Monday, February 2, 2015
Architect Frank Gehry opens new UTS 'paper bag' building; says design inspired by folds in skin and clothing
Disinvited by Moscow
The embarrassment of being disinvited: many of us have experienced it upon learning that we’re no longer welcome to an event. But earlier this month a more public disinvitation, one of vastly larger consequence, took place in Brussels. A European Parliament delegation led by Gabrielius Landsbergis, a young member from Lithuania, learned that it would no longer be welcome to Moscow. As the Parliament’s rapporteur for Russia, Landsbergis essentially functions as the legislative body’s point person in relations with Moscow. The revocation followed a cordial invitation by Russia’s ambassador to the EU last November; back in those somewhat happier days, Ambassador Vladimir Chizhov had promised Landbergis’s group all the assistance they required and had offered to set up meeting with Russian officials.
But it was not to be. In a phone call, Landsbergis was informed that in light of recent actions by the European Parliament, no visits would be arranged and that his visit would not be an official one. Russia may, of course, just have been miffed with the European Parliament. On the other hand, its turnabout may be a further sign that the Kremlin distinguishes between friends in European politics—such as Jobbik leader Gabor Vona—who are given access in Moscow, and “others,” who may now have to work harder for access. Be nicer and we’ll see you, seems to be the Russian message.Groups of legislators visit foreign countries all the time: countries their home country is closely affiliated with, countries it’s neutral with, and even countries it doesn’t like all that much. Had young Landsbergis—the grandson of Vytautas Landsbergis, Lithuania’s first post-independence president—and his two travel companions been able to visit Moscow as planned, the meetings would have required minimal efforts by the Kremlin. Receiving delegations, after all, is mostly a diplomatic courtesy.
Sunday, February 1, 2015
Australia deserves to host soccer World Cup, FIFA president Sepp Blatter says
FIFA president Sepp Blatter has begun his re-election campaign by saying Australia deserves to host the World Cup for the first time.
Australia received only vote when it bid to stage the 2022 tournament, with Qatar selected as the host country.
So we can say with confidence that it would be more than deserved if Australia were to stage the World Cup at some point.
FIFA president Sepp Blatter
"Australia is the only continent never to have hosted the World Cup finals, although the 1981 and 1993 Under-20 World Cups took place there," Mr Blatter wrote on Friday in his first column in FIFA Weekly magazine since confirming his bid for a fifth term as president.
"That is basically an unfortunate omission in sporting history because very few countries boast such a rich sporting culture and long list of champions.
"Sport, with football in a central role, is a defining element in day-to-day life in Australia, not least for women and youths.
"The 1956 Olympic Games in Melbourne and the 2000 edition in Sydney set new benchmarks for their eras.
"So we can say with confidence that it would be more than deserved if Australia were to stage the World Cup at some point."
Australia is currently hosting the Asian Cup with the host nation to play South Korea in the final on Saturday night.
FIFA has not published the list of candidates running against Blatter in the May election but former Portugal international Luis Figo announced on Friday that he had submitted his bid ahead of Thursday's deadline.
Prince Ali Bin Al-Hussein of Jordan, Michael van Praag of the Netherlands and French duo Jerome Champagne and David Ginola were also expected to submit nominations.
So we can say with confidence that it would be more than deserved if Australia were to stage the World Cup at some point.FIFA president Sepp Blatter
Johnny Depp and Amber Heard Are Getting Married Next Weekend!
Johnny Depp and Amber Heard
ANTHONY HARVEY/GETTY
BY MARIA MERCEDES LARA
@maria_mercedes
01/31/2015 AT 09:20 AM EST
Johnny Depp and Amber Heard are getting ready to walk down the (sandy) aisle!
A source confirms to PEOPLE that the couple are preparing to marry on Depp's private island (a.k.a. Little Hall's Pond Cay) in the Bahamas next weekend.
Depp has owned the 45-acre island – with beaches named after his children, Lily-Rose, 15, and Jack, 12, and his idols Hunter S. Thompson and Marlon Brando – for more than a decade.
Reps for Depp, 51, and Heard, 28, haven't responded to requests for comment. The couple met on the set of 2011's The Rum Diary, but didn't start dating until 2012, after Depp split with longtime partner Vanessa Paradis. In January 2014, sources confirmed to PEOPLE that Depp and Heard had gotten engaged over the holidays.
The couple weathered breakup rumors in December 2014, but put an end to the rumors when they shared a very public kiss at the 8th Annual Heaven Gala in L.A. earlier this month.
Depp sparked marriage speculation last week when he was spotted wearing what looked like a traditional wedding ring while doing press for his latest film,Mortdecai.
With his press for that movie just finished (despite a chupacabra attack) and production starting soon for the next Pirates of the Caribbean movie, this looks like Depp's perfect time to make his fiancée Mrs. Jack Sparrow.
The New York Post's Page Six, which first reported the wedding news, says guests will stay on a yacht for the wedding weekend, but Depp sold his 156-footer, Vajoliroja, a few years ago. (He could still rent it!)
“American Sniper’s” biggest lie: Clint Eastwood has a delusional Fox News problem
The insanities and fantasies at the heart of "American Sniper" explain everything about the state of the 2015 GOP
TOPICS: MOVIES, CLINT EASTWOOD, AMERICAN SNIPER, AMERICAN SNIPER LIES, AMERICAN SNIPER TRUTH, CHRIS KYLE, EDITOR'S PICKS, JON STEWART, MITT ROMNEY, ELECTIONS NEWS, POLITICS NEWS
This story has been corrected since it was originally published.
Much has been made recently about the inaccurate representation of Chris Kyle in “American Sniper.” We’ve learned that, despite the fact that the film depicts Kyle as a hero and a martyr, the real American sniper was heartless and cruel. Rather than struggle with moral dilemmas as we see in the film, the actual man had no such hesitation and no such conscience.
But to focus on “American Sniper’s” depiction of Kyle is to miss the larger problems of the film. In addition to sugarcoating Kyle, the film suffers from major myopia — from a complete inability to see the larger picture. And that is why criticism of the film has to look at its director, Clint Eastwood, and the troubling ways he represents a dark, disturbing feature of the GOP mind-set.
In order to have the bigger picture we need to remember two key moments in recent Eastwood public appearances. The first took place in 2005 when Eastwood confronted filmmaker Michael Moore at the National Board of Review dinner, where both men were being honored. Moore was there for his documentary on the Iraq War, “Fahrenheit 911.” Eastwood had “Million Dollar Baby.” After Eastwood accepted his award, he directedcomments at Moore. “Michael Moore and I actually have a lot in common – we both appreciate living in a country where there’s free expression.” Eastwood then added: “But, Michael, if you ever show up at my front door with a camera – I’ll kill you. I mean it.” The tone was I’m sort of joking, but maybe not really joking, provoking nervous laughter from both the audience and Moore himself.
Eastwood said he would kill Moore if he showed up at his door. This was his response to a film that raised much-needed conversation about U.S. gun culture. Eastwood’s reaction tells us a lot about the way that some members of the GOP treat those with whom they disagree. If you don’t agree with me on guns, I’ll just kill you.
The second event took place at the Republican National Convention in 2012 when Eastwood delivered a monologue to an empty chair, which supposedly had an invisible Barack Obama sitting in it. It was, without question, the weirdest moment of the RNC, and that’s taking into account Paul Ryan’s lying and Romney’s poor performance. While more than 30 million Americans watched, Eastwood delivered an improvised, rambling monologue that suggested that Obama was swearing at him and cursing at Romney. It left most of us watching completely bewildered.
Thankfully, though, Jon Stewart stepped in to make sense of it. On “The Daily Show,” Stewart explained that Eastwood’s performance could be understood as a metaphor for the existence of a president that only exists in the minds of the GOP.
“This president has issues, and there are very legitimate debates to be had about his policy and actions and successes and/or failures -– I mean, tune in next week –- but I could never wrap my head as to why the world and the president that Republicans describe bears so little resemblance to the world and experience that I experience. And now I know why. There is a President Obama that only Republicans can see.”
These two events taken together help explain what’s wrong with “American Sniper.” They illustrate the combination of delusion and aggressive violence that governs too much of GOP politics.
Let’s start with the delusion. The film draws a direct link between the events of 9/11 and the war in Iraq, forgetting completely that the war in Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. Not one of the attackers that day was in any way connected to Iraq. Thus to connect 9/11 to Iraq is delusional. Not even the Bush administration made that overt a link—at the time they claimed they went to Iraq to keep the Iraqis from using weapons of mass destruction that were never found.
But that’s not the perceptions of many who watch Fox News. As the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland reported back in 2003: “Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions.” In their poll they found that 80 percent of Fox viewers held at least one of three Iraq-related misperceptions, more than any other news consumers, especially those that consume NPR and PBS.
The point is that the 9/11-Iraq link is delusional, but it is also a common link in public perceptions of those on the right who watch Fox News and clearly it is one that makes sense to Eastwood and those that think like him.
The second problem is the culture of violence. While the film tries to show Kyle wrestling at some level with some of his kills, he still very clearly divides the world into categories. As his father puts it in the film, there are wolves (those that want to kill you), sheep and sheep dogs (who have to protect the sheep from the wolves). Not only are there just three categories of life, but these categories are also defined solely by a logic of violence and aggression. In the film, Iraqis are almost all depicted as wolves, even women and children. Kyle’s first two kills are a young boy and his mother. But they posed a threat and thus needed to be killed. As Kyle later explains, he has no remorse over any of his kills, just over the lives he wished he could have protected.
At no point does the film consider the fact that the war was based on false justifications. At no point does it imagine that those in Iraq might have seen the U.S. soldiers as invaders in their homeland. At no point does it imagine that the violence suffered by our own soldiers could have been avoided if we simply hadn’t started the war to begin with. The logic of war is completely unquestioned, making this the most simplistic war film we have seen nominated for an Oscar in decades.
But the fact that the film has no nuance, no context and no subtlety should not surprise us. If anything it is a terrifying glimpse into a GOP mind-set that couples delusion with violence. We watch Kyle zero in on a pinpointed target and we are reminded of the ways that such a narrow, aggressive vision is itself a metaphor for GOP beliefs. This is a movie that’s not just about a sniper, but also about an attitude that threatens to destroy any chance in our nation for political compromise and productive debate. And that’s what makes this movie really disturbing.
Sophia A. McClennen is Professor of International Affairs and Comparative Literature at the Pennsylvania State University. She writes on the intersections between culture, politics, and society. Her latest book, co-authored with Remy M. Maisel, is, Is Satire Saving Our Nation? Mockery and American Politics.
This story has been corrected since it was originally published.
Much has been made recently about the inaccurate representation of Chris Kyle in “American Sniper.” We’ve learned that, despite the fact that the film depicts Kyle as a hero and a martyr, the real American sniper was heartless and cruel. Rather than struggle with moral dilemmas as we see in the film, the actual man had no such hesitation and no such conscience.
But to focus on “American Sniper’s” depiction of Kyle is to miss the larger problems of the film. In addition to sugarcoating Kyle, the film suffers from major myopia — from a complete inability to see the larger picture. And that is why criticism of the film has to look at its director, Clint Eastwood, and the troubling ways he represents a dark, disturbing feature of the GOP mind-set.
In order to have the bigger picture we need to remember two key moments in recent Eastwood public appearances. The first took place in 2005 when Eastwood confronted filmmaker Michael Moore at the National Board of Review dinner, where both men were being honored. Moore was there for his documentary on the Iraq War, “Fahrenheit 911.” Eastwood had “Million Dollar Baby.” After Eastwood accepted his award, he directedcomments at Moore. “Michael Moore and I actually have a lot in common – we both appreciate living in a country where there’s free expression.” Eastwood then added: “But, Michael, if you ever show up at my front door with a camera – I’ll kill you. I mean it.” The tone was I’m sort of joking, but maybe not really joking, provoking nervous laughter from both the audience and Moore himself.
Eastwood said he would kill Moore if he showed up at his door. This was his response to a film that raised much-needed conversation about U.S. gun culture. Eastwood’s reaction tells us a lot about the way that some members of the GOP treat those with whom they disagree. If you don’t agree with me on guns, I’ll just kill you.
The second event took place at the Republican National Convention in 2012 when Eastwood delivered a monologue to an empty chair, which supposedly had an invisible Barack Obama sitting in it. It was, without question, the weirdest moment of the RNC, and that’s taking into account Paul Ryan’s lying and Romney’s poor performance. While more than 30 million Americans watched, Eastwood delivered an improvised, rambling monologue that suggested that Obama was swearing at him and cursing at Romney. It left most of us watching completely bewildered.
Thankfully, though, Jon Stewart stepped in to make sense of it. On “The Daily Show,” Stewart explained that Eastwood’s performance could be understood as a metaphor for the existence of a president that only exists in the minds of the GOP.
“This president has issues, and there are very legitimate debates to be had about his policy and actions and successes and/or failures -– I mean, tune in next week –- but I could never wrap my head as to why the world and the president that Republicans describe bears so little resemblance to the world and experience that I experience. And now I know why. There is a President Obama that only Republicans can see.”
These two events taken together help explain what’s wrong with “American Sniper.” They illustrate the combination of delusion and aggressive violence that governs too much of GOP politics.
Let’s start with the delusion. The film draws a direct link between the events of 9/11 and the war in Iraq, forgetting completely that the war in Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. Not one of the attackers that day was in any way connected to Iraq. Thus to connect 9/11 to Iraq is delusional. Not even the Bush administration made that overt a link—at the time they claimed they went to Iraq to keep the Iraqis from using weapons of mass destruction that were never found.
But that’s not the perceptions of many who watch Fox News. As the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland reported back in 2003: “Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions.” In their poll they found that 80 percent of Fox viewers held at least one of three Iraq-related misperceptions, more than any other news consumers, especially those that consume NPR and PBS.
The point is that the 9/11-Iraq link is delusional, but it is also a common link in public perceptions of those on the right who watch Fox News and clearly it is one that makes sense to Eastwood and those that think like him.
The second problem is the culture of violence. While the film tries to show Kyle wrestling at some level with some of his kills, he still very clearly divides the world into categories. As his father puts it in the film, there are wolves (those that want to kill you), sheep and sheep dogs (who have to protect the sheep from the wolves). Not only are there just three categories of life, but these categories are also defined solely by a logic of violence and aggression. In the film, Iraqis are almost all depicted as wolves, even women and children. Kyle’s first two kills are a young boy and his mother. But they posed a threat and thus needed to be killed. As Kyle later explains, he has no remorse over any of his kills, just over the lives he wished he could have protected.
At no point does the film consider the fact that the war was based on false justifications. At no point does it imagine that those in Iraq might have seen the U.S. soldiers as invaders in their homeland. At no point does it imagine that the violence suffered by our own soldiers could have been avoided if we simply hadn’t started the war to begin with. The logic of war is completely unquestioned, making this the most simplistic war film we have seen nominated for an Oscar in decades.
But the fact that the film has no nuance, no context and no subtlety should not surprise us. If anything it is a terrifying glimpse into a GOP mind-set that couples delusion with violence. We watch Kyle zero in on a pinpointed target and we are reminded of the ways that such a narrow, aggressive vision is itself a metaphor for GOP beliefs. This is a movie that’s not just about a sniper, but also about an attitude that threatens to destroy any chance in our nation for political compromise and productive debate. And that’s what makes this movie really disturbing.
Sophia A. McClennen is Professor of International Affairs and Comparative Literature at the Pennsylvania State University. She writes on the intersections between culture, politics, and society. Her latest book, co-authored with Remy M. Maisel, is, Is Satire Saving Our Nation? Mockery and American Politics.
CHINA CRUSHES INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM EVEN AFTER DECADES OF SUCCESSFUL MARKET REFORMS
The Chinese economy has been a powerhouse on the world stage in the past three decades after a series of reforms in which the ruling communist regime began to allow private farming, private businesses, and regional competition, along with privatization of government services and tax cuts. Although some analysts suggest that the nation’s success is beginning to decline, both its status as a “most favored nation” trading partner of the United States and elsewhere and its integration with worldwide culture makes it easy to forget that China is still a dangerous place for dissenters. Those who advocate political liberty and freedom of conscience are often arrested, detained, or simply abducted without formal acknowledgment.
In a recent commentary for National Review, Atlas Network CEO Brad Lips told the story of Guo Yushan and He Zhengjun, affiliated with Chinese Atlas Network partner the Transition Institute. Both men were tireless advocates “on behalf of pluralism, democracy, and the rule of law,” leading victim-relief efforts and working to expand the rights and freedoms of Chiense citizens. They were both formally arrested this month, their activities viewed as a threat to the power of the Chinese Communist Party.
Still another man affiliated with the Transition Institute, Huang Kaiping, was detained by the Chinese government last fall, and, according to reports, “police do not acknowledge Kaiping is in their custody.” His wife, Zhou Qinghui, recently released a letter describing her personal struggle with her husband’s months-long disappearance.
“Every day I’m apprehensive, yet hopeful,” she wrote. “I prick up my ears to listen for footsteps at the door, expecting you to knock, ready to let you in. At the same time, I despise the prospect of the police coming to the door. In the past, I thought that this house was our home, and that home is a place that makes one feel safe. When people that you detest rummage through all your possessions and search your home, it feels like every single part of your private life has been pried into, completely exposed. Only then did I realize that you were right, that it’s inner strength that makes us feel safe, and that it’s family that makes us feel warm. On the one hand, I hate this house; on the other, I’m using all my energy to preserve it, because I hope that when you come home, I’ll be able to give you that warmth, and support you with my embrace.”
Still other individual rights activists have been detained in recent years, including Pu Zhiqiang, a free speech lawyer who combated arbitrary detention, and Guo Feixiong, who helped villagers remove corrupt officials from office. Pu has been “subject to inhuman mental and physical torment” during his time in captivity, according to a December letter from his wife.
The brutal treatment of these champions of freedom is a stark reminder that market reforms are not enough to serve as the foundation of a free society. Freedom of conscience, speech, and assembly are also crucial elements of human dignity and liberty.
"When people ask us why we do what we do, they should know it is because it is our honor to be able to cooperate with such people as Huang Kaiping, Guo Yushan, and so many other good and honest and decent people,” said Tom G. Palmer, executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network.
Read “Silencing Guo Yushan,” by Atlas Network CEO Brad Lips.