. (Apparently for Hagee Israel is good,

even if Jews are bad.) Pressed by Roman Catholics and others, McCain

refused to distance himself from the pastor, saying only, In no way

did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with

all of Pastor Hagee’s views, which I obviously do not. This

non-disavowing disavowal has not satisfied most of the people offended

by McCain’s having associated himself with Hagee.

Hagee’s endorsement is McCain’s Bob Jones moment, taken from the

W. playbook of 2000. In other respects, McCain is trying to repeat

Bush’s big win of 2004, when he fended off a near-upset by a weak

Democratic candidate by doubling down on fear. McCain has adopted

foreign policy and domestic stances similar to those of Bush’s

successful reelection run.

In July of 2004, Bush abruptly announced that he was looking into

whether Iran played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S., and

accused the Shiite ayatollahs of Tehran of harboring al-Qaida

operatives, who are Sunnis. The whole fantastic set of allegations was

immediately denied by Bush’s own intelligence officials. Hawkishness

toward Iran was one way for Bush to take the focus off his failures in

Iraq. Bush by his belligerence appealed to a combination of evangelical

holy warriors and so-called national-security conservatives, and McCain

seems poised to move in the same direction.

Echoing Bush’s fear-mongering about the Islamic world, which by

August 2006, two years after his reelection, regularly included

references to so-called Islamic fascism, McCain maintains that the

transcendent challenge facing the United States in 2008 is radical

Islamic extremism. McCain alleges that al-Qaida in Iraq will follow

us home if the U.S. withdraws from that country. McCain takes this

line even though most Muslim countries are close allies of the United

States and Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida has been revealed to be a small

fringe, now in disarray.

Hagee’s endorsement, meanwhile, brings more than white Protestant

intolerance to the table. The organization he founded, Christians

United for Israel, is lobbying for a war on Iran and dismisses last fall’s National Intelligence Estimate finding that Iran has no active nuclear weapons program as incompetent. McCain himself has joked about bombing Iran, to the tune of an old Beach Boys song.

George Bush has been closely wed to Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf,

even in the face of the reverses of the last year, which have seen the

general’s fortunes plummet as he alienated the entire electorate by

sacking the supreme court and ordering a ham-fisted invasion of a

militant mosque. Even after Musharraf’s party lost heavily in recent

parliamentary elections, McCain insisted,

We appreciate the relationship we have with President Musharraf and

hope to maintain that. Musharraf’s high-handed tactics have turned the

whole Pakistani population against him, and he seems set to be much

weakened by a new alliance of the democratically elected opposition

parties. McCain, like Bush, doesn’t want to let go of the dictator.

Bush’s signature project has been the war in Iraq, which he has

managed like a veteran Las Vegas magician, with a misdirection and

legerdemain that can make a whole elephant disappear. Despite nearly

4,000 U.S. soldiers killed, 30,000 wounded, hundreds of thousands of

Iraqis killed, millions displaced internally and abroad, the creation

of a new and serious terrorism problem, high fuel costs at home, and

the entire lack of any obvious benefit from the whole endeavor to the

American people, more than 40 percent of Americans now say the U.S. is making progress in establishing civil order in that country.

McCain went to the same David Coppersmith School of Prestidigitation as

Bush. He says he is dedicated to nothing less than complete military

victory in Iraq and the maintenance of bases in that country for as

much as a century, and his audiences do not appear to break out in

derisive laughter. The bad news for McCain is that about 63 percent of Americans,

a figure that has been fairly steady for the past year, continue to

believe launching the war in the first place was a mistake.

Surely lack of health insurance for tens of millions, loss of good

jobs, blighted cities like Detroit and New Orleans, and erosion of key

civil liberties are a more transcendent challenge than the activities

of small cultlike groups that are finding it harder and harder to

operate on the soil of Middle Eastern and European allies of the U.S.

But that’s not to say that McCain isn’t pushing a domestic agenda as

well. McCain does have a domestic agenda. It’s George Bush’s.

On domestic policy, McCain’s nostrums for the bad economy are job training and tax cuts.

As Paul Krugman once pointed out, tax cuts were Bush’s response to

each and every economic problem that arose, however unrealistic they

were. Half of all the benefits of Bush’s 2003 tax cut went to

millionaires, and the sad impact on ordinary Americans of consequent lack of services and the diversion of wealth to the wealthy, has now become amply apparent. The more economically literate Republicans have caught

on to Bush’s tax cut shell game. Ironically, John McCain used to be

one of them, declining to sign on to some of Bush’s tax cuts. No more.

By tax cuts, Republicans such as McCain mean lowering specific

federal taxes on income and capital gains. This step would harm federal

income, which will fall anyway if there is an extended recession, and

would mainly benefit Americans in the top income brackets. A federal

government with less income will be less able to pay for the services

and job training ordinary workers and middle-class people need,

especially in bad times. Moreover, in a recession, you want the

government to spend more money, not less, which cannot be accomplished

by reducing its income. McCain, like Bush, seems firmly stuck in 1929.

Bush championed the North American Free Trade Agreement, criticizing Sens. Clinton and Obama

for saying they might pull out of it if Mexico and Canada declined to

renegotiate some of its provisions. Bush is now pushing for a free

trade agreement with Colombia, arguing it is necessary for national

security.

McCain is just as committed to NAFTA as Bush. Worried about the impact on U.S.-Canadian relations

of Democratic attacks on the agreement, he said, I want to tell our

Canadian friends that I will negotiate and conclude free trade

agreements and I will not, after entering into solemn agreements, go

and say that I will abrogate those agreements. He denounced the

Democratic candidates for risking protectionism, and added, One of

the greatest assets we have in Afghanistan today, frankly, are our

Canadian friends. He noted the unpopularity of the Canadian

participation in the NATO mission there, which is part of a NATO

contingent, given the 78 Canadian soldiers killed so far. He concluded,

We need their continued support in Afghanistan. Some 58 percent of

Canadians reject the idea of extending their country’s mission in Afghanistan past February 2009.

Both at home and abroad, McCain appears intent on abandoning some of

his most deeply cherished personal values, including his commitment to

secular values and distaste for religious bigotry, in favor of catering

to the great W. coalition of white evangelicals and security-obsessed

conservatives. Like Bush, his mantras are war and belligerence abroad,

and at home, fear-mongering, free trade, lower taxes on the wealthy,

and job training for the increasingly miserable middle classes. If he

is elected, it will be Groundhog Day, the Bill Murray film about a

character doomed to live through the same day over and over again. It

will be the last eight years that we will suffer through again under a

President McCain. Only worse, because we have already eaten so much of

our seed corn.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

The ethical dilemma over eggs

Sunday, January 27th, 2008

One New Zealand supermarket is already swinging away from battery eggs and others say they will follow if customers demand it but there may not be enough free-range or organic eggs available.
Five huge UK supermarket chains last week promised to ban or phase out battery eggs. Two more are reducing the shelf space given to the cheaper, less ethically produced eggs and are under pressure to ban them. The turnaround is due to a massive consumer backlash sparked by a campaign by superstar chef Jamie Oliver.
Battery eggs are laid by hens kept in plastic or wire cages, in huge sheds. where artificial lighting means the hens lay an egg almost every day.
Rules introduced in New Zealand two weeks ago mean each hen must have at least 500cm2 of cage space.
The SPCA says overseas research shows by the time they are slaughtered at 18 months old, many battery hens have skin and feather problems and broken bones, due to lack of exercise and the calcium lost through laying so many eggs.
A 2002 Colmar Brunton survey showed 79 per cent of New Zealanders thought battery cages unacceptable, and wanted them banned. In 2006, Parliament%26#39;s Regulations Review Committee found the rules for battery systems were in breach of the Animal Welfare Act 1999.
But it is unlikely that our supermarkets will ban battery eggs soon there are not enough free-range and organic producers to fill demand. A ban would mean fewer eggs on shelves, and a price hike.
Battery eggs are the cheapest on sale, at about $3.60 per dozen. Barn eggs usually cost about $2 more per dozen, and free-range another $1 on top of that. Organic eggs are selling for more than $11 a dozen at Woolworths%26#39; online store.
But Mark Baker, retail sales and performance manager for Foodstuffs which includes New World, Pak%26#39;n Save and Four Square expects some of the UK%26#39;s backlash to trickle down to New Zealand customers.
%26quot;Ultimately, if consumers feel strongly enough about the issue, then they will make this known to us and we will listen to ensure we continue to deliver against their expectations.%26quot;
The egg section at Victoria Park New World, serving the wealthy central Auckland suburbs of Ponsonby and Herne Bay, has already been overhauled. After surveying customers the supermarket pushed its battery hen eggs to the bottom shelves and describes them as caged eggs. Now, free-range and organic eggs make up more than two-thirds of eggs sold. At other Foodstuffs supermarkets, only about one in five eggs sold is free-range, despite increasing consumer distaste for battery farming.
A spokeswoman for Progressive Enterprises, which owns Foodtown and Woolworths supermarkets, said the company was too busy to respond to questions.
An Egg Producers Federation spokesman, who did not want to be named, has not noticed any consumer backlash, although our rules around battery systems are similar to those in the UK, and are in line with International Egg Commission standards.
He says it will be up to individual operators to decide how they respond to market signals, but the issue of price will be important, as eggs are a cheap form of protein.
Top chefs here say free-range and organic eggs taste better and are more ethical. Award-winning Wellington chef Martin Bosley shuns battery eggs and chicken, and want supermarkets do the same.
%26quot;I think we%26#39;ve seen a move towards [free range] now. I think people are becoming more and more aware of it … [Supermarkets] have to bow to the pressure at some stage.%26quot;
Annabelle White, Sunday magazine%26#39;s food detective, says free-range and organic eggs are an entirely different experience to battery eggs. %26quot;They taste of the earth; there%26#39;s a lovely sort of distinctive flavour to them.%26quot;

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Related posts

The ethical dilemma over eggs

Sunday, January 27th, 2008

One New Zealand supermarket is already swinging away from battery eggs and others say they will follow if customers demand it but there may not be enough free-range or organic eggs available.
Five huge UK supermarket chains last week promised to ban or phase out battery eggs. Two more are reducing the shelf space given to the cheaper, less ethically produced eggs and are under pressure to ban them. The turnaround is due to a massive consumer backlash sparked by a campaign by superstar chef Jamie Oliver.
Battery eggs are laid by hens kept in plastic or wire cages, in huge sheds. where artificial lighting means the hens lay an egg almost every day.
Rules introduced in New Zealand two weeks ago mean each hen must have at least 500cm2 of cage space.
The SPCA says overseas research shows by the time they are slaughtered at 18 months old, many battery hens have skin and feather problems and broken bones, due to lack of exercise and the calcium lost through laying so many eggs.
A 2002 Colmar Brunton survey showed 79% of New Zealanders thought battery cages unacceptable, and wanted them banned. In 2006, Parliament%26#39;s Regulations Review Committee found the rules for battery systems were in breach of the Animal Welfare Act 1999.
But it is unlikely that our supermarkets will ban battery eggs soon there are not enough free-range and organic producers to fill demand. A ban would mean fewer eggs on shelves, and a price hike.
Battery eggs are the cheapest on sale, at about $3.60 per dozen. Barn eggs usually cost about $2 more per dozen, and free-range another $1 on top of that. Organic eggs are selling for more than $11 a dozen at Woolworths%26#39; online store.
But Mark Baker, retail sales and performance manager for Foodstuffs which includes New World, Pak%26#39;n Save and Four Square expects some of the UK%26#39;s backlash to trickle down to New Zealand customers.
%26quot;Ultimately, if consumers feel strongly enough about the issue, then they will make this known to us and we will listen to ensure we continue to deliver against their expectations.%26quot;
The egg section at Victoria Park New World, serving the wealthy central Auckland suburbs of Ponsonby and Herne Bay, has already been overhauled. After surveying customers the supermarket pushed its battery hen eggs to the bottom shelves and describes them as caged eggs. Now, free-range and organic eggs make up more than two-thirds of eggs sold. At other Foodstuffs supermarkets, only about one in five eggs sold is free-range, despite increasing consumer distaste for battery farming.
A spokeswoman for Progressive Enterprises, which owns Foodtown and Woolworths supermarkets, said the company was too busy to respond to questions.
An Egg Producers Federation spokesman, who did not want to be named, has not noticed any consumer backlash, although our rules around battery systems are similar to those in the UK, and are in line with International Egg Commission standards.
He says it will be up to individual operators to decide how they respond to market signals, but the issue of price will be important, as eggs are a cheap form of protein.
Top chefs here say free-range and organic eggs taste better and are more ethical. Award-winning Wellington chef Martin Bosley shuns battery eggs and chicken, and want supermarkets do the same.
%26quot;I think we%26#39;ve seen a move towards [free range] now. I think people are becoming more and more aware of it … [Supermarkets] have to bow to the pressure at some stage.%26quot;
Annabelle White, Sunday magazine%26#39;s food detective, says free-range and organic eggs are an entirely different experience to battery eggs. %26quot;They taste of the earth; there%26#39;s a lovely sort of distinctive flavour to them.%26quot;

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Archives

November 2008
M T W T F S S
« Oct    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Other

Syndication


website statistic