It was announced yesterday that the film "4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days" (4 luni, 3 săptămâni şi 2 zile) won the Palme d'Or at this year's Cannes Film Festival. Synopsis: The film follows the story of Otilia (Anamaria Marinca) and Găbiţă (Laura Vasiliu) - two university friends in a small town in Romania. The film is set in 1987, one of the last years of the Ceauşescu regime. When Găbiţă falls pregnant, the two girls arrange a meeting with Mr. Bebe (Vlad Ivanov) in a cheap hotel, where he is to perform an illegal abortion.

A feeling of patriotism and pride has admittedly come over me, even though I havent seen the film yet. It is high time that the arts, music, and culture of Romania shine again, as the country has seen a history of great artists, musicians, producers, etc, though they havent always been able to express their ideas and/or they havent received the credit that they deserved. I am sure that this is just the beginning of a new era, not only for Romanian cinema but for a renewed sense of what it means to be Romanian - particularly as another Romanian film, Cristian Nemescu's "California Dreamin'", won the Un Certain Regard Prix, also at the 2007 Cannes Film Festival. Sadly, Cristian was not there to enjoy the fruits of his labour as he died late last year in a car accident in Bucharest - when a British citizen decided to drive 60km (at least) over the speed limit and crash into the taxi that Cristian was in.

Another film that I would recommend is "Cover Boy: L'Ultima Revoluzione" - I watched it last weekend. It depicts the journey of a young Romanian man - from the time of the revolution (and how it affected him) to his making it in today's world (as he goes to Italy to seek a better opportunity). I thought it was indicative of how the revolution was not what it was cut out to be. Many promises of a better life have still not been realised as many now struggle to earn a living - something that was (somehow) guaranteed under the old regime. And like many Romanians that leave the country, the man's only dream is to return to the homeland (a little more wealthy than he left) - having realised that things can be just as bad on the outside, and sometimes, they are even better on the inside.

I have been bombarded with emails and requests from friends and people I havent been in touch with for what seems like centuries to join a growing empire of faces.. yes, I am talking about Facebook. I think I am one of the only few people out there who is not part of the network and so much so, that at this point, I refuse to be a part of it.

I come in to the LSE library "which is meant to be a studious place", and instead people are talking about the search for Orlando Bloom, the posting of messages, and the poking, all on Facebook. While this is not to say that the network does not have any advantages to becoming a member, but at this point, I feel that it has become just that - just another network, one of the many online. Wait until the next one comes along and steals all of Facebook's members. In an article in the London paper yesterday evening, Facebook was given the credit for starting this new global social phenomenon. Please!! It started a long time ago, with far more worthy causes attached.

I am reading a lot of literature nowadays from Manuel Castells (great book by the way) to Chris Atton to Andrew Chadwick (a must read) on alternative media and the internet, and the power that they can have in changing our notion of community and in instilling change in our social environments. So perhaps that is why I am growing skeptical of Facbook, which seems to me, all about the popularity aspect and not really about trying to make the world a smaller place using low cost technologies and at a faster speed. What could have added value to the alternative media debate has now turned to yet another mainstream medium, making $50 million a year from banner ad sales and sponsorship deals and with its worth far exceeding $2 billion.

It was announced this morning that the Australian Prime Minister ordered the country's cricketers to pull out of Australia's tour of Zimbabwe in protest at the regime of President Robert Mugabe. Australia were due to play three one-day internationals in Zimbabwe later this year but the games could now be played at a neutral venue.... South Africa??
I dont know much about the politics of Africa, in general, but I do know that many have protested (and continue to do so) against South Africa's lack of leadership and activism in dealing wtih Mugabe. It has even been accused by African press for having a "quasi-imperialist agenda". So, I dont see how playing in South Africa would provide a neutral venue. Also I did some background reading and thought it was ironic to find that it was in fact South Africa that urged back in 2002 cricket organisers to stage games in Zimbabwe, despite calls from the British and Australian governments for a change of venue at the time.

Looking at it more broadly... We have on the one hand, officials from various sports councils constantly saying that politics should stay out of sports, but then on the other hand, individual countries take their own decisions, depending on the context at the time. Australia's recent decision is one example of many. Others include Israel choosing not to compete in the Asian Soccer Cup, but in the European Cup; and when apartheid was the official policy in South Africa, many sports people adopted the conscientious approach that they should not appear in competitive sports there. The 1936 Summer Olympics held in Berlin is another illustration, perhaps best recognised in retrospect, where a government used the event to strengthen the spread of its ideology (Nazism) through propaganda. These examples and many more seem to me to show that sports and politics, far from being separate, are as connected as a soccer shoe is to the ball - It may only be a game, but its how we play it that counts.

I was catching up with my thesis supervisor the other day only to find out that shisha (hubbly bubbly, narguila, etc) will be part of the anti-smoking ban that will come into force this summer in the UK. And then he goes on to tell me that there is an e-petition put forth to the UK government to exclude shishas from the ban!!! Argument being that people that go to shisha cafes know full well that they are going into a smoking place. What else does one do at a shisha cafe?? Then of course, banning shisha could have serious consequences on Arab businesses - especially those down Edgware Road.

I cant believe that I am posting this but if you love your shisha (which I know many of you do!), then be sure to sign the e-petition.
So far, over 6000 people have signed the petition. It does bring me to another point though - the power of lobbying. I am curious to know what people's experiences have been with their own local and/or national governments on lobbying for "small" issues, such as this one. It is somewhat of a foreign concept in the Arab World, for various reasons, but do let me know if you have any experiences. I am currently writing a paper on the Armenian diaspora, part of which focuses on the Armenian lobby in the US and their influence in domestic politics in their "homeland." I will post something once I am done my research on it.

I was watching a program on Channel 4 yesterday evening called "The World's Most Offensive Joke" and perhaps it comes to no surprise to some of you that I was very offended. You can watch the program online.

The jokes list included ones on Princess Diana, the tsunami, 9/11 and 7/7, paedophilia, disabilities, and the number one on the list were jokes on Islam. They gave examples of each category. One on the tsunami was:
What is the most popular sport in Indonesia?
Body Surfing.
How can we as a society sit there and think its ok to laugh about people who have died or incurred a tragedy in their lives?
Then of course, the number of jokes that have come out on the internet following the tragedy of 9/11 far surpasses any other category.

Islam being at the top of the list didnt come to much surprise and the Danish cartoons crisis was once again brought to the forefront. While in no way am I defending what a group of radical (and/or brainwashed) muslims did in Lebanon or the protest signs held in London of "beheading those who offend Islam", I wonder whether all people who had a strong faith - regardless in what religion base - would not be offended by jokes made on their symbols and ideolgies. Indeed, Arab newspapers have made "jokes" about Jewish beliefs and this is just as sick, if not worse, but why provoke further anguish between what is seen as already hostile groups? One comedian on the programme argued that our freedom of speech must include a freedom to insult as well as to offend others. I wonder if he would say the same thing if a group of Muslim "comedians" made tasteless "jokes" about his own core values. And where should we draw the line? I do not believe that we have a right to offend people, and plus, why would we want to do so? I simply dont get it. Then again, perhaps instead of protesting with strong language banners, muslims should have had their own contest in the West as a response - one that would have asked the reverse: what Muslims' perceptions are of the other groups in their society. I bet our reaction would then have been to launch a new war - The War on Sick Jokes.